[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46610-46651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18344]
[[Page 46609]]
Vol. 84
Wednesday,
No. 171
September 4, 2019
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous
Coating Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 171 / Wednesday, September 4, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 46610]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747; FRL-9998-69-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU16
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
the results of a residual risk and technology review (RTR) of the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM NESHAP) facilities, as
required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is proposing to find risks
due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from the MCM source
category and to determine that the current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. The EPA identified no new
cost-effective controls under the technology review to achieve further
emissions reductions from process units subject to standards under the
NESHAP. The EPA is also proposing revisions related to emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), including
clarifying regulatory provisions for certain vent control bypasses;
provisions for electronic reporting of performance test results,
performance evaluation reports, compliance reports, and Notification of
Compliance Status (NOCS) reports; and provisions to conduct periodic
performance testing of oxidizers used to reduce emissions of organic
hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2019.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before October 4, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before September 9, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. 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-2018-0747, 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-2018-0747 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0747.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747, 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 operations 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 Ms. Angela Carey, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2187; fax number: (919) 541-0516;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie Smith,
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)
541-2076; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
[email protected]. For questions about monitoring and testing
requirements, contact Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5635; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For information about the
applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John
Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-1395; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. 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-
2018-0747. 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
[[Page 46611]]
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://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-2018-0747.
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
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
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 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
kPa kilopascal
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MCM miscellaneous coating manufacturing
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum lifetime (cancer) risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOCS Notification of Compliance Status
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
ppmw parts per million by weight
psia pounds per square inch, absolute
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control
Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows below. In particular, section IV of this preamble
describes the majority of the Agency's rationale for the proposed
actions in this preamble.
Section IV.B of this preamble summarizes the results of the risk
assessment. Section IV.C of this preamble summarizes the results of our
technology review. Section IV.D of this preamble summarizes other
changes we are proposing, including general regulatory language changes
related to the removal of SSM exemptions, electronic reporting, and
other minor clarifications identified as part our review of the NESHAP
and as part of the other proposed revisions in this action. Lastly,
section IV.E of this preamble summarizes our rationale for the
compliance dates we are proposing.
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
[[Page 46612]]
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)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source categories that are 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
Manufacture of Paints, Coatings, and Adhesives source category ``is any
facility engaged in their manufacture without regard to the particular
end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing of these
products may occur in any combination at any facility.'' This source
category has since been renamed Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
(MCM).
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category and NESHAP NAICS Code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry............ 3255, 3259
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. 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-2018-0747).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards
for emissions of 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 provisions. 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
provisions 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 provisions, 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
[[Page 46613]]
enforce a numerical emission standard. For area sources, CAA section
112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set standards based on generally
available control technologies or management practices (GACT standards)
in lieu of MACT standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See 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 or determine that the standards being
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. 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 (DC Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (DC 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?
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 ``manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives'' source category
``is any facility engaged in their manufacture without regard to the
particular end-uses or consumers of such products. The manufacturing of
these products may occur in any combination at any facility.''
The MCM source category includes the collection of equipment that
is used to manufacture coatings at a facility. MCM operations also
include cleaning operations. Coatings are materials such as paints,
inks, or adhesive that are intended to be applied to a substrate and
consist of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents, and/or other
additives, where the material is produced by a manufacturing operation
where materials are blended, mixed, diluted, or otherwise formulated.
Coatings do not include materials made in processes where a formulation
component is synthesized by chemical reaction or separation activity
and then transferred to another vessel where it is formulated to
produce a material used as a coating, where the synthesized or
separated component is not stored prior to formulation.
The equipment controlled by the MCM NESHAP includes process
vessels, storage tanks for feedstocks and products, equipment leak
components (pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure relief devices
(PRDs), sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems), wastewater tanks,
heat exchangers, and transfer racks.
The current NESHAP regulates process vessels and storage tanks
based on the volume of the process vessel or storage tank and the
maximum true vapor pressure of the organic HAP processed or stored.
Control requirements range from the use of tightly fitted lids on
process vessels to also capturing and reducing organic HAP emissions
through the use of add-on controls (i.e., a flare, oxidizer, or
condenser). For halogenated vent streams from process vessels and
storage tanks, the use of a flare is prohibited, and a halogen
reduction device (i.e., an acid gas scrubber) is required after a
combustion control device. For storage tanks, facilities may comply
with the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, by complying with
the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
The NESHAP regulates emissions from equipment leaks at existing
sources by requiring compliance with leak inspection and repair
provisions using sight, sound, and smell in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R,
or alternatively, the leak detection and repair (LDAR) provisions in 40
CFR part 63, subparts TT or UU. New sources are required to comply with
the LDAR provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT or UU.
The NESHAP regulates wastewater streams by requiring the use of
fixed roofs on wastewater tanks, treating the wastewater (either on-
site or off-site) as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 264, 265, or 266,
or using enhanced biological treatment if the wastewater
[[Page 46614]]
contains less than 50 parts per million by weight (ppmw) of partially
soluble HAP. If the wastewater is treated as a hazardous waste under 40
CFR 264, 265, or 266, it may be treated by steam stripping or
incineration. These standards apply only to wastewater streams that
contain total partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average
concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and loads greater
than or equal to 750 pounds per year (lb/yr) at an existing source or
greater than or equal to 1,600 ppmw and any partially soluble and
soluble HAP load at a new source.
The NESHAP regulates transfer operations if the operation involves
the bulk loading of coating products that contain 3.0 million gallons
(gal) per year or more of HAP with a weighted average HAP partial
pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 pounds per square inch, absolute
(psia). Regulated transfer operations are required to reduce emissions
by using a closed vent system and a control device (other than a flare)
to reduce emissions by at least 75 percent; using a closed vent system
and a flare for a non-halogenated vent stream; or using a vapor
balancing system. If a non-flare combustion device is used to control a
halogenated vent stream, then a halogen reduction device must be used
either before or after the combustion device. If used after the
combustion device, the halogen reduction device must meet either a
minimum 95-percent reduction or a maximum 0.45 kilograms per hour (kg/
hr) emission rate of hydrogen halide or halogen. If used before the
combustion device, the halogen reduction device must meet a maximum
0.45 kg/hr emission rate of hydrogen halide or halogen.
The NESHAP requires heat exchangers to meet the provisions of
subpart F, 40 CFR 63.104. Section 63.104 requires the implementation of
a LDAR or monitoring program for heat exchange systems, unless the
system meets certain design and operation provisions, or it is a once-
through system that meets certain National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit provisions.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The EPA held discussions with the American Coatings Association and
the American Chemistry Council. During these meetings, we obtained
supplemental information about the emission inventory, emission
processes, control technologies, and speciation profiles.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
The EPA used information from the Reasonably Available Control
Technology, Best Available Control Technology, and Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate Clearinghouse (RBLC) database, reviewed title V permits
for each MCM facility, and reviewed NOCS reports. The EPA reviewed the
RBLC to identify potential additional control technologies. No
additional control technologies applicable to MCM were found in the
RBLC. See sections III.B and IV.D of this preamble and the memorandum,
``Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source
Category,'' which is available in the docket for this action.
Lastly, the EPA is incorporating into the docket for this
rulemaking, all materials associated with the development of the
current MCM standards from Docket ID No. A-96-04 and Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0178. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically at https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy
at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. 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.
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
action.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
``[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
[[Page 46615]]
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. In other words, risks that include an MIR above 100-in-1 million
may be determined to be acceptable, and risks with an MIR below that
level may be determined to be unacceptable, depending on all of the
available health information. Similarly, with regard to the ample
margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP that:
``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be
considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review
Methods 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 action. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we 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
[[Page 46616]]
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
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 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; \4\ and described in the SAB review
report issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, 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?
For each facility that we determined to be subject to the MACT
standards (see section II.B of this preamble), we gathered emissions
data from Version 1 of the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). For
each NEI record, we reviewed the source classification code and
emission unit and process descriptions, and then assigned the record to
an emission source type regulated by the MACT standards (i.e., each
record identified as part of the MCM affected source at each facility
was labeled storage tank, waste water, process vessel, equipment leak,
or unknown) or an emission source type not regulated by the MACT
standards (i.e., each record that was not identified as part of the MCM
affected source at each facility was labeled non-source category type).
The non-source category type emissions sources are units or processes
that are co-located at one or more of the MCM facilities but are not
part of the MCM source category. For example, some of the MCM affected
sources are co-located with organic chemical manufacturing operations
that are part of a different source category (i.e., Miscellaneous
Organic Chemical Manufacturing) which is regulated by a different
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF).
The EPA reviewed permits, contacted EPA Regional offices, and asked
the American Coatings Association to review (and revise, if necessary)
the NEI-based data described above, including emission values, emission
release point parameters, coordinates, and emission process group
assignments. We used all this information to reevaluate our emission
process group assignments for each NEI record in the modeling file. We
also used this information to update emission release point parameter
data. In other words, we used the industry response data wherever
possible (in lieu of the data we established using the NEI and gap fill
procedures), unless the data failed certain quality assurance checks.
For further details on the assumptions and methodologies used to
estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions release
characteristics, see Appendix 1 of Residual Risk Assessment for the
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Categories in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0747.
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 provisions 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 (HON) RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14,
2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those
actions, we noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level
is inherently reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level
facilities could emit and still comply with national emission
standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual
emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk
analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044,
September 14, 1989.)
For the risk assessment, we have determined that the actual
emissions data are reasonable estimates of the MACT-allowable emissions
levels for the MCM source category. In preparation of this RTR, we did
not conduct an information collection of the equipment in this source
category. Instead, we relied primarily upon the 2014 NEI emissions data
and readily available title V permit information to characterize the
actual emissions from the source category. In addition, the emission
standards in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH are generally equipment and
work-practice requirements, rather than numerical emission limits.
Therefore, we consider the use of 2014 NEI actual emissions as the best
available reasonable approximation of allowable emissions for the risk
assessment.
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 action were
estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.\6\ 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,
[[Page 46617]]
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 \7\ internal point locations and populations provides the
basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition,
for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and
controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion
calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response
values is used to estimate health risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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).
\7\ 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 maximum individual risk (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, 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 \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the
[[Page 46618]]
environment,\9\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological data to
use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our acute risk
screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion conditions.
This revised treatment of meteorological data and the supporting
rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk Assessment for
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening Assessment.
We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings proposed on or
after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk
and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report,
May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\10\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion (i.e., 99th percentile) conditions co-occur
and that a person is present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emission 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
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of
the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5
of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \11\ 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.\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
\12\ 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.'' \13\ 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 1 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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 this source category, we used the default acute emissions
multiplier of 10 to conservatively estimate maximum hourly rates.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-
site location. For this source category, the data refinements employed
consisted of determining the off-site acute risks for each facility
that had an initial HQ greater than 1. These refinements are discussed
more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous
Coating Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this source category.
[[Page 46619]]
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
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, 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 MCM source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of
cadmium compounds, polycyclic organic matter (POM), arsenic compounds,
mercury compounds, and lead compounds, so we proceeded to the next step
of the evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk screening
assessment for PB-HAP consists of three progressive tiers. In a Tier 1
screening assessment, we determine whether the magnitude of the
facility-specific emissions of the PB-HAP warrants further evaluation
to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To
facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against previously
developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-HAP that
are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario
developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated
Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model.
The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans,
mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants 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/2013-08/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. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1
combine fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and
gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
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 and assume the fisher only consumes fish from
lakes within that 50 km zone. 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 lakes database.
In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures,
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations.
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish
(adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption \14\) and
locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of locally
grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios \15\). If
PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening value greater
than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level
of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed the Tier
2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening
assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\15\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, locating
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings,
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 (a time-series analysis). If necessary, 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.\16\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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 Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology
Review 2019 Proposed
[[Page 46620]]
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 Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Source Category
in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule, which
is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the MCM source category emitted
any of the environmental HAP. For the MCM source category, we
identified emissions of the PB-HAP listed above, plus HCl. 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
[[Page 46621]]
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 Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
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 action. We also
specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest
estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk
attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 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
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing 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,
[[Page 46622]]
assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor exposures. For
most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when
looking at the maximum individual risk or the incidence, but the shape
of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor
exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time
indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles.
For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with
respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial
imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent
the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations
where the population of a block is not well represented by a single
location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\17\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\18\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\19\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\18\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\19\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those 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 emission rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case exposure scenario. In most cases, it
is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of maximum
exposure during the time when peak emissions and
[[Page 46623]]
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and hydrogen
chloride). For lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air
concentrations, which are then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard
for lead. Two important types of uncertainty associated with the use of
these models in RTR risk assessments and inherent to any assessment
that relies on environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input
uncertainty.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in 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?
As described above, for the MCM source category, we conducted an
inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted, a multipathway
screening assessment on the PB-HAP emitted, and an environmental risk
screening assessment on the PB-HAP and acid gases emitted. We present
results of the risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the
document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Miscellaneous Coating
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides a summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment for the source category.
[[Page 46624]]
Table 2--MCM Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Population at
individual cancer increased risk of Annual cancer Maximum chronic Maximum screening
Number of facilities \1\ risk (in 1 cancer >= 1-in-1 incidence (cases noncancer TOSHI acute noncancer
million) \2\ million per year) \3\ HQ \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43....................................................... 6 3,700 0.002 0.4 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\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. The HQ shown here is for glycol ethers, for which there are no other available acute dose-response values.
\5\ For this source category, it was determined that baseline allowable emissions are equal to baseline actual emissions and, therefore, the risk
summaries are the same.
The results of the inhalation risk modeling for both actuals and
allowables, as shown in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate the
estimated cancer MIR is 6-in-1 million, with chromium (VI) compounds
from process vents as the major contributor to the risk. The total
estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.002 excess
cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 500 years.
Approximately 3,700 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the facilities in
this source category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI for
the source category is 0.4 (respiratory), driven by emissions of
acrylic acid from process vents. No one is exposed to TOSHI levels
greater than 1.
2. Screening-Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
As shown in Table 2 above, the highest acute HQ based on the
reasonable worst-case scenario is 2, based on the REL for glycol
ethers. This is the highest HQ that is outside facility boundaries. One
facility is estimated to have an HQ greater than 1 based on the REL,
which is the only available benchmark for glycol ethers. Acute risk
estimates for each facility and pollutant are provided in the risk
assessment document, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Potential multipathway health risks under a fisher and farmer/
gardener scenario were identified using a three-tier screening
assessment of the PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source category.
For carcinogenic PB-HAP, one facility emits arsenic compounds, while
two facilities emit POM. None of these emissions exceed a Tier 1 cancer
screening value for arsenic or POM. For noncarcinogenic PB-HAP, one
facility emits cadmium compounds and one facility emits mercury
compounds. None of these emissions exceed a Tier 1 noncancer screening
value for cadmium or mercury. Further analyses (i.e., Tier 2 or 3
screens) were not performed. For lead compounds, we did not estimate
any exceedances of the lead NAAQS.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
A screening-level evaluation of the potential adverse environmental
risk associated with emissions of the PB-HAP listed above, plus acid
gases (HCl is the only reported acid gas), indicated that no ecological
benchmarks were exceeded. For lead compounds, we did not estimate any
exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
The results of the inhalation risk modeling using facility-wide
emissions data indicate that the estimated MIR is 20-in-1 million with
emissions of hydrazine from sources subject to other standards driving
the risk. These include 40 CFR part 63 subpart FFFF (Miscellaneous
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing NESHAP), H (Hazardous Organic NESHAP),
and EEEE (Organic Liquids Distribution), which are not part of this
source category. The total estimated cancer incidence is 0.006 excess
cancer cases per year. Approximately 50,100 people are estimated to
have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The
estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI is 2 (for the neurological
target organ), driven by emissions of hydrogen cyanide from non-source
category emissions from carbon fiber production. Approximately 80
people are estimated to be exposed to noncancer HI levels greater than
1.
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 MCM source category
across different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities.
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
of this preamble. 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--MCM Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or Population with
Nationwide above 1-in-1 chronic HI above
million due to 1 due to MCM
MCM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population....................................... 371,746,049 3,665 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46625]]
White and Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 62 64 0
Minority............................................... 38 36 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
African American....................................... 12 32 0
Native American........................................ 0.8 0.05 0
Hispanic or Latino (includes White and nonwhite)....... 18 2 0
Other and Multiracial.................................. 7 2 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................................... 14 29 0
Above Poverty Level.................................... 86 71 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma................ 14 19 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma................. 86 81 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................ 6 1 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the MCM source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
3,700 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero
people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of
the at-risk population in each demographic group (except for African
American, Below Poverty Level, Hispanic or Latino, and Above Poverty
Level) are similar to (within 5 percent of) their respective nationwide
percentages. The African American and Below Poverty Level demographic
groups are greater than their respective nationwide percentages, while
the Hispanic or Latino (includes White and nonwhite) and Above Poverty
Level are lower than their respective nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Miscellaneous
Coating Manufacturing Facilities, available in the docket for this
action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section II.A 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.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989.) In this
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable
emissions from MCM sources, and we considered these in determining
acceptability. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual
most exposed to actual emissions from the source category is 6-in-1
million. The estimated cancer incidence due to inhalation exposures is
0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 500 years.
Approximately 3,700 people face an increased cancer risk greater than
1-in-1 million due to inhalation exposures to HAP emissions from this
source category. The estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from
inhalation exposure for this source category is 0.4. Risks for
allowable emissions are the same since it was determined that allowable
emissions are equal to actual emissions for this source category. The
screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts indicates
one facility with an estimated HQ of 2, based on the REL for glycol
ethers.
Potential multipathway human health risks were estimated using a
three-tier screening assessment of the PB-HAP emitted by facilities in
this source category, where there were no exceedances of Tier 1
screening values for any PB-HAP emitted and, for lead compounds, no
exceedances of the lead NAAQS.
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 the inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are far
less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive limit of
acceptability (see, for example, 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
There are no facilities or people exposed at this risk level for either
actual or allowable emissions. Also, there are no facilities with an
estimated maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. There is one
facility with an acute HQ value of 2 based on the REL for glycol
ethers; however, given the conservative nature of the acute screening
assessment, it is unlikely there are acute impacts from HAP emissions
from this category. In addition, there are no exceedances of Tier 1
screening values in the multipathway assessment, nor exceedances of the
lead NAAQS. Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III
of this preamble,
[[Page 46626]]
the EPA proposes that the risks from the MCM source category are
acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
We next considered whether the existing MACT standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition to
considering all the health risks and other health information
considered in the risk acceptability determination, in the ample margin
of safety analysis we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available
control technologies and other measures (including the controls,
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be
applied to the source category to further reduce the risks due to
emissions of HAP. As noted in our discussion of the technology review
in section IV.C of this preamble, we identified two developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies for reducing HAP
emissions from process vessels in the MCM source category. As part of
the risk review, we evaluated these developments to determine whether
they could reduce risks and whether it is necessary to require these
developments to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
Since the baseline risks are being driven by inorganic HAP from
process vessels, we evaluated a control option for inorganic HAP
emissions from process vessels located at MCM facilities and considered
the resulting health information. The control option that we evaluated
for inorganic HAP would be similar to those included in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart CCCCCCC, the NESHAP for Area Sources for Paints and Allied
Products Manufacturing. Additionally, we evaluated increasing the
control efficiency requirements for organic HAP emissions from process
vessels. The process vessel options did not result in a decrease to the
MIR or to the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI because the MIR facility
already had controls in place. However, there was a reduction seen in
the population exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million from 3,700 to
1,900 due to emissions reductions at other facilities. As described in
section IV.C of this preamble though, we determined that these options
are not cost effective. Overall, the available options could result in
small reductions in population risk, but we did not identify any cost-
effective options for reducing HAP emissions from the source category.
Considering all of the health information presented above, along
with the available information regarding the cost of the available
options, we propose that the existing standards provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. We are requesting comment on
whether there are other control measures for emission sources in this
category that are necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. In particular, we are requesting that states
identify any controls they have already required for these facilities,
controls they are currently considering, or any other controls of which
they are aware that are being used to control HAP from these sources.
4. Adverse Environmental Effect
Based on the results of the environmental risk screening
assessment, we are proposing that HAP emissions from the MCM source
category do not present an adverse environmental effect. Thus, we are
proposing that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
Sources of HAP emissions regulated by the MCM NESHAP are process
vessels, storage tanks, transfer racks, equipment leaks, wastewater
streams, and heat exchange systems. MCM processes occur as batch
operations, which involve intermittent or discontinuous feed of raw
materials into equipment, and generally involve emptying of the
equipment after the operation ceases and prior to beginning a new
operation. To inform our technology reviews for these emission sources,
we reviewed the EPA's RBLC and regulatory development efforts for
similar sources published after the MCM NESHAP was developed. We then
evaluated the impacts of requiring additional controls identified in
the technology review for the MCM source category, as described below.
1. Process Vessels
Process vessels regulated by the MCM NESHAP are defined as any
stationary or portable tank or other vessel with a capacity greater
than or equal to 250 gal and in which mixing, blending, diluting,
dissolving, temporary holding, and other processing steps occur in the
manufacturing of a coating. Process vessels used in MCM generate
gaseous streams containing HAP when HAP-containing materials are
present in the vessel and more material is added displacing solvent-
laden air from inside the vessel, and during product mixing as the HAP-
containing contents are agitated.
At existing sources, the HAP emissions from portable vessels must
be controlled by fitting the vessels with lids that are kept closed at
all times when the vessel contains a HAP, except for material additions
and sampling. The HAP emissions from stationary vessels must be
controlled by fitting the vessels with lids that are kept closed at all
times when the vessel contains a HAP, except for material additions and
sampling, and by capturing all emissions and routing the captured
emissions to a control device. Organic HAP with a vapor pressure equal
to or greater than 0.6 kilopascals (kPa) must be reduced by at least 75
percent by weight, and organic HAP with a vapor pressure less than 0.6
kPa must be reduced by at least 60 percent.
At new sources, the HAP emissions from portable and stationary
process vessels must be controlled by fitting the vessels with lids
that are kept closed at all times when the vessel contains a HAP,
except for material additions and sampling. The emissions from both
portable and stationary process vessels must be captured and the
captured emissions reduced by at least 95 percent, as total organic
HAP, using a control device other than a flare, reduced by venting non-
halogenated vent streams to a flare, or vented to a condenser. If a
condenser is used, the condenser must achieve a specified outlet gas
temperature depending on the partial pressure of the HAP contained in
the vessel. If a combustion device is used to control a halogenated
vent stream, then a halogen reduction device (e.g., a scrubber) must be
used to reduce hydrogen halide and halogen HAP by at least 95 percent;
or reduce overall emissions of hydrogen halide and halogen HAP to no
more than 0.45 kg/hr.
We evaluated two options that could be potentially considered
technology developments under CAA section 112(d)(6). In the first
option, we considered increasing the control efficiency requirement for
process vessels at existing sources to match the control requirement
for new sources, which would increase the control efficiency for
organic HAP with a vapor pressure equal to or greater than 0.6 kPa from
75 percent to 95 percent. We consider this option to be a new
development because several facilities have controlled all process
vessels with thermal oxidizers to comply with the NESHAP.
We estimated the costs of installing a thermal oxidizer on the six
plants in the MCM source category that currently do not have a thermal
oxidizer installed on process vessels. We did not estimate
[[Page 46627]]
costs for catalytic oxidizers because thermal oxidizers are cheaper
than catalytic oxidizers. The costs were estimated using the EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual cost spreadsheet for thermal oxidizers
\21\ and the process vent flow rate from NEI or the facility operating
permit. The estimated cost effectiveness for these facilities ranged
from $20,000 per ton HAP removed to $150,000 per ton HAP removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second option that we considered was to require controls to
limit particulate matter (PM) HAP emissions from process vessels in
which dry materials (e.g., pigments) containing inorganic HAP are added
to the process vessel. We considered provisions that would be similar
to those included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCCCC, the NESHAP for
Area Sources for Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing. This option
would reflect the fact that several facilities subject to 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHHH have process vessels controlled with fabric filters
when dry materials are being added.
We estimated costs for both a fabric filter baghouse and a
cartridge filter type of particulate control with a flow rate of 1,000
cubic feet per minute, plus 150 feet of flexible duct to capture the
fugitive PM when dry matter is being added to the mixing vessel. The
estimated cost effectiveness for this option ranged from $310,000 to
$2,100,000 per ton of particulate HAP reduced. We also evaluated
whether pigments could be added in a wetted or paste form, but not all
pigments are available or can be used in wetted or paste form.
The EPA did not find the control technology development options
considered for process vessels in this technology review to be cost
effective, or, in some cases, technologically feasible. Consequently,
the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for
process vessels under the technology review. Further explanation of the
assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in
the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in
the docket to this action.
2. Storage Tanks
Storage tanks hold the liquid raw materials used in the coating
manufacturing process. Emissions occur from storage tanks through the
displacement of vapor-laden air as the tank is being filled (working
losses) and also due to changes in temperature that cause the vapor-
laden air in the head space of the tank to expand (breathing losses).
Emissions from vertical tanks can be controlled by installing a
floating roof inside the tank. By floating on the surface of the
liquid, this roof design eliminates head space above the surface of the
liquid and, therefore, minimizes the evaporation of organic vapors
inside the tank. An internal floating roof (IFR) tank has a second
fixed roof over the floating roof. An external floating roof (EFR) tank
has no fixed roof over the floating roof and is exposed to the
elements.
Emissions from horizontal tanks can be controlled with a closed
vent system that captures the emissions and delivers them to either a
recovery device or a destruction device. Control devices within the MCM
source category include carbon adsorbers and combustion devices.
Alternatively, a vapor balancing system can be used to eliminate
working loss emissions. In vapor balancing, the displaced vapors from
the receiving tank are piped back into the storage vessel from which
the liquid product is delivered.
No facility in the MCM source category during the original MACT
development reported using IFRs, EFRs, or vapor balancing to reduce HAP
emissions from any storage tank.
The MCM NESHAP regulates two classes of storage tanks. Group 1a
storage tanks are storage tanks at existing sources with capacities
greater than or equal to 20,000 gal storing material that has a maximum
true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or equal to 1.9
psia. Group 1a storage tanks also include storage tanks at new sources
with capacities greater than or equal to 25,000 gal storing materials
with a maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal
to 0.1 psia, as well as storage tanks with capacities greater than or
equal to 20,000 gal and less than 25,000 gal storing materials with a
maximum true vapor pressure of total HAP greater than or equal to 1.5
psia.
Group 1b storage tanks are storage tanks at new sources with
capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal, storing materials that
have a maximum true vapor pressure of total organic HAP greater than or
equal to 0.02 psia, and are not Group 1a storage tanks.
Emissions from Group 1a storage tanks must be controlled by
complying with the provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW (NESHAP for
Storage Vessels (Tanks)--Control Level 2), which is based on the use of
an IFR or an EFR; by reducing total organic HAP emissions by at least
90 percent by weight by venting emissions through a closed-vent system
to a control device (excluding a flare); or by reducing total organic
HAP emissions from the storage tank by venting emissions from a non-
halogenated vent stream through a closed-vent system to a flare.
The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies for storage tanks
that were not already considered in the development of the original
MACT. Because there were no improvements in the technologies considered
under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to amend the
standards for storage tanks under the technology review. Further
explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for all options
evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings
Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action.
3. Transfer Operations
Transfer operations involve the bulk loading of coating products
into either tanker trucks or tanker rail cars. Transfer operations do
not involve the filling of cans, pails, drums, or totes. Most coating
manufacturing facilities perform only the filling of cans, pails,
drums, or totes with coating products and do not perform transfer
operations to tanker trucks or rail cars. A few coating manufacturers
perform transfer operations because they provide coatings to
facilities, such as coil coating and metal can coating facilities, that
use large quantities of certain coatings and store those coatings in
large stationary storage tanks.
Emissions during transfer operations are generated by the
displacement of the solvent vapor-laden air in the receiving tanker
truck or rail car as the tank is filled. The extent of the HAP
emissions will depend on the HAP content of the material being loaded
(i.e., weight percent HAP), the volatility of the HAP in the material
being loaded, and the total volume of coating being loaded. The MCM
NESHAP regulates the bulk loading of coating products if the coatings
contain 3.0 million gal or more per year of HAP with a weighted average
HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia. The MCM NESHAP
requires the HAP emissions to be controlled by either venting the
emissions through a closed-vent system to any combination of control
devices (except a flare) and reducing emissions
[[Page 46628]]
by at least 75 percent, by venting the emissions from a non-halogenated
vent stream through a closed-vent system to a flare, or by using a
vapor balancing system to collect displaced organic HAP vapors and
route the vapors to the storage tank from which the liquid being loaded
originated or to another storage tank connected by a common header.
The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies for bulk loading of
coating products that were not already considered in the development of
the original MACT. Because there were no improvements in the
technologies considered under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not
necessary to amend the standards for transfer operations under the
technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and
methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum,
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous
Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this
action.
4. Equipment Leaks
In the MCM source category, organic HAP vapors can escape from
leaks in connectors, valves, and pumps in liquid piping systems due to
mechanical defects in those items. MCM facilities use piping systems to
move liquid raw materials from storage tanks to process vessels and
then from process vessels to filling operations or bulk transfer
operations.
Emissions can be minimized through periodic monitoring of the
connectors, valves, and pumps to check for leaks and the timely repair
of equipment that is found to be leaking. Leak detection can be through
sensory monitoring using sight, sound, and smell to detect leaks, or
leak detection can be through the use of a monitoring instrument (EPA
Method 21) that measures the concentration of organic vapors in parts
per million by volume (ppmv) in the air near each of the connectors,
valves, and pumps. Different NESHAP that specify the use of instrument
monitoring may define a different threshold vapor concentration that
constitutes a leak that triggers the need for repair.
The MCM NESHAP requires existing sources to comply with the
equipment leaks provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, NESHAP for
Gasoline Distribution Facilities (Bulk Gasoline Terminals and Pipeline
Breakout Stations); subpart TT, NESHAP for Equipment Leaks, Control
Level 1; or subpart UU, NESHAP for Equipment Leaks, Control Level 2.
New sources must comply with the provisions of subparts UU or TT.
Subpart R requires monthly inspections for equipment leaks using sight,
sound, or smell. Subpart TT requires the use of instrument monitoring
and defines leaks as instrument readings of 10,000 ppmv for valves,
pumps, and connectors. Subpart UU also requires the use of instrument
monitoring and defines leaks as instrument readings of 500 ppmv for
valves, 1,000 ppmv for pumps, and 500 ppmv for connectors.
Based on developments in other similar source categories, we
identified as a technology alternative to the current standard a more
stringent provision for existing sources that would eliminate sensory
monitoring and require instrument monitoring with lower leak
definitions than specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. For this
alternative, we estimated the incremental emission reductions and cost
effectiveness of employing instrument monitoring (EPA Method 21) with
an equipment leak defined as instrument readings of 500 ppmv for
valves, 2,000 ppmv for pumps, and 500 ppmv for connectors. We estimated
the costs of requiring instrument monitoring with more stringent leak
definitions for four model plants with 25, 50, 100, or 200 process
vessels. The estimated cost effectiveness for these model plants ranged
from $107,000 per ton HAP removed to $22,000 per ton HAP removed for
the smallest to largest model plant, and these values are higher than
organic HAP cost-effectiveness values that we historically have
considered cost effective.
The EPA does not find the leak detection instrument monitoring
option that was evaluated to be cost effective. Consequently, the EPA
proposes that it is not necessary to amend the standards for equipment
leaks under the technology review. Further explanation of the
assumptions and methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in
the memorandum, Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for
the Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in
the docket to this action.
5. Wastewater Streams
Wastewater that comes in contact with organic HAP-containing
materials may be a source of organic HAP emissions as the organic HAP
evaporates from the wastewater. In coatings manufacturing, wastewater
containing organic HAP may be generated from the cleaning of process
vessels and other equipment between batches of different coatings.
Emissions can be controlled from wastewater by collecting and
moving the wastewater in enclosed pipes and then treating the
wastewater to remove the organic HAP. Wastewater containing organic HAP
can be collected and treated as hazardous waste in which case it is
usually incinerated. It can also be treated by using steam to
volatilize the organic HAP and separate it from the wastewater.
Finally, if the organic HAP concentration is low enough, it can be
treated through enhanced biological treatment in which microorganisms
oxidize the organic HAP.
The MCM NESHAP regulates wastewater streams that contain total
partially soluble and soluble HAP at an annual average concentration
greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and load greater than or equal to
750 lb/yr at existing sources, or that contain greater than or equal to
1,600 ppmw and any partially soluble and soluble HAP load at new
sources. Wastewater tanks used to store regulated wastewater streams
must have a fixed roof, which may have openings necessary for proper
venting of the tank, such as a pressure/vacuum vent or j-pipe vent.
Regulated wastewater streams must be conveyed using hard piping and
treated as a hazardous waste in accordance with 40 CFR part 264, 265,
or 266 either onsite or offsite. Alternatively, if the wastewater
contains less than 50 ppmw of partially soluble HAP, it may be treated
in an enhanced biological treatment system that is located either
onsite or offsite.
Because our technology review identified no developments in
practices, processes, or controls for reducing wastewater emissions at
MCM facilities, we evaluated developments in other industries with
wastewater streams that contain organic HAP. We reviewed three options
that were considered in other industry technology reviews for their
applicability to the MCM wastewater streams. These options were:
(1) Requiring wastewater drain and tank controls at facilities with
a total annual benzene quantity of less than 10 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr).
(2) Requiring specific performance parameters (minimum fraction
biodegraded, fbio) for an enhanced biological unit beyond those
required in the Benzene NESHAP.
(3) Requiring wastewater streams with a volatile organic compound
(VOC) content of 750 ppmw or higher to be treated by steam stripping
prior to any other treatment process for facilities with high organic
loading rates (i.e., facilities with total annualized benzene quantity
of 10 Mg/yr or more).
[[Page 46629]]
The EPA did not find any of the three wastewater stream control
options evaluated to be cost effective. Consequently, the EPA proposes
that it is not necessary to amend the standards for wastewater streams
under the technology review. Further explanation of the assumptions and
methodologies for all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum,
Clean Air Act Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous
Coatings Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this
action.
6. Heat Exchange Systems
Heat exchangers are devices or collections of devices used to
transfer heat from process fluids to another fluid (typically air or
water) without intentional direct contact of the process fluid with the
cooling fluid (i.e., non-contact heat exchangers).
At times, the heat exchanger's internal tubing material can corrode
or crack, allowing some process fluids to mix or become entrained with
the cooling water. Pollutants in the process fluids may subsequently be
released from the cooling water into the atmosphere when the water is
exposed to air (e.g., in a cooling tower for closed-loop systems or at
trenches/ponds in a once-through system).
The MCM NESHAP regulates heat exchangers by requiring them to meet
the provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart F, NESHAP for the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. Specifically, under 40 CFR
63.104, facilities are required to monitor the cooling water in the
heat exchange system on a periodic basis to detect and repair leaks,
unless certain design and operating requirements are met. Those other
requirements include operating the system such that the cooling water
is at a higher pressure than the process fluid, using an intervening
cooling fluid between the water and process fluid and ensuring the
intervening fluid is not discharged, using a once-through heat exchange
system that is subject to a NPDES permit, or only using the heat
exchange system to cool process fluids that meet low-HAP content
criteria.
The EPA did not identify in our technology review any developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies for heat exchange
systems that were not already considered in the development of the
original MACT. Because there were no improvements in the technologies
considered under MACT, the EPA proposes that it is not necessary to
amend the standards for heat exchange systems under the technology
review. Further explanation of the assumptions and methodologies for
all options evaluated are provided in the memorandum, Clean Air Act
Section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the Miscellaneous Coatings
Manufacturing Source Category, available in the docket to this action.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed decisions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH to be
consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated rule provisions that exempt
sources from the provision to comply with otherwise applicable NESHAP
during periods of SSM. We also are proposing to require electronic
submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports and compliance reports
(which include performance test reports). We are proposing to require
periodic performance testing of oxidizers used to demonstrate
compliance. We are proposing technical and editorial revisions and
corrections.
1. SSM Provisions
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 section 112 standards apply continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule
which appears at 40 CFR 63.8000(a). 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 10 (the General Provisions
Applicability Table) as 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.
In addition, as explained in more detail in section IV.D.1.i.,
below, we are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.8005(h) to clarify that
any periods during which a control device is bypassed be included in
demonstrating compliance with the emission reduction provisions for
process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH. As
currently specified in 40 CFR 63.8005, 63.8010, and 63.8020, you must
establish operating limits for process vessels and storage tanks
controlled by closed vent systems and add-on controls, and for
wastewater streams controlled by enhanced biological treatment units.
This generally means that during startup and shutdown periods, in order
for a facility using add-on controls to meet the emissions and
operating standards, the add-on control device needs to be turned on
and operating at specified levels when the facility begins coating
manufacturing operations, and the control equipment needs to continue
to be operated until the facility ceases coating manufacturing
operations. In some cases, the facility would need to run thermal
oxidizers on supplemental fuel whenever there is insufficient
concentrations of VOC for the combustion to be self-sustaining. The
proposed language in 40 CFR 63.8000(a) requires that the owner or
operator operate and maintain the coating manufacturing operations,
including pollution control equipment, at all times to minimize
emissions, except as explained in more detail in section IV.D.1.i
below, to account for bypass periods of the controls for process
vessels as proposed in 40 CFR 63.8005(h).
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 (D.C. Cir. 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
[[Page 46630]]
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.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section
112 requires the 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 that occurs during
routine operations of a source.
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, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation.
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 malfunctions that result in
releases from PRDs or emergency flaring events because the EPA had
information 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.
In this proposal at 40 CFR 63.8005(h), we provide a method to account
for control device bypass periods including periods of SSM, in
evaluating compliance with the overall control efficiency requirements
for process vessels in Table 1, as is discussed further. We encourage
commenters to provide any such information. Finally, 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 specific changes that we propose to comport the rule with the
Sierra Club decision on SSM are listed in paragraphs a through i below:
a. 40 CFR 63.8000 General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by 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
63.8000(a) that reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while
eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general
duty entails during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM
exemption, there is no need to differentiate between normal operations,
startup and shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general
duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR
63.8000(a) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
10) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3
to a ``no.'' 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 provision being added at 40 CFR 63.8000(a).
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by consolidating the entries for
subparagraphs (i) to (ix) under a single entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)
and by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these
paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM
recordkeeping and reporting provisions related to the SSM plan. As
noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore,
affected units will be subject to an emission standard during such
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance
and, thus, the SSM plan provisions are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
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 the Sierra Club decision vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112
standards apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from
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
[[Page 46631]]
requires that some section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent
with the Sierra Club decision, the EPA is proposing to revise standards
in this rule to apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.8005(d) Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
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 provisions.
The EPA is instead proposing to add performance testing provisions at
40 CFR 63.8005(d)(5). The performance testing provisions we are
proposing to add differ from the General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The
proposed performance testing provisions will exclude periods of startup
or shutdown as representative conditions for conducting performance
testing. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under
this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because
conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal
operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to add language that
requires owners or operators to record the process information that is
necessary to document operating conditions during tests and include in
such record explanations to support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that owners or operators
make available to the Administrator upon request such records ``as may
be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test,'' but
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The
regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add clarifies the necessary
information and makes explicit the provision to record the information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.8 (c)(1)(i) and (iii) by changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no'' for both entries. The cross-references to the
general duty and SSM plan provisions in those subparagraphs are not
necessary in light of other provisions of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good
air pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out
the provisions of a quality control program for monitoring equipment
(40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d) by creating a separate entry for 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) and by indicating ``no'' in column 3. The final sentence in
40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan provision
which is no longer applicable. We are proposing to add to the rule at
40 CFR 63.8000(d)(8) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except
that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required
under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).''
f. 40 CFR 63.8080 Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entries for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) by creating a single row for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) and (ii) and indicating a ``no'' in column 3. Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping provisions during startup
and shutdown. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping
provisions during a malfunction. These recordkeeping provisions are no
longer necessary because we are proposing to remove the exemptions and
other special provisions applicable to SSM periods so there is no
reason to retain additional recordkeeping for these periods. We are
also proposing to replace the references to 40 CFR 63.998(d)(3) and
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D) through (G) in the former entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) with a reference to a new paragraph 40 CFR 63.8080(h)
that specifies recordkeeping in the event of any deviation from an
emission limitation. The regulatory text we are proposing to add
differs from the General Provisions it is replacing in that the General
Provisions require the creation and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. We are proposing that this provision
apply to any failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring
that the source record the date, time, and duration of the failure
rather than the ``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40
CFR 63.8080(h) a provision that requires source owners or operators to
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 estimation 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 source owners
or operators keep records of this information to ensure that there is
adequate information to allow us 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 General Provisions table (Table 10)
entries for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2) by creating a single row for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) and indicating a ``no'' in column 3. When
applicable, 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) requires source owners or operators
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plans. The provision in 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(v) requires source owners or operators to record actions
taken during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with
their SSM plans. These provisions will no longer be appropriate because
we propose that SSM plans will no longer be required. The provisions
previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) to record
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.8080(h).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the
recordkeeping provisions of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e),
to also satisfy the provisions of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The
EPA is proposing to eliminate this provision because SSM plans would no
longer be required; therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) would no longer
serve any useful purpose for affected sources.
g. 40 CFR 63.8075 Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 10)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) by removing the reference to 40 CFR
63.8075(e)(5) and (6), but retaining the ``no'' entry. The provisions
in 40 CFR 63.8075(e)(5) describe the reporting provisions for SSM in
place of those at 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i). To replace the SSM reporting
provision, the EPA is
[[Page 46632]]
proposing to add reporting provisions to 40 CFR 63.8075(e)(6). The
replacement language differs from the General Provisions in that it
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are
proposing language that requires source owners or operators 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 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
provision 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 owner or operator met the general duty to minimize
emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
h. Conforming Changes for Cross-References to Other Subparts
We are proposing amendments to account for instances where 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH cross-references other subparts that contain SSM
provisions. Proposed 40 CFR 63.8000(f) lists the referenced provisions
in subparts SS, TT, and UU of part 63 that contain references to SSM
periods that will no longer apply after the compliance date for the
proposed amendments. Proposed 40 CFR 63.8000(f)(10) through (f)(22)
lists the paragraphs or phrases within the paragraphs that will not
apply after the applicable compliance dates for the proposed amendments
because they are no longer applicable as a result of the proposed SSM
revisions.
i. Provisions To Account for Control Device Bypass Periods in
Determining Compliance
Because we are proposing to remove the SSM provisions and require
compliance at all times, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.8000(c) to
account for bypass periods in determining compliance with the emission
percent reduction provisions in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHHH for process vessels. These amendments will apply to process
vessels with closed vent systems and add-on controls that contain
bypass lines that could divert a vent stream to the atmosphere. We are
proposing that owners and operators must measure and record during each
semiannual compliance period the hours that the control device was
bypassed and the source's total operating hours. They must then use the
overall control efficiency required in Table 1, the total operating
hours, and the control efficiency of the control device to determine
the allowable bypass hours during the semiannual compliance period
using proposed Equation 1 in 40 CFR 63.8005(h). These changes are
required because SSM periods that may involve bypassing of the control
device cannot be excluded and must now be included in determining
compliance.
j. Safety Devices
Because we are proposing to remove the SSM provisions and require
compliance at all times, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.8000(b)(2), which allows the opening of a safety device at any time
conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions. We are proposing to
revise 40 CFR 63.8000(b)(2) so that opening of a safety device to avoid
unsafe conditions is considered a deviation, unless it is a bypass of a
control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40
CFR[thinsp]63.8005(h). We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR
63.8080(c), which is the provision to keep a record of each time a
safety device is opened, to add additional recordkeeping provisions
consistent with those for other deviations. As a result of these
proposed changes, the opening of a safety device would be considered a
deviation from the emission limits for sources using closed vent
systems and add-on control devices to comply with the emission
limitations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, unless it is a bypass of
a control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40
CFR[thinsp]63.8005(h). In the event a safety device is opened, the
owners or operators would be required to comply with the general duty
provision in 40 CFR 63.8000(a) to minimize emissions at all times, and
to report and record information related to deviations as specified in
40 CFR 63.8075 and 63.8080, respectively, unless it is a bypass of a
control for a process vessel and accounted for as specified in 40
CFR[thinsp]63.8005(h).
2. Electronic Reporting Provisions
Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of MCM facilities submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, compliance
reports, and NOCS 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-2018-0747. 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 \22\ 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 measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are
supported by the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the
format generated through the use of the ERT and other performance
evaluation results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of
the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For performance test reports, performance evaluation reports,
compliance reports, and NOCS 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 templates for
these reports are included in the docket for this rulemaking.\23\ The
EPA specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See MCM_Compliance_Report_Draft_Template.xlsx, available at
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 46633]]
cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting
deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation where an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system and
submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.8075(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
40 CFR 63.8075(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 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
provisions 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 \24\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \25\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\26\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747.
\25\ 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.
\26\ 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. Other Technical Amendments
The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.8055(b)(4) to remove
reference to paragraph (d)(4) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA's) Hazard Communication standard, which dealt
with OSHA-defined carcinogens. The EPA is proposing to replace that
reference with its own list of HAP that must be regarded as potentially
carcinogenic based on the EPA guidelines. Although paragraph (d)(4) of
OSHA's standard was deleted when the Agency adopted the Globally
Harmonized System of Hazard Communication in 2012, it was replaced by
section A.6.4.2 of mandatory Appendix A of that standard, which reads
as follows:
``Where OSHA has included cancer as a health hazard to be
considered by classifiers for a chemical covered by 29 CFR part 1910,
subpart Z, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, chemical manufacturers,
importers, and employers shall classify the chemical as a carcinogen.''
Thus, where OSHA has regulated workplace exposure to a chemical based,
at least in part, on carcinogenic risk, OSHA requires the chemical to
be classified as a carcinogen. OSHA suggests that the EPA should refer
to section A.6.4.2 of Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.1200 in its discussion
of 40 CFR 63.8055 and consider chemicals that meet this provision be
considered ``OSHA-defined carcinogens.''
We are proposing to replace these references to carcinogens in 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 11 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH) of those organic HAP that must be included in
calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are
present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass.
We propose to include organic HAP in proposed Table 11 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH if they were categorized in the EPA's
Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values for Screening Risk Assessments
(dated May 9, 2014) as a ``human carcinogen,'' ``probable human
carcinogen,'' or ``possible human carcinogen'' according to The Risk
Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045, August 1987), or as
``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or
with ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential'' according to the
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March
2005).
There are several additional revisions that we are proposing to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH to clarify text or correct typographical
errors, grammatical errors, and cross-reference errors. These proposed
editorial corrections and clarifications are summarized in Table 4 of
this preamble.
Table 4--Summary of Proposed Editorial and Minor Corrections to 40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart HHHHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provision Proposed revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.7985(d)(2)................... Remove the word ``future.''
40 CFR 63.8050(c)(3)................... Correct reference to
subparagraph (c)(2)(i) to
(iii) to (c)(3)(i) to (iii).
40 CFR 63.8075(c)(1)................... Clarify the paragraphs to say
63.8005 through 63.8030 to
include heat exchangers.
40 CFR 63.8075(d)...................... Change the reference from
(d)(2) to (d)(1).
40 CFR 63.8075(d)(2)(ii)............... Remove the word ``initial.''
40 CFR 63.8090(b)...................... Clarify the sentence to say,
``You are in compliance with
this subpart if you have a
storage tank with a fixed
roof, closed-vent system, and
control device in compliance
with 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Kb, and you are in compliance
with the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in this
subpart.''
Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart Correct ``FFFF'' to ``HHHHH.''
HHHHH.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46634]]
4. Ongoing Emissions Compliance Demonstrations
As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration provisions in the MCM NESHAP. Currently, if a source
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using add-on
controls, the results of an initial performance test are used to
determine compliance; however, the rule does not require ongoing
periodic performance testing for these emission capture systems and
add-on controls. We are proposing periodic testing of add-on control
devices, in addition to the one-time initial emissions testing and
ongoing continuous parametric monitoring, to ensure ongoing compliance
with the standards.
Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by
the NESHAP and is conducted by owners or operators, as control devices
age over time, the destruction efficiency of the control devices can be
compromised due to various factors. The EPA published several documents
that identify potential control device operational problems that could
decrease emission reduction efficiency, including, but not limited to
the following: Corrosion due to halogens in HAP exhaust for thermal
oxidizers, catalyst deactivation or poisoning for catalytic oxidizers,
leaking valves for regenerative oxidizers, adsorbent plugging and
fouling for adsorbers, and changing waste stream temperatures and
absorption characteristics for condensers and concentrators.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Stationary Sources, EPA/453/R-92-018, December 1992, Control
Technologies for Emissions from Stationary Sources, EPA/625/6-91/
014, June 1991, and Survey of Control Technologies for Low
Concentration Organic Vapor Gas Streams, EPA-456/R-95-003, May 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), an industry trade
group currently representing 50 emission control device equipment
manufacturers, corroborated the fact that control equipment degrades
over time in their comments in a prior rulemaking. In their comments on
proposed revisions to the NESHAP General Provisions (72 FR 69, January
3, 2007), ICAC stated that ongoing maintenance and checks of control
devices are necessary in order to ensure emissions control technology
remains effective. Based on the need for vigilance in maintaining
equipment to stem degradation, in this action, we are proposing to
require periodic performance testing of certain add-on control devices
on a 5-year cycle and removing the allowance for demonstration of
compliance using a design evaluation for ``small control devices,''
defined as controlling less than 10 tons of HAP per year. We are not
proposing to revise performance demonstration requirements for
condensers because outlet gas temperature correlates directly with
control efficiency and continuous monitoring of outlet gas temperature
provides a direct indication of whether control efficiency has been
met. Likewise, the proposed performance testing provision of
incineration control devices allows an exception from periodic testing
for facilities using instruments to continuously measure VOC emissions.
Using VOC continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) would be a
direct indicator of compliance. The use of VOC CEMS to demonstrate
compliance would obviate the need for initial or periodic control
device testing. Our available data indicates that the oxidizers are the
only other control device used to comply with this standard.
Incinerators, however, could experience this degradation and reduced
control efficiency that would not be captured with operating parameter
monitoring of temperature.
We have identified several states with MCM facilities that already
require such testing every 5 years synchronized with 40 CFR part 70 air
operating permit renewals.
The proposed periodic performance testing provisions would require
owners or operators of facilities complying with the standards using a
closed vent system to control and which are not already on a 5-year
testing schedule to conduct the first of the periodic performance tests
within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards.
Afterward, the owners or operators would conduct periodic testing
before they renew their operating permits, but no longer than 5 years
following the previous performance test. Additionally, owners or
operators of facilities that have already tested as a condition of
their permit within the last 2 years before the effective date would be
permitted to maintain their current 5-year schedule and not be required
to move up the date of the next test to the 3-year date specified
above. This proposed provision would require periodic air emissions
testing to measure organic HAP destruction or removal efficiency at the
inlet and outlet of the thermal oxidizer. The emissions would be
measured as total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon using either
EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6 to 40 CFR part 60, or EPA Method 25 or
25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, which are the methods currently
required for the initial compliance demonstration.
We estimate that the cost associated with this proposed provision,
which includes a control device emissions destruction or removal
efficiency test using EPA Method 18, 25 or 25A, would be approximately
$19,000 per control device every 5 years for those sources not already
required by their title V operating permit to conduct testing at least
every 5 years. The cost estimate is included in the memorandum titled
Draft Costs/Impacts of the 40 CFR part 63 Subpart HHHHH Monitoring
Review Revisions, in the MCM Docket. Based on the development of cost
estimates for other NESHAP, we know that certain states typically
require periodic testing as a condition of renewing title V operating
permits. We have assumed that facilities located in these states are
currently required to conduct periodic performance tests as a condition
of their 40 CFR part 70 operating permits, and the proposed periodic
testing would not add any new testing provisions and the estimated
costs would not apply to these facilities. We have assumed that
facilities in other states would have additional testing provisions and
costs. Periodic performance tests ensure that any thermal oxidizers
used to comply with the NESHAP in the future would be properly
maintained over time, thereby reducing the potential for acute
emissions episodes and non-compliance.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
Amendments to the MCM NESHAP proposed in this rulemaking for
adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject to the
compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under section 112(i).
For all of the provisions we are proposing under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3), we are proposing all affected source owners or
operators must comply with all of the amendments no later than 3 years
after the effective date of the final rule, or upon startup, whichever
is later. For existing sources, CAA section 112(i) provides that the
compliance date be as expeditious as practicable, but no later than 3
years after the effective date of the standard. (``Section 112(i)(3)'s
three-year maximum compliance period applies generally to any emission
standard . . . promulgated under [section 112].'' Association of
Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013)). In
determining what compliance period is
[[Page 46635]]
as expeditious as practicable, we consider the amount of time needed to
plan and construct projects and change operating procedures. As
provided in CAA section 112(i), all new affected sources would comply
with these provisions by the effective date of the final amendments to
the MCM NESHAP or upon startup, whichever is later.
All affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH 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), so the effective
date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in
CAA section 112(d)(10).
We are proposing to change the provisions for SSM by removing the
exemption from the emission limitations (i.e., emission limits,
operating limits, and work practice standards) during SSM periods and
by removing the provision to develop and implement an SSM plan. We are
also proposing that owners and operators will now need to take into
account control device bypass periods, even if during SSM periods, when
demonstrating compliance with the percent emission reduction provisions
for process vessels in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH.
Our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort
of regulated facility generally requires a substantial time period to
read and understand the amended rule provisions; to 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; and to update their operation, maintenance, and monitoring
plan to reflect the revised provisions. It is also possible that some
facilities may need to upgrade their emission capture and control
systems because of the proposed changes to the bypass provisions in the
compliance calculations. These upgrades may require additional time to
evaluate the current control system, plan for needed upgrades, and then
design, purchase, and install those upgrades. From our assessment of
the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised
requirements related to the SSM provisions, including the need to
account for bypass periods, the EPA considers a period of 3 years to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH's revised SSM provisions within 3 years of the
final amendment's effective date.
Therefore, for all affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction on or before September 4, 2019, we are proposing that it
is necessary to provide 3 years after the effective date of the final
rule (or upon startup, whichever is later) for owners and operators to
comply with the provisions that have been amended to remove the
exemption from the emission limitations during SSM periods. For all
affected sources that commenced construction or reconstruction after
September 4, 2019, we are proposing that owners and operators comply
with the amended provisions by the effective date of the final rule (or
upon startup, whichever is later).
As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are also proposing to
add a provision that notifications, performance test results, and
semiannual compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are
proposing that the semiannual compliance report be submitted
electronically using a new template, which is available for review and
comment as part of this action. Regarding electronic reporting, our
experience with similar industries shows that a time period of a
minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days, is generally
necessary to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware
and software, become familiar with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test
these new electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ
electronic reporting. From our assessment of the time frame needed for
compliance with the new electronic reporting provisions, the EPA
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable and, thus, is proposing that all sources would begin
complying with the new electronic reporting provisions beginning no
later than 180 days after the regulation's effective date.
We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, 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 provisions and the time
needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised
provisions. We note that information provided may result in changes to
the proposed compliance dates.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
Currently, 43 major sources subject to the MCM NESHAP are operating
in the United States. The affected source under the NESHAP is the
facility-wide collection of equipment used to manufacture coatings and
includes all process vessels; storage tanks for feedstocks and
products; components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; wastewater
tanks; transfer racks; and cleaning operations. A coating is defined as
material such as paint, ink, or adhesive that is intended to be applied
to a substrate and consists of a mixture of resins, pigments, solvents,
and/or other additives, where the material is produced by a
manufacturing operation where materials are blended, mixed, diluted, or
otherwise formulated.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, estimated emissions of volatile
organic HAP from the MCM source category are approximately 405 tpy.
The proposed amendments require that all 43 major sources in the
MCM source category comply with the relevant emission standards at all
times, including periods of SSM. We were unable to quantify the
emissions that occur during periods of SSM or the specific emissions
reductions that would occur as a result of this action. However,
eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM
periods.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., 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. The proposed amendments would have no effect on the energy
needs of the affected facilities and would, therefore, have no indirect
or secondary air emissions impacts.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate that to comply with the proposed amendments each
facility in the MCM source category will experience increased reporting
and recordkeeping costs. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are
presented in
[[Page 46636]]
section VIII.C of this preamble. The costs include time to read and
understand the rule amendments. Costs associated with 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 provision 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.
We are also proposing a provision for performance testing no less
frequently than every 5 years for sources in the MCM source category
using add-on controls to demonstrate compliance. We estimate that 12
facilities subject to the MCM NESHAP and using add-on control devices
would incur costs to conduct control device performance testing because
they are not required by their permits to conduct testing every 5
years. This total does not include facilities in the MCM source
category that have add-on controls and are currently required to
perform periodic performance testing as a condition of their state
operating permit. The cost for a facility to conduct a destruction or
removal efficiency performance test using EPA Method 25 or 25A is
estimated to be about $19,000. The total cost for all 12 facilities to
test their add-on control devices in a single year, plus one facility
completing a retest to account for 5 percent of control devices failing
to pass the first test, would be $247,000. The total annualized testing
cost, including retests, is approximately $57,000 per year at an
interest rate of 5.25 percent and an additional $6,000 in reporting
costs per facility in the year in which the test occurs for the MCM
source category. For further information on the potential costs, see
the cost tables in the memoranda titled Estimated Costs/Impacts of the
40 CFR part 63 Subpart HHHHH Monitoring Review Revisions, May 2019, and
the Economic Impact and Small Business Screening Assessments for
Proposed Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Facilities (Subpart
HHHHH), in the MCM Docket.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision-makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For
the current proposal, the EPA estimated the cost of becoming familiar
with the rule and re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems
and performing periodic emissions testing at certain facilities with
add-on controls that are not already required to perform testing. To
assess the maximum potential impact, the largest cost expected to be
experienced in any 1 year is compared to the total sales for the
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden
for each facility.
For the proposed revisions to the MCM NESHAP, the 2019 equivalent
annualized value (in 2018$) of the costs over the period 2020-2026 is
$66,000 assuming a 3-percent discount rate and $73,000 assuming a 7-
percent discount rate. The 43 affected facilities are owned by 27
different parent companies, and the total costs associated with the
proposed amendments range from 0.000005 to 0.025 percent of annual
sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs are not expected to
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Two of
the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions to the
MCM NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with the
proposed amendments for these two affected small entities range from
0.002 to 0.025 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner.
Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities from these proposed amendments.
More information and details of this analysis are provided in the
technical document titled Economic Impact and Small Business Screening
Assessments for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
(Subpart HHHHH), available in the MCM Docket.
E. What are the benefits?
As stated above in section V.B of this preamble, we were unable to
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating
the SSM exemption.
Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, we did not monetize
the benefits of reducing these emissions. This does not mean that there
are no benefits associated with the potential reduction in volatile
organic HAP from this rule.
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 receiving
additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other
analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements
to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk
modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this
preamble provides more information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards. 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-2018-0747 (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
[[Page 46637]]
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://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/miscellaneous-coating-manufacturing-national-emission-standards.
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 proposal have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2115.06. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the MCM Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747),
and it is briefly summarized here.
The EPA is proposing to revise the SSM provisions of the rule,
proposing to require periodic testing of control devices, and proposing
the use of electronic data reporting for future performance test data
submittals, notifications, and reports. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH.
Respondents/affected entities: Facilities manufacturing surface
coatings.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHH).
Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately 43 respondents per year would be
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
Frequency of response: The total number of responses in year 1 is
175, in year 2 is 46, and in year 3 is 85.
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden of the proposed
amendments to the 43 MCM facilities over the 3 years if the amendments
are finalized is estimated to be 565 hours (per year). The average
annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the amendments are
final is estimated to be 116 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The average annual cost of the proposed
amendments to the MCM facilities is $65,000 in labor costs in the first
3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual capital and
operation and maintenance costs are $82,000. The total average annual
agency cost of the proposed amendments over the first 3 years after the
amendments are final is estimated to be $5,500.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 4, 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. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The annualized costs associated with the
proposed amendments in this action for the affected small entities is
described in section V.D above and additional detail is provided in the
economic impact memorandums associated with this action. We have,
therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory
burden for all directly regulated small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
any of the industries that would be affected by this action (MCM).
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.A and C, and IV.A, B, and C of this preamble, and are
further documented in the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Risk
Assessment Report, in the MCM Docket.
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.
[[Page 46638]]
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the MCM NESHAP through the Enhanced National
Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted voluntary
consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their
databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 25A, 25D, 26, 26A, and 29 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A; 301, 305, 311, 316, and 320 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A; 624, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, and 1671 of 40 CFR part
136, appendix A; and 8260, 8260B (SW-846), 8270, Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA Publication SW-
846 third edition. During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or
abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and
analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method,
the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential
equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the
practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant
method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for
accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering, and policy
equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may
reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information
is available for particular VCS.
No applicable VCS were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F,
2G, 21, 22, 25D, 305, 316, 625, 1624, 1625, 1666, 1671, 8260, 8260B
(SW-846), and 8270. The following VCS were identified as acceptable
alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule.
The EPA proposes to use the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10
(2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 3B for the manual procedures only and not the
instrumental procedures. This method determines quantitatively the
gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion
sources.
Additionally, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6420-18,
``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds
by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry,'' as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18 with the following caveats.
This ASTM procedure has been approved by the EPA as an alternative to
EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known and the
target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. We are
proposing that ASTM D6420-18 should not be used for methane and ethane
because the atomic mass is less than 35; and ASTM D6420 should never be
specified as a total VOC method. This test method employs a direct
interface gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer to identify and quantify
VOC.
The EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D2369-10(2015) el, ''Test
Method for Volatile Content of Coatings''; ASTM D2697-03 (2014),
``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
Pigmented Coatings''; and ASTM D3960-98, `` 'Standard Practice for
Determining VOC Content of Paints and Related Coatings,'' as acceptable
alternatives to EPA Method 24. The ASTM D2369-10 (2015) method
describes a procedure for the determination of the weight percent
volatile content of solvent borne and waterborne coatings. The ASTM
D2697-03 (2014) method is intended to provide a measure of the volume
of dry coating obtainable from a given volume of liquid coating. The
ASTM D3960-98 method measures the VOC content of solvent borne and
waterborne paints and related coatings as determined from the quantity
of material released from a sample under specified bake conditions and
subtracting exempt volatile compounds and water if present.
The EPA proposes to use the VCS CARB Method 310, ``Determination of
VOC in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol
Coating Products,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 311.
Method 310 determines the total volatile material in a product and the
presence of any compounds and is also used to determine the percent by
weight of the reactive organic compounds contained in aerosol coating
products.
In addition, the EPA proposes to use the VCS ASTM D6348-12e1,
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 with caveats
requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory.
We are proposing the test plan preparation and implementation in the
Annexes to ASTM D6348-12e1, Sections Al through A8 are mandatory; and
in ASTM D6348-12e1, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent
(%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). We
are proposing that in order for the test data to be acceptable for a
compound, %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet
this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable
for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e.,
the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). We are proposing that the %R value for each compound be
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the
following equation:
Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/% R.
The ASTM D6348-12e1 method is an extractive FTIR based field test
method is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target
analytes from stationary source effluent.
The six ASTM methods (ASTM D6420-18, ASTM D2369-10(2015)el, ASTM
D6348-12e1, ASTM D2697-03 (2014), ASTM D3960-98, and ASTM D6348-03) are
available at ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030,
Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/. The CARB method (VCS
CARB Method 310) is available at CARB, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA
95814. See https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/. The ANSI/ASME PTC 19 10 1981 Part
10 (2010) method is available at American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), 1899 L Street NW, 11th floor, Washington, DC 20036 and the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016-5990 See https://wwww.ansi.org and https://www.asme.org.
Finally, the search identified seven other VCS that were
potentially applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference
methods. After reviewing the available standards, the EPA determined
that seven candidate VCS identified for measuring emissions of
pollutants or their surrogates subject to emission standards in the
rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation,
validation data and other important technical and policy
considerations. Additional information for the VCS search and
determinations can be found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coatings Manufacturing,
[[Page 46639]]
which is available in the docket for this action.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such standards in
this regulation.
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 sections IV.A
and IV.B of this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Operations, January
2019, available in the MCM Docket.
As discussed in sections IV.A and B of this preamble, we performed
a demographic analysis for the MCM source category, which is an
assessment of risks to individual demographic groups, of the population
close to the facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In this
analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and
noncancer hazards from the MCM source category across different social,
demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near
operations identified as having the highest risks.
The results of the MCM source category demographic analysis
indicate that approximately 3,700 people are exposed to a cancer risk
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and no one is exposed to a
chronic noncancer HI greater than 1. For those people with a cancer
risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million, the African American and
Below Poverty Level demographic groups are higher than their respective
nationwide percentages.
We do not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in
HAP emissions. The EPA anticipates that this action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) because it does not significantly affect the level
of protection provided to human health or the environment. The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV of this
preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Operations, January 2019, which is
available in the MCM Docket.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 15, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (e)(2),
0
b. Revising paragraphs (h)(26), and (30);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(92) through (111) as paragraphs (h)(94)
through (113) and paragraphs (h)(50) through (h)(91) as paragraphs
(h)(51) through (h)(92), respectively;
0
d. Adding new paragraph (h)(50);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(85);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (h)(93);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5) as paragraphs (k)(2)
through (k)(6); and
0
h. Adding new paragraph (k)(1).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
(Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus), re-issued 2010, IBR approved for
Sec. 63.8000(d).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)e, Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h), 63.4321(e), 63.4341(e),
63.4351(d), 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), 63.4961(j), and 63.8055(b).
* * * * *
(30) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4941(b),, and
63.8055(b).
* * * * *
(50) ASTM D3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings IBR
approved for Sec. 63.8055(b).
* * * * *
(85) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.1571(a), and 63.8000(d).
* * * * *
(93) ASTM D6420-18, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec. 63.8000(d).
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) Method 310, ``Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in
Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating
Products,'' amended August 1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec. 63.8055(b).
* * * * *
Subpart HHHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
0
3. Section 63.7985 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through
(3), paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraphs (b)(1) through (3),
and (d)(1) through (4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7985 Am I subject to the requirements in this subpart?
(a) * * *
(1) Are located at or are part of a major source of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) emissions, as defined in section 112(a) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA);
(2) Manufacture coatings as defined in Sec. 63.8105;
(3) Process, use, or produce HAP; and
* * * * *
(b) Miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations include the
facility-wide collection of equipment described in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (4) of this section that is used to
[[Page 46640]]
manufacture coatings as defined in Sec. 63.8105. Miscellaneous coating
manufacturing operations also include cleaning operations.
(1) Process vessels;
(2) Storage tanks for feedstocks and products;
(3) Components such as pumps, compressors, agitators, pressure
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or
lines, valves, connectors, and instrumentation systems; and
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Research and development facilities, as defined in section
112(c)(7) of the CAA;
(2) The affiliated operations located at an affected source under
subparts GG (National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing
and Rework Facilities), KK (National Emission Standards for the
Printing and Publishing Industry), JJJJ (NESHAP: Paper and Other Web
Coating), MMMM (National Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products Surface Coating Operations) and SSSS (NESHAP:
Surface Coating of Metal Coil) of this part. Affiliated operations
include, but are not limited to, mixing or dissolving of coating
ingredients; coating mixing for viscosity adjustment, color tint or
additive blending, or pH adjustment; cleaning of coating lines and
coating line parts; handling and storage of coatings and solvent; and
conveyance and treatment of wastewater;
(3) Ancillary equipment such as boilers and incinerators (only
those not used to comply with the emission limits in Tables 1 through 5
to this subpart), chillers and refrigeration systems, and other
equipment that is not directly involved in the manufacturing of a
coating (i.e., it operates as a closed system, and materials are not
combined with materials used to manufacture the coating);
(4) Quality assurance/quality control laboratories; or
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.7995 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraph (b), and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.7995 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
* * * * *
(a) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, if you
have a new affected source, you must comply with this subpart according
to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * *
(b) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) of this section, if you
have an existing affected source on December 11, 2003, then you must
comply with the requirements for existing sources in this subpart no
later than December 11, 2006.
* * * * *
(e) All affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], must be in compliance with the requirements
listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section upon initial
startup or [date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], whichever is later. All affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], must be in compliance with the
requirements listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section
upon initial startup, or [date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register], whichever is later.
(1) The general requirements specified in Sec. 63.8000(a)(2),
(b)(2), (d)(8), and (f); and Sec. 63.8005(d)(5) and (h).
(2) The reporting requirements specified in Sec. 63.8075(e)(5),
(e)(6)(ii)(B), (e)(6)(ii)(D), (e)(6)(iii)(C), and (e)(6)(iii)(E).
(3) The recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. 63.8080(c),
(e), (f), (h), and (i).
(4) The definitions specified in Sec. 63.8105.
(5) The general provisions as specified in Table 10 to subpart
HHHHH.
0
5. Section 63.8000 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (c)(3), introductory text to
paragraph (d)(1), and paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (iii);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (d)(3),(4)(i)(A), (ii)(C), and (iv); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (d)(8), (e), and (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.8000 What are my general requirements for complying with
this subpart?
(a) You must comply with paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, you
must be in compliance with the emission limits and work practice
standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at all times, except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. You
must meet the requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.8005 through
63.8025 (or the alternative means of compliance in Sec. 63.8050),
except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. You must meet the
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.8070, 63.8075, and 63.8080.
(2) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), paragraph (a)(1) of this section no longer applies.
Instead, beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.7995(e), you must be in compliance with the emission limits
and work practice standards in Tables 1 through 5 to this subpart at
all times. You must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section. You must meet the requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.8005 through 63.8030 (or the alternative means of
compliance in Sec. 63.8050), except as specified in paragraph (d) of
this section. You must meet the notification, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.8070, 63.8075,
and 63.8080.
(b) * * *
(2) You must comply with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section,
opening of a safety device, as defined in Sec. 63.8105, is allowed at
any time conditions require it to avoid unsafe conditions.
(ii) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.7995(e), paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section no longer
applies. Instead, opening of a safety device, as defined in Sec.
63.8105, is considered a deviation, as defined in Sec. 63.8105, unless
it is a bypass of a control for a process vessel and accounted for as
specified in Sec. 63.8005(h).
(c) * * *
(3) If you use a halogen reduction device to reduce hydrogen halide
and halogen HAP emissions that are generated by combusting halogenated
vent streams, you must meet the requirements of Sec. 63.994, except as
specified in paragraph (f) of this section, and the requirements
referenced therein. If you use a halogen reduction device before a
combustion device, you must determine the halogen atom emission rate
prior to the combustion device according to the procedures in Sec.
63.115(d)(2)(v).
(d) * * *
(1) Requirements for performance tests. The requirements specified
in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section apply instead of
or in addition to the requirements for performance testing of control
devices as specified in subpart SS of 40 CFR part 63.
[[Page 46641]]
(i) Conduct gas molecular weight analysis using Method 3, 3A, or 3B
in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. As an alternative to EPA Method 3B for
the manual procedures only and not the instrumental procedures, you may
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10(incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14) as an acceptable alternative.
* * * * *
(iii) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or
Method 26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to comply with any of the
emission limits specified in Tables 1 through 6 to this subpart you may
use the alternatives specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of
this section.
(A) As an alternative to using Method 18, Method 25/25A, or Method
26/26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, you may use Method 320 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A. When using Method 320, you must follow the analyte
spiking procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless you demonstrate
that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar
source. As an alternative to Method 320 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part
63, you may use ASTM Method D6348-12e1 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), with the caveats that the test plan preparation and
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM Method D6348-12el, Sections Al
through A8 are mandatory; and in ASTM Method D6348-12e1 Annex A5
(Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for
each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be
acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% >= R <=130%. If the %R value
does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is
not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that
analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be
adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the
following equation:
Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/% R.
(B) As an alternative to using EPA Method 18, you may also use ASTM
D6420-18 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), but only when
the target compounds are all known and the target compounds are all
listed in ASTM D6420-18 as measurable; ASTM D6420-18 should not be used
for methane and ethane; and ASTM D6420-18 may not be used as a total
VOC method.
* * * * *
(vi) You must conduct periodic performance tests and establish the
operating limits required by Sec. Sec. 63.8005(e), 63.8010(b)(1), and
63,8050(d)(3) within 5 years following the previous performance test.
You must conduct the initial or first periodic performance test before
[date 3 years after date of publication of final rule in the Federal
Register], unless you are already required to complete periodic
performance tests as a requirement of renewing your facility's
operating permit under 40 CFR part 70, or 40 CFR part 71, and have
conducted a performance test on or after [date 2 years before date of
publication of final rule in the Federal Register]. Thereafter you must
conduct a performance test no later than 5 years following the previous
performance test. Operating limits must be confirmed or reestablished
during each performance test.
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Periodic verification. For a control device with total inlet
HAP emissions less than 1 ton per year (tpy), you must establish at
least one operating limit for a parameter that you will measure and
record at least once per averaging period (i.e., daily or block) to
verify that the control device is operating properly. You may elect to
measure the same parameter that is required for control devices that
control inlet HAP emissions equal to or greater than 1 tpy. If the
parameter will not be measured continuously, you must request approval
of your proposed procedure in the precompliance report. You must
identify the operating limit or range and the measurement frequency,
and you must provide rationale to support how these measurements
demonstrate the control device is operating properly.
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) If you wish to use a CEMS other than a Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) meeting the requirements of Performance
Specification 15 or a hydrogen chloride (HCl) CEMS meeting the
requirements of Performance Specification 18 and Quality Assurance
Procedure 6 to measure hydrogen halide and halogen HAP before we
promulgate a Performance Specification for such CEMS, you must prepare
a monitoring plan and submit it for approval in accordance with the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.8.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) For CEMS meeting Performance Specification 8 used to monitor
performance of a noncombustion device, determine the predominant
organic HAP using either process knowledge or the screening procedures
of Method 18 on the control device inlet stream, calibrate the monitor
on the predominant organic HAP, and report the results as
C1. Use Method 18, ASTM D6420-18, or any approved
alternative as the reference method for the relative accuracy tests,
and report the results as C1.
* * * * *
(iv) The CEMS data must be reduced to operating day or operating
block averages computed using valid data, except monitoring data also
are sufficient to constitute a valid hour of data if measured values
are available for at least two of the 15-minute periods during an hour
when calibration, quality assurance, or maintenance activities are
being performed. An operating block is a period of time from the
beginning to end of batch operations in the manufacturing of a coating.
Operating block averages may be used only for process vessel data.
* * * * *
(8) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), in lieu of the requirements specified in Sec. 63.8(d)(3),
you must keep the written quality control program procedures required
by Sec. 63.8(d)(2) on record for the life of the affected source or
until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of
this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you shall
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation
plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by
the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the
plan. The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
(e) General Duty. Beginning no later than [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE
DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], at all
times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including
associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize
emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance
with operation and maintenance
[[Page 46642]]
requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
(f) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), the referenced provisions specified in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (22) of this section do not apply when demonstrating compliance
with this subpart through referenced provisions of subpart SS, subpart
UU, and subpart TT of this part.
(1) Sec. 63.983(a)(5) of subpart SS.
(2) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.984(a) of subpart SS.
(3) The phrase ``except during periods of start-up, shutdown and
malfunction as specified in the referencing subpart'' in Sec.
63.985(a) of subpart SS.
(4) The phrase ``other than start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunctions''
in Sec. 63.994(c)(1)(ii)(D) of subpart SS.
(5) Sec. 63.996(c)(2)(ii) of subpart SS.
(6) Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i) of subpart SS.
(7) The term ``breakdowns'' from Sec. Sec. 63.998(b)(2)(i) of
subpart SS.
(8) Sec. 63.998(b)(2)(iii) of subpart SS.
(9) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(A) of subpart SS.
(10) The phrase ``other than periods of startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(5)(i)(C) of subpart SS.
(11) The phrase ``, except as provided in paragraphs (b)(6)(i)(A)
and (B) of this section'' from Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(i) of subpart SS.
(12) The second sentence of Sec. 63.998(b)(6)(ii) of subpart SS.
(13) Sec. 63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D), (E), (F), and (G) of subpart SS.
(14) Sec. 63.998(d)(1)(ii) of subpart SS.
(15) Sec. 63.998(d)(3)(i) and (ii) of subpart SS.
(16) The phrase ``may be included as part of the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan, as required by the referencing subpart for the
source, or'' from Sec. 63.1005(e)(4)(i) of subpart TT.
(17) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1007(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart TT.
(18) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1009(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart TT.
(19) The phrase ``(except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1012(b)(1) of subpart TT.
(20) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1026(e)(1)(ii)(A) of subpart UU.
(21) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1028(e)(1)(i)(A) of subpart UU.
(22) The phrase ``(except periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction)'' from Sec. 63.1031(b)(1) of subpart UU.
0
6. Section 63.8005 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(1) and adding paragraph (d)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text and paragraph (e)(2);
0
d. Revising paragraph (g); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (h)
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.8005 What requirements apply to my process vessels?
(a) * * *
(2) For each control device used to comply with Table 1 to this
subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as specified
in Sec. 63.8000(c), except as specified in Sec. 63.8000(d) and (f),
and paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) To demonstrate initial compliance with a percent reduction
emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct the
performance test or design evaluation under conditions as specified in
Sec. 63.7(e)(1), except as specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this
section, and except that the performance test or design evaluation must
be conducted under worst-case conditions. Also, the performance test
for a control device used to control emissions from process vessels
must be conducted according to Sec. 63.1257(b)(8), including the
submittal of a site-specific test plan for approval prior to testing.
The requirements in Sec. 63.997(e)(1)(i) and (iii) also do not apply
for performance tests conducted to determine compliance with the
emission limits for process vessels.
* * * * *
(5) Beginning no later than the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), Sec. 63.7(e)(1) no longer applies and performance tests
shall be conducted under such conditions as the Administrator specifies
to the owner or operator based on representative performance of the
affected source for the period being tested. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown unless specified by the
Administrator or an applicable subpart. The owner or operator may not
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or
operator must record the process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(e) Establishing operating limits. You must establish operating
limits under the conditions required for your initial compliance
demonstration and periodic performance tests, except you may elect to
establish operating limit(s) for conditions other than those under
which a performance test was conducted as specified in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section and, if applicable, paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) If you elect to establish separate operating limits for
different emission episodes, you must maintain records as specified in
Sec. 63.8080(g) of each point at which you change from one operating
limit to another, even if the duration of the monitoring for an
operating limit is less than 15 minutes.
* * * * *
(g) Flow indicators. If flow to a control device could be
intermittent, you must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator
at the inlet or outlet of the control device to identify periods of no
flow. Periods of no flow may not be used in daily or block averages.
(h) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e),
when determining compliance with the percent emission reduction
requirements in Table 1 to this subpart, you must account for the time
that the control device was bypassed. You must use Equation 1 of this
section to determine the allowable total hours of bypass for each semi-
annual compliance period. To demonstrate compliance, the actual total
hours of bypass must not exceed the allowable total hours of bypass
calculated by Equation 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04SE19.000
Tbyp = Total allowable source operating time (hours) when the
control device for stationary process vessels can be bypassed during
the semiannual compliance period for any reason.
R = Control efficiency of control device, percent, as determined by
Equation 6 in Sec. 63.997(e)(2)(iv)(C).
OCE = The applicable percent emission reduction requirement in Table
1 to this subpart.
Top = Total source operating time (hours) for stationary process
vessels during the semiannual compliance period.
0
7. Section 63.8010 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
[[Page 46643]]
Sec. 63.8010 What requirements apply to my storage tanks?
(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart
that applies to your storage tanks, and you must meet each applicable
requirement specified in Sec. 63.8000(b). For each control device used
to comply with Table 2 to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS
of this part 63 as specified in Sec. 63.8000(c), except as specified
in Sec. 63.8000(d) and (f), and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.8025 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.8025 What requirements apply to my transfer operations?
(a) You must comply with each emission limit and work practice
standard in Table 5 to this subpart that applies to your transfer
operations, and you must meet all applicable requirements specified in
Sec. 63.8000(b). For each control device used to comply with Table 5
to this subpart, you must comply with subpart SS of this part 63 as
specified in Sec. 63.8000(c), except as specified in Sec. 63.8000(d)
and (f), and paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.8050 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through
(c)(3)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.8050 How do I comply with emissions averaging for stationary
process vessels at existing sources?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to a
condenser control device, determine controlled emissions using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.1257(d)(3).
(ii) If emissions are routed through a closed-vent system to any
control device other than a condenser, determine actual emissions after
determining the efficiency of the control device using the procedures
in subpart SS of this part 63 as specified in Sec. 63.8000(c).
(iii) If the vessel is vented to the atmosphere, then actual
emissions are equal to the uncontrolled emissions estimated in
accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.8055 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and
(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.8055 How do I comply with a weight percent HAP limit in
coating products?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Method 311 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 63). As an alternative to
Method 311, you may use California Air Resources Board Method 310,
Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products and
Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products for use with
aerosol cans.
(2) Method 24 (appendix A to 40 CFR part 60). You may use Method 24
to determine the mass fraction of volatile matter and use that value as
a substitute for the mass fraction of HAP, or one of the alternatives
in paragraph (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) ASTM D2369-10(2015)e, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14);
(ii) ASTM D2697-03 (2014) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14); or
(iii) ASTM D3960-98 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
* * * * *
(4) You may rely on formulation data from raw material suppliers if
it represents each organic HAP that is present at 0.1 percent by mass
or more for the HAP listed in Table 11 to this subpart, and at 1.0
percent by mass or more for other compounds. If the HAP weight percent
estimated based on formulation data conflicts with the results of a
test conducted according to paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section, then there is a rebuttal presumption that the test results are
accurate unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the permitting authority that the test results are not
accurate and that the formulation data are more appropriate.
0
11. Section 63.8070 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.8070 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(c) Notification of performance test. If you are required to
conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to
conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the
performance test is scheduled to begin as required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
For any performance test required as part of the compliance procedures
for process vessels in Table 1 to this subpart, you must also submit
the test plan required by Sec. 63.7(c) and the emission profile with
the notification of the performance test.
0
12. Section 63.8075 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2)(ii);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(5) introductory text and paragraph
(e)(6)(ii)(B);
0
d. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(ii)(D);
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(6)(iii) introductory text and paragraphs
(e)(6)(iii)(C) and (e)(6)(iii)(E);
0
f. Adding paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(L);
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(8)(ii)(B); and
0
h. Adding paragraphs (f) through (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.8075 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Requests for approval to set operating limits for parameters
other than those specified in Sec. Sec. 63.8005 through 63.8030,
including parameters for enhanced biological treatment units.
Alternatively, you may make these requests according to Sec. 63.8(f).
* * * * *
(d) Notification of compliance status report. You must submit a
notification of compliance status report according to the schedule in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the notification of compliance
status report must include the information specified in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section.
(1) You must submit the notification of compliance status report no
later than 150 days after the applicable compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.7995. You must submit a separate notification of compliance
status report after the applicable compliance date specified in Sec.
63.7995(e).
(2) * * *
(ii) The results of performance tests, engineering analyses, design
evaluations, flare compliance assessments, inspections and repairs, and
calculations used to demonstrate compliance according to Sec. Sec.
63.8005 through 63.8030 and 63.8055. For performance tests, results
must include descriptions of sampling and analysis procedures and
quality assurance procedures.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(5) For each SSM during which excess emissions occur, the
compliance report must include the information specified in paragraphs
(e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. On and after the compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.7995(e), these paragraphs (e)(5), (e)(5)(i), and
(e)(5)(ii) of this section no longer apply.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Before the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e),
information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations (including
unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
[[Page 46644]]
corrective action taken. On and after the compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.7995(e), report the number of failures to meet an applicable
standard. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each
failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
* * * * *
(D) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e),
report the total bypass hours, as monitored according to the provisions
of Sec. 63.8080(h).
(iii) For each deviation from an emission limit or operating limit
occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply
with the emission limit in this subpart, you must include the
information in paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(A) through (L) of this section.
This includes periods of SSM.
* * * * *
(C) Before the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e), the
date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction
or during another period. On and after the compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.7995(e), report the number of failures to meet an applicable
standard. For each instance, report the date, time and duration of each
failure. For each failure the report must include a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of
the method used to estimate the emissions, and the cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
* * * * *
(E) Before the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e), a
breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting
period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment
problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown
causes. On and after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e),
a breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
(L) A summary of the total duration of CMS data unavailability
during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the
total source operating time during that reporting period.
* * * * *
(f) Performance test report. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], within 60 days
after the date of completing each performance test required by
Sec. Sec. 63.8000, 63.8005, or 63.8010 of this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance test following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. The
requirements of this paragraph (f) do not affect the schedule for
completing performance tests specified in Sec. Sec. 63.8000, 63.8005,
and 63.8010.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test 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. Submit the results of the performance test 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 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 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 that some
of the performance test information being 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/OAPQS/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) of this
section.
(g) Performance evaluation report. On and after [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous monitoring
system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2), you
must submit the results of the performance evaluation following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. 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 XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on 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 (a) 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
[[Page 46645]]
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 (a) of this section.
(h) You must submit to the Administrator initial compliance
reports, notification of compliance status reports, and compliance
reports of the following information. Beginning on and after [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
submit all subsequent reports following the procedure specified in
paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) 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).
(1) Compliance reports. The requirements of this paragraph (i) do
not affect the schedule for submitting the initial notification or the
notification of compliance status reports. You must use the appropriate
electronic compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date
report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website.
(2) Initial notification reports and notification of compliance
status reports.
You must upload to CEDRI a PDF file of each initial notification
and of each notification of compliance status.
(3) All reports. 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, where applicable. 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 shall be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph.
(j) Extensions for CDX/CEDRI Outages and Force Majeure Events. 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
(j)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned/
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or 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.
(k) 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 (k)(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 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
13. Section 63.8080 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory paragraph;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c), (e), and (f); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (h) through (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.8080 What records must I keep?
You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (h)
of this section.
* * * * *
(c) Before the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e), a
record of each time a safety device is opened to avoid unsafe
conditions in accordance with Sec. 63.8000(b)(2). On and after the
compliance date specified in
[[Page 46646]]
Sec. 63.7995(e), the information in this paragraph (c).
(1) The source, nature, and cause of the opening.
(2) The date, time, and duration of the opening.
(3) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP emitted during the
opening and the method used for determining this quantity.
* * * * *
(e) Before the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e), for
each CEMS, you must keep the records of the date and time that each
deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another
period. On and after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e),
for each CEMS, you must keep the records of the date and time that each
deviation started and stopped, and whether the deviation occurred
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another
period.
(f) Before the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e), in
the SSMP required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), you are not required to include
Group 2 or non-affected emission points. For equipment leaks only, the
SSMP requirement is limited to control devices and is optional for
other equipment. On and after the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), the requirements of this paragraph (f) no longer apply.
* * * * *
(h) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e),
records of the total source operating time (hours) for stationary
process vessels during the semiannual compliance period, and the source
operating time (hours) when the control device for stationary process
vessels was bypassed during the semiannual compliance period for any
reason, as used in determining compliance with the percent emission
reduction requirements in Table 1 to this subpart, as specified in
Sec. 63.8005(h).
(i) On and after the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e),
for each deviation from an emission limitation reported under Sec.
63.8075(e)(5), a record of the information specified in paragraphs
(i)(1) and (2) of this section, as applicable.
(1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time and duration of each failure.
(2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(j) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart 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
14. Section 63.8090 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.8090 What compliance options do I have if part of my plant
is subject to both this subpart and another subpart?
* * * * *
(b) Compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb. After the
compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.7995, you are in compliance with
this subpart for any storage tank that is assigned to miscellaneous
coating manufacturing operations and that is both controlled with a
floating roof and in compliance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb. You are in compliance with this subpart if you have a
storage tank with a fixed roof, closed-vent system, and control device
in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb, and you are in
compliance with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in this subpart. You must also identify in your
notification of compliance status report required by Sec. 63.8075(d)
which storage tanks are in compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.8105 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (g), revising the definitions for ``Deviation'' and
``Process vessel vent''; and
0
b. In paragraph (g), removing the definition for ``Small control
device''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.8105 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
(g) * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Before the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e), fails
to meet any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard
in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. On and after
the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.7995(e), this paragraph (3)
no longer applies.
* * * * *
Process vessel vent means a vent from a process vessel or vents
from multiple process vessels that are manifolded together into a
common header, through which a HAP-containing gas stream is, or has the
potential to be, released to the atmosphere. Emission streams that are
undiluted and uncontrolled containing less than 50 ppmv HAP, as
determined through process knowledge that no HAP are present in the
emission stream or using an engineering assessment as discussed in
Sec. 63.1257(d)(2)(ii), test data using Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, or any other test method that has been validated according
to the procedures in Method 301 of appendix A of this part, are not
considered process vessel vents. Flexible elephant trunk systems when
used with closed vent systems and drawing ambient air (i.e., the system
is not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the unit operations)
away from operators when vessels are opened are not process vessel
vents. Process vessel vents do not include vents on storage tanks,
wastewater emission sources, or pieces of equipment subject to the
requirements in Table 3 of this subpart. A gas stream going to a fuel
gas system is not a process vessel vent. A gas stream routed to a
process for a process purpose is not a Sec. 63.8075 vent.
* * * * *
0
16. Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is amended by revising row 4 to
read as follows:
* * * * *
[[Page 46647]]
Table 1 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Emission Limits and Work Practice
Standards for Process Vessels
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you must . . .
For each . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
4. Halogenated vent stream from a. Use a halogen i. Reduce overall
a process vessel subject to the reduction device emissions of
requirements of item 2 or 3 of after the hydrogen halide
this table for which you use a combustion and halogen HAP
combustion control device to control device; by >=95 percent;
control organic HAP emissions. or or
b. Use a halogen ii. Reduce overall
reduction device emissions of
before the hydrogen halide
combustion and halogen HAP
control device. to <=0.45
kilogram per hour
(kg/hr).
Reduce the halogen
atom mass
emission rate to
<=0.45 kg/hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
17. Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
As required in Sec. 63.8015, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to your equipment leaks.
Table 3 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Equipment Leaks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Equipment that is in organic HAP a. Comply with the requirements
service at an existing source. in Sec. Sec. 63.424(a)
through (d) and 63.428(e),
(f), and (h)(4), except as
specified in Sec.
63.8015(b); or
b. Comply with the requirements
of subpart TT of this part,
except as specified in Sec.
63.8000(f); or
c. Comply with the requirements
of subpart UU of this part,
except as specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.8000(f)
and[thinsp]63.8015(c) and (d).
2. Equipment that is in organic HAP a. Comply with the requirements
service at a new source. of subpart TT of this part,
except as specified in Sec.
63.8000(f); or
b. Comply with the requirements
of subpart UU of this part,
except as specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.8000(f)[thinsp]and
63.8015(c) and (d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
18. The title of Table 8 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is amended to read
as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Soluble Hazardous Air Pollutants
As specified in Sec. 63.8020, the soluble HAP in wastewater that
are subject to management and treatment requirements of this subpart
are listed in the following table:
* * * * *
0
19. Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is amended by adding rows 4 and
5 to read as follows:
As required in Sec. 63.8075(a) and (b), you must submit each
report that applies to you on the schedule shown in the following
table:
Table 9 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit a . . . contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
4. Performance test report.... The information Within 60 days after
specified in completing each
Sec. performance test
63.8075(f). according to the
requirements in Sec.
63.8075(f).
5. Performance evaluation The information Within 60 days after
report. specified in completing each
Sec. continuous
63.8075(g). monitoring system
(CMS) performance
evaluation according
to the requirements
in Sec.
63.8075(g).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
20. Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Pat 63 is revised to read as follows:
As specified in Sec. 63.8095, the parts of the General Provisions
that apply to you are shown in the following table:
Table 10 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart HHHHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1................... Applicability.... Yes.
Sec. 63.2................... Definitions...... Yes.
Sec. 63.3................... Units and Yes.
Abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4................... Prohibited Yes.
Activities.
Sec. 63.5................... Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a)................ Applicability.... Yes.
[[Page 46648]]
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)......... Compliance Dates Yes.
for New and
Reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)............. Notification..... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)............. [Reserved]....... .....................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)............. Compliance Dates Yes.
for New and
Reconstructed
Area Sources
That Become
Major.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)......... Compliance Dates Yes.
for Existing
Sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)......... [Reserved]....... .....................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)............. Compliance Dates Yes.
for Existing
Area Sources
That Become
Major.
Sec. 63.6(d)................ [Reserved]....... .....................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).......... General Duty to Yes, before the
minimize compliance date
emissions. specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). No, on
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). See
63.8000(a) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)......... Requirement to Yes, before the
correct compliance date
malfunctions as specified in Sec.
soon as possible. 63.7995(e). No, on
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e).
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)-(2).... Operation & Yes.
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)............. Startup, Yes, before the
shutdown, and compliance date
malfunction plan. specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). No, on
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)............. Compliance Except Yes, before the
During SSM. compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). No, on
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e).
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)......... Methods for Yes.
Determining
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)......... Alternative Yes.
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)............. SSM Exemption.... Yes, before the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). No, on
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e).
Sec. 63.6(h)(2)-(9)......... Opacity/Visible Only for flares for
Emission (VE) which Method 22
Standards. observations are
required as part of
a flare compliance
assessment.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)........ Compliance Yes.
Extension.
Sec. 63.6(j)................ Presidential Yes.
Compliance
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)......... Performance Test Yes, except
Dates. substitute 150 days
for 180 days.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)-(4)......... CAA Section 114 Yes, and these
Authority, Force paragraphs also
Majeure. apply to flare
compliance
assessments as
specified under Sec.
63.997(b)(2).
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)............. Notification of Yes.
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)............. Notification of Yes.
Rescheduling.
Sec. 63.7(c)................ Quality Assurance/ Yes, except the test
Test Plan. plan must be
submitted with the
notification of the
performance test if
the control device
controls process
vessels.
Sec. 63.7(d)................ Testing Yes.
Facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............. Conditions for Yes, before the
Conducting compliance date
Performance specified in Sec.
Tests. 63.7995(e), except
that performance
tests for process
vessels must be
conducted under
worst-case
conditions as
specified in Sec.
63.8005. No, on and
after the compliance
date specified in
Sec. 63.7995(e).
See Sec.
63.8005(d).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)............. Conditions for Yes.
Conducting
Performance
Tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)............. Test Run Duration Yes.
Sec. 63.7(f)................ Alternative Test Yes.
Method.
Sec. 63.7(g)................ Performance Test Yes.
Data Analysis.
Sec. 63.7(h)................ Waiver of Tests.. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)............. Applicability of Yes.
Monitoring
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)............. Performance Yes.
Specifications.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)............. [Reserved]....... .....................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)............. Monitoring with Yes.
Flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)............. Monitoring....... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)......... Multiple Yes.
Effluents and
Multiple
Monitoring
Systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)............. Monitoring System Yes.
Operation and
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).......... Maintain and Yes, before the
operate CMS. compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). No, on
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). See Sec.
63.8000(a) for the
general duty to
maintain and operate
each CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)......... Routine repairs.. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........ Requirement to Yes, before the
develop SSM plan compliance date
for CMS. specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). No, on
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e).
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)......... Monitoring System Yes.
Installation.
[[Page 46649]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)............. Requirements..... Only for CEMS;
requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subpart SS of this
part. This subpart
does not contain
requirements for
continuous opacity
monitoring systems
(COMS).
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i).......... CMS Requirements. No. This subpart does
not require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii)......... CMS requirements. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)............. COMS Minimum No. This subpart does
Procedures. not contain opacity
or VE limits.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)............. CMS Requirements. Only for CEMS;
requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subpart SS of this
part.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)......... CMS Requirements. Only for CEMS.
Requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subpart SS of this
part.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2)......... CMS Quality Only for CEMS;
Control. requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subpart SS of this
part.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)............. Written Yes, before the
procedures for compliance date
CMS. specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). No, on
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). See Sec.
63.8000(d)(8).
Sec. 63.8(e)................ CMS Performance Section
Evaluation. 63.8(e)(6)(ii) does
not apply because
this subpart does
not require COMS.
Other sections apply
only for CEMS;
requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subpart SS of this
part.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)......... Alternative Yes, except you may
Monitoring also request
Method. approval using the
precompliance
report.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)............. Alternative to Only for CEMS.
Relative
Accuracy Test.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4)......... Data Reduction... Only when using CEMS,
except Sec.
63.8(g)(2) does not
apply because data
reduction
requirements for
CEMS are specified
in Sec.
63.8000(d)(4)(iv).
The requirements for
COMS do not apply
because this subpart
has no opacity or VE
limits.
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)............. Data Reduction... No. Requirements for
CEMS are specified
in Sec.
63.8000(d)(4).
Requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subpart SS of this
part.
Sec. 63.9(a)................ Notification Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)......... Initial Yes.
Notifications.
Sec. 63.9(c)................ Request for Yes.
Compliance
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)................ Notification of Yes.
Special
Compliance
Requirements for
New Source.
Sec. 63.9(e)................ Notification of Yes.
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.9(f)................ Notification of No. This subpart does
VE/Opacity Test. not contain opacity
or VE limits.
Sec. 63.9(g)................ Additional Only for CEMS;
Notifications requirements for
When Using CMS. CPMS are specified
in referenced
subpart SS of this
part.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)......... Notification of Yes, except this
Compliance subpart has no
Status. opacity or VE
limits, and Sec.
63.9(h)(2) does not
apply because Sec.
63.8075(d) specifies
the required
contents and due
date of the
notification of
compliance status
report.
Sec. 63.9(i)................ Adjustment of Yes.
Submittal
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)................ Change in No, Sec.
Previous 63.8075(e)(8)
Information. specifies reporting
requirements for
process changes.
Sec. 63.10(a)............... Recordkeeping/ Yes.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............ Recordkeeping/ Yes.
Reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii).... Records related No. Before the
to SSM. compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), see Sec.
Sec. 63.998(d)(3)
and
63.998(c)(1)(ii)(D)
through (G) for
recordkeeping
requirements for
periods of SSM. On
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), see Sec.
63.8080(i).
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)....... Records related Yes.
to maintenance
of air pollution
control
equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).... Records related Yes, before the
to SSM. compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e). No, on
and after the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e).
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), CMS Records...... Only for CEMS;
and (xi). requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subpart SS of this
part.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix).. Records.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)....... Records.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...... Records.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)....... Records.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............ Records.......... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6),(9)- Records.......... Only for CEMS;
(14). requirements for
CPMS are specified
in referenced
subpart SS of this
part.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8), (15).. Records.......... No. Recordkeeping
requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.8080.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............ General Reporting Yes.
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............ Report of Yes.
Performance Test
Results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............ Reporting Opacity No. This subpart does
or VE not contain opacity
Observations. or VE limits.
[[Page 46650]]
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............ Progress Reports. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i)......... SSM Reports...... No. Before the
compliance date
specified in Sec.
63.7995(e), see Sec.
63.8075(e)(5) and
(6) for the SSM
reporting
requirements. On and
after the compliance
date specified in
Sec. 63.7995(e),
these requirements
no longer apply.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)........ Immediate SSM No.
Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)........ Additional CMS Only for CEMS, but
Reports. Sec.
63.10(e)(2)(ii) does
not apply because
this subpart does
not require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............ Reports.......... No. Reporting
requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.8075.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i)-(iii)... Reports.......... No. Reporting
requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.8075.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(iv)-(v).... Excess Emissions No. Reporting
Reports. requirements are
specified in Sec.
63.8075.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(vi-viii)... Excess Emissions No. Reporting
Report and requirements are
Summary Report. specified in Sec.
63.8075.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............ Reporting COMS No. This subpart does
data. not contain opacity
or VE limits.
Sec. 63.10(f)............... Waiver for Yes.
Recordkeeping/
Reporting.
Sec. 63.11.................. Control and work Yes.
practice
requirements.
Sec. 63.12.................. Delegation....... Yes.
Sec. 63.13.................. Addresses........ Yes.
Sec. 63.14.................. Incorporation by Yes.
Reference.
Sec. 63.15.................. Availability of Yes.
Information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
21. Table 11 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63 is added to read as follows:
Table 11 to Subpart HHHHH of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
That Must Be Counted Toward Total Organic HAP Content if Present at 0.1
Percent or More by Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane............................ 79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................ 79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine................................ 57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane.......................... 96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine................................ 122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene........................................ 106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene.................................. 542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane.......................................... 123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol................................ 88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture)..................... 25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene................................... 121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine.................................. 95-80-7
2-Nitropropane....................................... 79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine............................... 91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine.............................. 119-90-4
3,37'-Dimethylbenzidine.............................. 119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline).................. 101-14-4
Acetaldehyde......................................... 75-07-0
Acrylamide........................................... 79-06-1
Acrylonitrile........................................ 107-13-1
Allyl chloride....................................... 107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH).................. 319-84-6
Aniline.............................................. 62-53-3
Benzene.............................................. 71-43-2
Benzidine............................................ 92-87-5
Benzotrichloride..................................... 98-07-7
Benzyl chloride...................................... 100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)................... 319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate........................... 117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether............................... 542-88-1
Bromoform............................................ 75-25-2
Captan............................................... 133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride................................. 56-23-5
Chlordane............................................ 57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate...................................... 510-15-6
Chloroform........................................... 67-66-3
Chloroprene.......................................... 126-99-8
Cresols (mixed)...................................... 1319-77-3
DDE.................................................. 3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether.................................. 111-44-4
[[Page 46651]]
Dichlorvos........................................... 62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin...................................... 106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate....................................... 140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide................................... 106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride.................................. 107-06-2
Ethylene oxide....................................... 75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea.................................... 96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane)........... 75-34-3
Formaldehyde......................................... 50-00-0
Heptachlor........................................... 76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene.................................... 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene.................................. 87-68-3
Hexachloroethane..................................... 67-72-1
Hydrazine............................................ 302-01-2
Isophorone........................................... 78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all isomers)......... 58-89-9
m-Cresol............................................. 108-39-4
Methylene chloride................................... 75-09-2
Naphthalene.......................................... 91-20-3
Nitrobenzene......................................... 98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine................................. 62-75-9
o-Cresol............................................. 95-48-7
o-Toluidine.......................................... 95-53-4
Parathion............................................ 56-38-2
p-Cresol............................................. 106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene.................................... 106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene.............................. 82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol.................................... 87-86-5
Propoxur............................................. 114-26-1
Propylene dichloride................................. 78-87-5
Propylene oxide...................................... 75-56-9
Quinoline............................................ 91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene.................................... 127-18-4
Toxaphene............................................ 8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene.................................... 79-01-6
Trifluralin.......................................... 1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide........................................ 593-60-2
Vinyl chloride....................................... 75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride.................................. 75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-18344 Filed 9-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P