Vol. 79 Wednesday, 

No. 127 July 2, 2014 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 63 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site Waste 

and Recovery Operations; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37850 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360; FRL–9911–93– 

0A] 

RIN 2060–AR47 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments 

to the national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 

off-site waste and recovery operations 

(OSWRO) to address the results of the 

residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) conducted under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). In light of our residual risk 

and technology review, we are 

proposing to amend the requirements 

for leak detection and repair and the 

requirements for certain tanks. In 

addition, the EPA is proposing 

amendments to revise regulatory 

provisions pertaining to emissions 

during periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction; add requirements for 

electronic reporting of performance test 

results; revise the routine maintenance 

provisions; clarify provisions pertaining 

to open-ended valves and lines; add 

monitoring requirements for pressure 

relief devices; clarify provisions for 

some performance test methods and 

procedures; and make several minor 

clarifications and corrections. 

DATES: 

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before August 18, 2014. 

A copy of comments on the information 

collection provisions should be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) on or before August 

1, 2014. 

Public Hearing. We do not plan to 

conduct a public hearing unless 

requested. If requested, we will hold a 

public hearing on July 17, 2014. To 

request a hearing, please contact the 

person listed in the following FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

by July 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments. Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0360, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov. 

Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0360 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0360. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. In addition, please mail a copy 

of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0360. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0360. 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 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 http://

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 

disk or CD–ROM 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: http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this proposed rule under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0360. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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, 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. 

Public Hearing. If requested, we will 

hold a public hearing concerning this 

proposed rule on July 17, 2014 in the 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

area. The EPA will provide further 

information about the hearing at the 

following Web site, http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/oarpg/t3main.html, if a hearing is 

requested. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony at the hearing 

should contact Ms. Virginia Hunt, 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(E143–01), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone number (919) 541–0832, by 

July 17, 2014. If no one requests to 

speak at the public hearing by July 14, 

2014, then a public hearing will not be 

held, and a notification of such will be 

posted on http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/t3main.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Ms. Paula Hirtz, Sector Policies 

and Programs Division (E143–01), Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–2618; fax 

number: (919) 541–0246; and email 

address: hirtz.paula@epa.gov. For 

specific information regarding the risk 

modeling methodology, contact Ms. 

Darcie Smith, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division (C504– 

06), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37851 

1See Initial List of Categories of Sources Under 

Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990 (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992); U.S. EPA. 

Continued 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 

541–2076; fax number: (919) 541–0840; 

and email address: smith.darcie@

epa.gov. For information about the 

applicability of the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact 

Ms. Marcia Mia, EPA Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, telephone number (202) 

564–7042; email address: mia.marcia@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

We use multiple acronyms and terms 

in this preamble. While this list may not 

be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

AEGL—acute exposure guideline levels 

AERMOD—air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CalEPA—California EPA 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CDX—Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI—Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG—Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT—Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR—Federal Register 

HAP—hazardous air pollutants 

HCl—hydrochloric acid 

HEM–3—Human Exposure Mdel, Version 

1.1.0 

HF—hydrogen fluoride 

HI—hazard index 

HON—Hazardous Organic NESHAP 

HQ—hazard quotient 

ICR—Information Collection Request 

IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System 

km—kilometer 

kPa—kilopascal 

LDAR—leak detection and repair 

LOAEL—lowest-observed-adverse-effect level 

MACT—maximum achievable control 

technology 

m3—cubic meter 

mg/kg-day—milligrams per kilogram per day 

mg/m3—milligrams per cubic meter 

MIR—maximum individual risk 

NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS—North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS—National Academy of Sciences 

NATA—National Air Toxics Assessment 

NESHAP—National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Organization 

NOAEL—no-observed-adverse-effect level 

NRC—National Research Council 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS—Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

OSWRO—off-site waste and recovery 

operations 

PB–HAP—hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PEL—probable effect levels 

POM—polycyclic organic matter 

ppm—parts per million 

PRD— pressure relief device 

PTE—permanent total enclosure 

RCO—recuperative thermal oxidizer 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

REL—reference exposure level 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC—reference concentration 

RfD—reference dose 

RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RTR—residual risk and technology review 

SAB—Science Advisory Board 

SBA—Small Business Administration 

SCC—source classification code 

S/L/Ts—State, local and tribal air pollution 

control agencies 

SOP—standard operating procedures 

SSM—startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TEQ—toxicity equivalence factor 

TOC—total organic compound 

TOSHI—target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy—tons per year 

TRIM.FaTE—Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport and 

Ecological Exposure model 

TSDF—Solid Waste Treatment, Storage and 

Disposal Facility 

TTN—Technology Transfer Network 

UF—uncertainty factor 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

URE—unit risk estimate 

VCS—voluntary consensus standards 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

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? 

III. Analytical Procedures 

A. How did we estimate post-MACT risks 

posed by the source category? 

B. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this proposal? 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

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 effects? 

C. What are the results of the technology 

review and our proposed decisions? 

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. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

A red-line 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–2012–0360). 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

NESHAP and associated regulated 

industrial source category that is the 

subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not 

intended to be exhaustive but rather to 

provide 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. The 

Off-site Waste and Recovery Operations 

source category was initially titled the 

‘‘Solid Waste Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal Facilities (TSDF)’’ source 

category, which included commercial 

facilities that treat, store or dispose of 

any solid waste received from off-site, as 

well as commercial facilities that 

recycle, recover and re-refine wastes 

received from off-site.1 On October 13, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37852 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 

Category List (EPA–450/3–91–030; July 1992). 

1994 (59 FR 51913), the EPA explained 

that the source category was intended to 

represent those off-site waste and 

recovery operations that are not 

specifically listed as a separate distinct 

NESHAP source category such as 

hazardous waste incineration or 

municipal solid waste landfills and 

changed the title of the Solid Waste 

TSDF source category to ‘‘Off-Site Waste 

and Recovery Operations’’ to avoid 

confusion, to better distinguish this 

source category from other source 

categories, and to emphasize that this 

source category addresses only activities 

that manage wastes received from offsite. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NESHAP Examples of regulated entities 

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations.Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations.Businesses or government agencies that operate any of the following: Hazardous 

waste TSDF; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exempt hazardous 

wastewater treatment facilities; nonhazardous wastewater treatment facilities other 

than publicly-owned treatment works; used solvent recovery plants; RCRA exempt 

hazardous waste recycling operations; used oil re-refineries. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather is meant to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by this 

action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult either the 

air permitting authority for the entity or 

your EPA regional representative, as 

listed in 40 CFR 63.13 (General 

Provisions). 

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 through the 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN) Web site, a forum for information 

and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this proposed 

action on the TTN’s policy and 

guidance page for newly proposed or 

promulgated rules at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. 

Following publication in the Federal 

Register, the EPA will post the Federal 

Register version of the proposal and key 

technical documents on the project Web 

site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

offwaste/oswropg.html. Information on 

the overall RTR program is available at 

the following Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM 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 for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM 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: Roberto 

Morales, 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–2012–0360. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs) from stationary sources. In the 

first stage, after the EPA has identified 

categories of sources emitting one or 

more of the HAP listed in CAA section 

112(b), CAA section 112(d) requires us 

to promulgate technology-based 

NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘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 HAPs. For 

major sources, the technology-based 

NESHAP must reflect the maximum 

degree of emission reductions of HAPs 

achievable (after considering cost, 

energy requirements and non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts) and 

are commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

MACT standards must reflect the 

maximum degree of emissions reduction 

achievable through the application of 

measures, processes, methods, systems 

or techniques, including, but not limited 

to, measures that (1) reduce the volume 

of or eliminate pollutants through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications; (2) 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; (3) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a 

process, stack, storage or fugitive 

emissions point; (4) are design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification); or (5) 

are a combination of the above. CAA 

section 112(d)(2)(A)–(E). The MACT 

standards may take the form of design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards where the EPA first 

determines either that (1) a pollutant 

cannot be emitted through a conveyance 

designed and constructed to emit or 

capture the pollutant, or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a 

conveyance would be inconsistent with 

law; or (2) the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations. CAA section 

112(h)(1)–(2). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37853 

controlled similar source. The MACT 

floor for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources but 

not less stringent than the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, the EPA must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on considerations of the cost of 

achieving the emission reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

The EPA is required to review these 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every eight years. CAA 

section 112(d)(6). In conducting this 

review, the EPA is not required to 

recalculate the MACT floor. Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, 

Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining (i.e., 

‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). Section 112(f)(1) required 

EPA to prepare a report to Congress 

discussing (among other things) 

methods of calculating the risks posed 

(or potentially posed) by sources after 

implementation of the MACT standards, 

the public health significance of those 

risks and the EPA’s recommendations as 

to legislation regarding such remaining 

risk. The EPA prepared and submitted 

the Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

EPA–453/R–99–001 (Risk Report) in 

March 1999. Section 112(f)(2) then 

provides that if Congress does not act on 

any recommendation in the Report, EPA 

must analyze and address residual risk 

for each category or subcategory of 

sources within 8 years after 

promulgation of such standards 

pursuant to section 112(d). 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to determine for source 

categories subject to MACT standards 

whether the emission standards provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the 

CAA expressly preserves the EPA’s use 

of the two-step process 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 in a challenge to the 

risk review for the Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing source 

category, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit upheld as reasonable the EPA’s 

interpretation that subsection 112(f)(2) 

incorporates the approach established in 

the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 

2008)(‘‘[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) 

expressly incorporates the EPA’s 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act from 

the Benzene standard, complete with a 

citation to the Federal Register.’’); see 

also A Legislative History of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, vol. 1, p. 

877 (Senate debate on Conference 

Report). 

The first step in the process of 

evaluating residual risk is the 

determination of acceptable risk. If risks 

are unacceptable, the EPA cannot 

consider cost in identifying the 

emissions standards necessary to bring 

risks to an acceptable level. The second 

step is the determination of whether 

standards must be further revised in 

order to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. The 

ample margin of safety is the level at 

which the standards must be set, unless 

an even more stringent standard is 

necessary to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 

1. Step 1—Determination of 

Acceptability 

The agency in the Benzene NESHAP 

concluded that ‘‘the acceptability of risk 

under section 112 is best judged on the 

basis of a broad set of health risk 

measures and information’’ and that the 

‘‘judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor.’’ Benzene 

NESHAP at 38046. The determination of 

what represents an ‘‘acceptable’’ risk is 

based on a judgment of ‘‘what risks are 

acceptable in the world in which we 

live’’ (Risk Report at 178, quoting NRDC 

v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1146, 1165 (D.C. Cir. 

1987) (en banc) (‘‘Vinyl Chloride’’), 

recognizing that our world is not riskfree. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than 

approximately one in 10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR at 38045, September 14, 1989. We 

discussed the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk (or maximum 

individual risk (MIR)) as being ‘‘the 

estimated risk that a person living near 

a plant would have if he or she were 

exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

explained that this measure of risk ‘‘is 

an estimate of the upper bound of risk 

based on conservative assumptions, 

such as continuous exposure for 24 

hours per day for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

acknowledged that maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk ‘‘does not 

necessarily reflect the true risk, but 

displays a conservative risk level which 

is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be 

exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using the 

MIR as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

Benzene NESHAP that ‘‘consideration of 

maximum individual risk * * * must 

take into account the strengths and 

weaknesses of this measure of risk.’’ Id. 

Consequently, the presumptive risk 

level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10 

thousand) provides a benchmark for 

judging the acceptability of maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk, but does 

not constitute a rigid line for making 

that determination. Further, in the 

Benzene NESHAP, we noted that: 

[p]articular attention will also be accorded to 

the weight of evidence presented in the risk 

assessment of potential carcinogenicity or 

other health effects of a pollutant. While the 

same numerical risk may be estimated for an 

exposure to a pollutant judged to be a known 

human carcinogen, and to a pollutant 

considered a possible human carcinogen 

based on limited animal test data, the same 

weight cannot be accorded to both estimates. 

In considering the potential public health 

effects of the two pollutants, the Agency’s 

judgment on acceptability, including the 

MIR, will be influenced by the greater weight 

of evidence for the known human 

carcinogen. 

Id. at 38046. The agency also explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP that: 

[i]n establishing a presumption for MIR, 

rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the 

Agency intends to weigh it with a series of 

other health measures and factors. These 

include the overall incidence of cancer or 

other serious health effects within the 

exposed population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime risk 

range and associated incidence within, 

typically, a 50 km exposure radius around 

facilities, the science policy assumptions and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37854 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined as 

any significant and widespread adverse effect, 

which may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, 

aquatic life or natural resources, including adverse 

impacts on populations of endangered or threatened 

species or significant degradation of environmental 

qualities over broad areas. CAA section 112(a)(7). 

3The OSWRO MACT rule defines ‘‘waste,’’ ‘‘used 

oil’’ and ‘‘used solvent’’ in 40 CFR 63.681 

Definitions. 

estimation uncertainties associated with the 

risk measures, weight of the scientific 

evidence for human health effects, other 

quantified or unquantified health effects, 

effects due to co-location of facilities, and coemission of pollutants. 

Id. At 38045. In some cases, these health 

measures and factors taken together may 

provide a more realistic description of 

the magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. 

As noted earlier, in NRDC v. EPA, the 

court held that section 112(f)(2) 

‘‘incorporates the EPA’s interpretation 

of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene 

Standard.’’ The court further held that 

Congress’ incorporation of the Benzene 

standard applies equally to carcinogens 

and non-carcinogens. 529 F.3d at 1081– 

82. Accordingly, we also consider noncancer risk metrics in our determination 

of risk acceptability and ample margin 

of safety. 

2. Step 2—Determination of Ample 

Margin of Safety 

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires the 

EPA to determine, for source categories 

subject to MACT standards, whether 

those standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, 

‘‘the second step of the inquiry, 

determining an ‘ample margin of safety,’ 

again includes consideration of all of 

the health factors, and whether to 

reduce the risks even further . . . . 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the agency will establish the standard at 

a level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by section 112.’’ 54 FR at 

38046, September 14, 1989. 

According to CAA section 

112(f)(2)(A), if the MACT standards for 

HAP ‘‘classified as a known, probable, 

or possible human carcinogen do not 

reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category 

or subcategory to less than one in one 

million,’’ the EPA must promulgate 

residual risk standards for the source 

category (or subcategory), as necessary 

to provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In doing so, the 

EPA may adopt standards equal to 

existing MACT standards if the EPA 

determines that the existing standards 

(i.e., the MACT standards) are 

sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 

529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If 

EPA determines that the existing 

technology-based standards provide an 

‘ample margin of safety,’ then the 

Agency is free to readopt those 

standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’) The EPA must also adopt 

more stringent standards, if necessary, 

to prevent an adverse environmental 

effect,2 but must consider cost, energy, 

safety and other relevant factors in 

doing so. 

The CAA does not specifically define 

the terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level’’ and ‘‘ample margin 

of safety.’’ In the Benzene NESHAP, 54 

FR at 38044–38045, September 14, 1989, 

we stated as an overall objective: 

In protecting public health with an ample 

margin of safety under section 112, EPA 

strives to provide maximum feasible 

protection against risks to health from 

hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the 

greatest number of persons possible to an 

individual lifetime risk level no higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million and (2) limiting 

to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 

thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million] the 

estimated risk that a person living near a 

plant would have if he or she were exposed 

to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 

70 years. 

The agency further stated that ‘‘[t]he 

EPA also considers incidence (the 

number of persons estimated to suffer 

cancer or other serious health effects as 

a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be 

an important measure of the health risk 

to the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risks to 

the exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ Id. at 

38045. 

In the ample margin of safety decision 

process, the agency again considers all 

of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the first step, 

including the incremental risk reduction 

associated with standards more 

stringent than the MACT standard or a 

more stringent standard that the EPA 

has determined is necessary to ensure 

risk is acceptable. In the ample margin 

of safety analysis, the agency considers 

additional factors, including costs and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and any other relevant factors. 

Considering all of these factors, the 

agency will establish the standard at a 

level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 

38046, September 14, 1989. 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

The NESHAP for OSWRO was 

proposed on October 13, 1994 (59 FR 

51913), promulgated on July 1, 1996 (61 

FR 34140), and codified at 40 CFR part 

63, subpart DD. The final rule was 

amended on July 20, 1999 (64 FR 

38950). In general, the rule applies to 

waste management units and recovery 

operations that are: (1) Located at major 

sources of HAP emissions; and (2) used 

to manage, convey or handle used oil, 

used solvent or waste received from 

other facilities and that contain at least 

one of 97 organic HAP specified in the 

rule.3 The HAP emission sources at 

facilities subject to the OSWRO 

NESHAP are tanks, containers, surface 

impoundments, oil-water separators, 

organic-water separators, process vents 

and transfer systems used to manage offsite material and equipment leaks. The 

MACT standards regulate these 

emissions sources through emission 

limits, equipment standards and work 

practices. 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

Under the authority of CAA section 

114, we sent questionnaires to nine 

companies that own and operate 

OSWRO facilities. In the CAA section 

114 questionnaires, we asked for 

information about process equipment, 

control devices, work practices, 

associated emission reductions, point 

and fugitive emissions, and other 

aspects of facility operations. We visited 

three facilities, and reviewed permit 

data from 18 state and local agencies. In 

addition, we reviewed several EPA 

databases to identify facilities that may 

be part of the source category. We also 

reviewed data in the EPA’s National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) to identify 

emission sources and quantities of 

emissions and the Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) to verify emissions 

estimates. 

The data gathered through these 

activities are described further in the 

memorandum Development of the RTR 

Emissions Dataset for the Off-Site Waste 

and Recovery Operations Source 

Category, which is available in the 

docket for this proposed rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37855 

4U.S. EPA SAB. 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, May 2010. 

III. Analytical Procedures 

In this section, we describe the 

analyses performed to support the 

proposed decisions for the RTR and 

other issues addressed in this proposal. 

A. How did we estimate post-MACT 

risks posed by the source category? 

The EPA conducted 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. The assessment 

also provides estimates of the 

distribution of cancer risks within the 

exposed populations, cancer incidence 

and an evaluation of the potential for 

adverse environmental effects for the 

source category. The eight sections that 

follow this paragraph describe how we 

estimated emissions and conducted the 

risk assessment. The docket for this 

proposed rule contains the following 

document which provides more 

information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations Source Category. 

The methods used to assess risks (as 

described in the eight primary steps 

below) are consistent with those peerreviewed by a panel of the EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 

and described in their peer review 

report issued in 2010 4; they are also 

consistent with the key 

recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. How did we estimate actual 

emissions and identify the emissions 

release characteristics? 

Data for 38 OSWRO facilities were 

used to create an RTR emissions dataset 

(i.e., risk model input file). This RTR 

emissions dataset is based on a 

combination of data gathered through 

the CAA section 114 questionnaire and 

the 2005 NEI. The NEI is a database that 

contains information about sources that 

emit criteria air pollutants, their 

precursors and HAP. The database 

includes estimates of annual air 

pollutant emissions from point, 

nonpoint and mobile sources in the 50 

states, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico and the Virgin Islands. The EPA 

collects this information and releases an 

updated version of the NEI database 

every 3 years. The NEI includes 

information necessary for conducting 

risk modeling, including annual HAP 

emissions estimates from individual 

emission points at facilities and the 

related emissions release parameters. 

Other databases, including the TRI and 

Envirofacts, were consulted to verify 

emissions estimates and to identify 

facilities that are part of the OSWRO 

source category. As part of our quality 

assurance review, we reviewed the 

emissions data and release 

characteristics data in the RTR 

emissions dataset to ensure the data 

were accurate. We also checked the 

coordinates of each emission source in 

the dataset using tools such as Google 

Earth and ArcView to ensure the 

emission point locations were correct. 

While data for 38 OSWRO facilities 

were included in the RTR emissions 

dataset, available data indicate there are 

52 currently operating major source 

facilities that are subject to the OSWRO 

MACT standards. The remaining 14 

facilities were not included in the 

modeling file because the information 

available to the EPA, including the NEI, 

did not attribute any amount of HAP 

emissions to off-site waste and recovery 

operations at these facilities. It was also 

not possible to discern from the 

emission point identifiers or 

characteristics in the inventory which 

emissions could be attributed to the 

OSWRO source category. We note that 

available permit information indicates 

that five of these 14 facilities are only 

subject to off-site waste HAP content 

determination requirements and are not 

subject to the emissions standards and 

other requirements of the OSWRO 

NESHAP due to the low amount of HAP 

in the off-site waste accepted by these 

facilities. Also, available permit data 

indicates that two additional facilities 

are not subject to the emissions 

standards and other requirements of the 

OSWRO NESHAP because they comply 

instead with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, 

as allowed by the OSWRO NESHAP. For 

these seven facilities, we would not 

expect any emission points to be labeled 

as OSWRO emission points in the NEI 

because those emission points are not 

subject to any OSWRO MACT emissions 

standards. We also did not collect data 

from these facilities through our CAA 

section 114 questionnaire. As noted in 

section VI of this preamble, we are 

requesting site-specific emissions data 

that would enable us to better 

characterize the maximum risks from 

the OSWRO source category. A list of 

the 52 facilities and additional 

information about the development of 

the RTR emissions dataset is provided 

in the technical document: Development 

of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the 

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? 

The available emissions data in the 

RTR emissions dataset include estimates 

of the mass of HAP emitted during the 

specified annual time period. In some 

cases, these ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are 

lower than the emission levels required 

to comply with the MACT standards. 

The emissions level allowed to be 

emitted by the MACT standards is 

referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ 

emissions level. We discussed the use of 

both MACT-allowable and actual 

emissions in the final Coke Oven 

Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 

19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the 

proposed and final Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP residual risk rules (71 FR 

34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, 

December 21, 2006, respectively). In 

those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

since these risks reflect 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.) 

We used the emissions data gathered 

from the 2005 NEI and responses to the 

CAA section 114 questionnaire to 

estimate the MACT-allowable emissions 

levels. We estimate that the actual 

emissions level is representative of the 

MACT-allowable level for all emissions 

sources except tanks and process vents. 

Based on responses to the CAA section 

114 questionnaire, we estimate that 

MACT-allowable emissions from tanks 

and process vents could be up to five 

times the actual emissions. For some 

facilities, we cannot assign HAP 

emissions to a specific type of emission 

source (e.g., a process vent) due to a lack 

of specificity in the emission point 

identifiers in the NEI. For facilities 

where we could identify specific 

emission source types, we applied a 

factor of 5 to the actual emissions 

attributable to tanks and process vents. 

A factor of 1 was applied to the actual 

emissions for other emissions sources 

(e.g., equipment leaks). For facilities 

where we could not identify specific 

emission source types, we developed 

and applied a factor of 2.5 to all the 

OSWRO emissions. The 2.5 factor is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37856 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5This metric comes from the Benzene NESHAP. 

See 54 FR 38046. 

6U.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). 

7A census block is the smallest geographic area 

for which census statistics are tabulated. 

8These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the 

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board 

(SAB) in their 2002 peer review of EPA’s National 

Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) entitled, NATA— 

Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics 

Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB Advisory, available 

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/

ecadv02001.pdf. 

based on the factor of 5 for tanks and 

process vents and information from the 

responses to the CAA section 114 

questionnaire indicating that tank and 

process vent emissions comprise 

approximately half of the total OSWRO 

emissions. 

For more detail about this estimate of 

the MACT-allowable emissions, see the 

memorandum, MACT-Allowable 

Emissions for the Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations Source Category, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

3. How did we conduct dispersion 

modeling, determine inhalation 

exposures and estimate individual and 

population inhalation risks? 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from the source category 

addressed in this proposal were 

estimated using the Human Exposure 

Model (Community and Sector HEM–3 

version 1.1.0). 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 5, and (3) estimating individual 

and population-level inhalation risks 

using the exposure estimates and 

quantitative dose-response information. 

The air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model (AERMOD) is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

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, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year (2011) of hourly surface and upper 

air observations for more than 800 

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 unit risk factors and other 

health benchmarks is used to estimate 

health risks. These risk factors and 

health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values 

are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentrations of each HAP emitted by 

each source for which we have 

emissions data in the source category. 

The air concentrations at each nearby 

census block centroid were used as a 

surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

We calculated the MIR for each facility 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year 

for a 70-year period) exposure to the 

maximum concentration at the centroid 

of inhabited census blocks. Individual 

cancer risks were calculated by 

multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk 

estimate (URE). The URE is an upper 

bound estimate of an individual’s 

probability 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 URE 

values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

URE values, where available. In cases 

where new, scientifically credible dose 

response values have been developed in 

a manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in 

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

The EPA estimated incremental 

individual lifetime cancer risks 

associated with emissions from the 

facilities in the source category as the 

sum of the risks for each of the 

carcinogenic HAP (including those 

classified as carcinogenic to humans, 

likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and 

suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 

potential 8) emitted by the modeled 

sources. Cancer incidence and the 

distribution of individual cancer risks 

for the population within 50 km of the 

sources were also estimated for the 

source category as part of this 

assessment by summing individual 

risks. 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. 

To assess the risk of non-cancer 

health effects from chronic exposures, 

we summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference value, which is a value 

selected from one of several sources. 

First, the chronic reference level can be 

the EPA reference concentration (RfC), 

(http://www.epa.gov/riskassessment/

glossary.htm), 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.’’ Alternatively, in 

cases where an RfC from the EPA’s IRIS 

database is not available, or where the 

EPA determines that using a value other 

than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic 

reference level can be a value from the 

following prioritized sources: (1) The 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry Minimum Risk Level 

(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/

index.asp), which is defined as ‘‘an 

estimate of daily human exposure to a 

hazardous substance that is likely to be 

without an appreciable risk of adverse 

non-cancer health effects (other than 

cancer) over a specified duration of 

exposure’’; (2) the CalEPA Chronic 

Reference Exposure Level (REL) 

(http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_

spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf), which is 

defined as ‘‘the concentration level (that 

is expressed in units of micrograms per 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37857 

9National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2001. 

Standing Operating Procedures for Developing 

Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, 

page 2. 

10ERP Committee Procedures and 

Responsibilities. November 1, 2006. American 

Industrial Hygiene Association. 

cubic meter (mg/m3) for inhalation 

exposure and in a dose expressed in 

units of milligram per kilogram-day 

(mg/kg-day) for oral exposures), at or 

below which no adverse health effects 

are anticipated for a specified exposure 

duration’’; 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, in place of or in concert with 

other values. 

The EPA also evaluated screening 

estimates of acute exposures and risks 

for each of the HAP at the point of 

highest off-site exposure for each facility 

(i.e., not just the census block 

centroids), assuming that a person is 

located at this spot at a time when both 

the peak (hourly) emissions rate and 

worst-case dispersion conditions occur. 

The acute HQ is the estimated acute 

exposure divided by the acute doseresponse value. In each case, the EPA 

calculated acute HQ values using best 

available, short-term dose-response 

values. These acute dose-response 

values, which are described below, 

include the acute REL, acute exposure 

guideline levels (AEGL) and emergency 

response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 

1-hour exposure durations. As 

discussed below, we used conservative 

assumptions for emissions rates, 

meteorology and exposure location for 

our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http://

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) 

is defined as, ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ Id. at page 2. Acute 

REL values are based on the most 

sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect 

reported in the peer-reviewed medical 

and toxicological literature. Acute REL 

values 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. 

AEGL values were derived in 

response to recommendations from the 

National Research Council (NRC). As 

described in Standing Operating 

Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/

aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),9 ‘‘the NRC’s 

previous name for acute exposure 

levels—community emergency exposure 

levels—was replaced by the term AEGL 

to reflect the broad application of these 

values to planning, response, and 

prevention in the community, the 

workplace, transportation, the military, 

and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.’’ Id. at 2. This document also 

states that AEGL values ‘‘represent 

threshold exposure limits for the general 

public and are applicable to emergency 

exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 

eight hours.’’ Id. at 2. 

The document lays out the purpose 

and objectives of AEGL by stating that 

‘‘the primary purpose of the AEGL 

program and the National Advisory 

Committee for Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances is to develop guideline 

levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term 

exposures to airborne concentrations of 

acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ 

Id. at 21. In detailing the intended 

application of AEGL values, the 

document states that ‘‘[i]t is anticipated 

that the AEGL values will be used for 

regulatory and non-regulatory purposes 

by U.S. Federal and state agencies and 

possibly the international community in 

conjunction with chemical emergency 

response, planning, and prevention 

programs. More specifically, the AEGL 

values will be used for conducting 

various risk assessments to aid in the 

development of emergency 

preparedness and prevention plans, as 

well as real-time emergency response 

actions, for accidental chemical releases 

at fixed facilities and from transport 

carriers.’’ Id. at 31. 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

(expressed as ppm (parts per million) or 

mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of 

a substance above which it is predicted 

that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are 

not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

Id. at 3. 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. Similarly, the 

document defines AEGL–2 values 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. 

ERPG values are derived for use in 

emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association’s ERP Committee document 

entitled, ERPGS Procedures and 

Responsibilities (http://sp4m.aiha.org/

insideaiha/GuidelineDevelopment/

ERPG/Documents/ERP-SOPs2006.pdf), 

which states that, ‘‘Emergency Response 

Planning Guidelines were developed for 

emergency planning and are intended as 

health based guideline concentrations 

for single exposures to 

chemicals.’’ 10 Id. at 1. The ERPG–1 

value 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 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

one hour without experiencing or 

developing irreversible or other serious 

health effects or symptoms which could 

impair an individual’s ability to take 

protective action.’’ Id. at 1. 

As can be seen from the definitions 

above, the AEGL and ERPG values 

include the similarly-defined severity 

levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a 

severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 

not been developed because the types of 

effects for these chemicals are not 

consistent with the AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

definitions; in these instances, we 

compare higher severity level AEGL–2 

or ERPG–2 values to our modeled 

exposure levels to screen for potential 

acute concerns. When AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

values are available, they are used in 

our acute risk assessments. 

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure 

durations are typically lower than their 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1 values are 

often the same as the corresponding 

ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are 

often equal to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute 

screening risk assessments typically 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37858 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/

field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 

source of these data. 

12The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http://yosemite.epa.

gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525

771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-

unsigned.pdf. 

13U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific 

Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical 

Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 

EPA/600/R–09/061, and available online at http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recor

display.cfm?deid=211003. 

result when basing them on the acute 

REL value for a particular pollutant. In 

cases where our maximum acute HQ 

value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ 

value based on the next highest acute 

dose-response value (usually the AEGL– 

1 and/or the ERPG–1 value). 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures in the absence of hourly 

emissions data, generally we first 

develop estimates of maximum hourly 

emissions rates by multiplying the 

average actual annual hourly emissions 

rates by a default factor to cover 

routinely variable emissions. We choose 

the factor to use partially based on 

process knowledge and engineering 

judgment. The factor chosen also 

reflects a Texas study of short-term 

emissions variability, which showed 

that most peak emission events in a 

heavily-industrialized four-county area 

(Harris, Galveston, Chambers and 

Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than 

twice the annual average hourly 

emissions rate. The highest peak 

emissions event was 74 times the 

annual average hourly emissions rate, 

and the 99th percentile ratio of peak 

hourly emissions rate to the annual 

average hourly emissions rate was 9.11

Considering this analysis, to account for 

more than 99 percent of the peak hourly 

emissions, we apply a conservative 

screening multiplication factor of 10 to 

the average annual hourly emissions 

rate in our acute exposure screening 

assessments as our default approach. 

However, we use a factor other than 10 

if we have information that indicates 

that a different factor is appropriate for 

a particular source category. For this 

source category, there was no such 

information available and the default 

factor of 10 was used in the acute 

screening process. 

As part of our acute risk assessment 

process, for cases where acute HQ 

values from the screening step were less 

than or equal to 1 (even under the 

conservative assumptions of the 

screening analysis), acute impacts were 

deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. In cases where 

an acute HQ from the screening step 

was greater than 1, additional sitespecific data were considered to 

develop a more refined estimate of the 

potential for acute impacts of concern. 

For this source category, there were no 

offsite acute values greater than 1, and 

no refined estimates were developed. 

Ideally, we would prefer to have 

continuous measurements over time to 

see how the emissions vary by each 

hour over an entire year. Having a 

frequency distribution of hourly 

emissions rates over a year would allow 

us to perform a probabilistic analysis to 

estimate potential threshold 

exceedances and their frequency of 

occurrence. Such an evaluation could 

include a more complete statistical 

treatment of the key parameters and 

elements adopted in this screening 

analysis. Recognizing that this level of 

data is rarely available, we instead rely 

on the multiplier approach. 

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

acute exposures to HAP, and in 

response to a key recommendation from 

the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s RTR 

risk assessment methodologies,12 we 

generally examine a wider range of 

available acute health metrics (e.g., 

RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our 

chronic risk assessments. This is in 

response to the SAB’s acknowledgement 

that there are generally more data gaps 

and inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. In some cases, when 

Reference Value Arrays 13 for HAP have 

been developed, we consider additional 

acute values (i.e., occupational and 

international values) to provide a more 

complete risk characterization. 

4. How did we conduct the 

multipathway exposure and risk 

screening? 

The EPA conducted a screening 

analysis examining the potential for 

significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than 

inhalation (i.e., ingestion). Initially, we 

determined whether any sources in the 

source category emitted any hazardous 

air pollutants known to be persistent 

and bioaccumulative in the 

environment (PB–HAP). The PB–HAP 

compounds or compound classes are 

identified for the screening from the 

EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment 

Library (available at http://www.epa.

gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). 

For the OSWRO source category, we 

identified emissions of polycyclic 

organic matter (POM) (analyzed as 

benzo(a)pyrene toxicity equivalence 

factor (TEQ)), polychlorinated 

biphenyls, hexachlorobenzene, 

chlordane, lindane (gamma hch), 

methoxyclor, toxaphene, heptachlor, 

and trifluralin. Because one or more of 

these PB–HAP are emitted by at least 

one facility in the OSWRO source 

category, we proceeded to the next step 

of the evaluation. In this step, we 

determined whether the facility-specific 

emissions rates of the emitted PB–HAP 

were large enough to create the potential 

for significant non-inhalation human 

health risks under reasonable worst-case 

conditions. To facilitate this step, we 

developed emissions rate thresholds for 

several PB–HAP using 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 emissions 

rate thresholds are: Lead, cadmium, 

chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, 

mercury compounds, and polycyclic 

organic matter (POM). We conducted a 

sensitivity analysis on the screening 

scenario to ensure that its key design 

parameters would represent the upper 

end of the range of possible values, such 

that it would represent a conservative 

but not impossible scenario. The 

facility-specific emissions rates of these 

PB–HAP were compared to the emission 

rate threshold values for these PB–HAP 

to assess the potential for significant 

human health risks via non-inhalation 

pathways. We call this application of 

the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier I TRIMscreen or Tier I screen. 

For the purpose of developing 

emissions rates for our Tier I TRIMscreen, we derived emission levels for 

these PB–HAP (other than lead 

compounds) at which the maximum 

excess lifetime cancer risk would be 1- 

in-1 million (i.e., for polychlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) 

or, for HAP that cause non-cancer health 

effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and 

mercury compounds), the maximum 

hazard quotient would be 1. If the 

emissions rate of any PB–HAP included 

in the Tier I screen exceeds the Tier I 

screening emissions rate for any facility, 

we conduct a second screen, which we 

call the Tier II TRIM-screen or Tier II 

screen. In the Tier II screen, the location 

of each facility that exceeded the Tier I 

emission rate is used to refine the 

assumptions associated with the 

environmental scenario while 

maintaining the exposure scenario 

assumptions. We then adjust the riskbased Tier I screening level for each PB– 

HAP for each facility based on an 

understanding of how exposure 

concentrations estimated for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37859 

14The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable 

measure of determining whether there is an adverse 

environmental effect since it was established 

considering ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, 

vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, 

weather, visibility and climate, damage to and 

deterioration of property, and hazards to 

transportation, as well as effects on economic 

values and on personal comfort and well-being.’’ 73 

FR 66964, November 12, 2008. 

screening scenario change with 

meteorology and environmental 

assumptions. PB–HAP emissions that do 

not exceed these new Tier II screening 

levels are considered to pose no 

unacceptable risks. When facilities 

exceed the Tier II screening levels, it 

does not mean that multipathway 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility based on 

the results of the screen. These facilities 

may be further evaluated for 

multipathway risks using the 

TRIM.FaTE model. 

For further information on the 

multipathway analysis approach, see 

the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Off-Site Waste and Recovery 

Operations Source Category, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

5. How did we assess risks considering 

emissions control options? 

In addition to assessing baseline 

inhalation risks and screening for 

potential multipathway risks, we also 

estimated risks considering the potential 

emission reductions that would be 

achieved by the control options under 

consideration. In these cases, the 

expected emission reductions were 

applied to the specific HAP and 

emission points in the RTR emissions 

dataset to develop corresponding 

estimates of risk and incremental risk 

reductions. 

6. How did we conduct the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment? 

a. Adverse Environmental Effect 

The EPA has developed a screening 

approach to examine the potential for 

adverse environmental effects 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.’’ 

b. Environmental HAP 

The EPA focuses on seven HAP, 

which we refer to as ‘‘environmental 

HAP,’’ in its screening analysis: Five 

persistent bioaccumulative HAP (PB– 

HAP) and two acid gases. The five PB– 

HAP are cadmium, dioxins/furans, 

polycyclic organic matter (POM), 

mercury (both inorganic mercury and 

methyl mercury) and lead compounds. 

The two acid gases are hydrogen 

chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride 

(HF). The rationale for including these 

seven HAP in the environmental risk 

screening analysis is presented below. 

HAP that persist and bioaccumulate 

are of particular environmental concern 

because they accumulate in the soil, 

sediment and water. The PB–HAP are 

taken up, through sediment, soil, water, 

and/or ingestion of other organisms, by 

plants or animals (e.g., small fish) at the 

bottom of the food chain. As larger and 

larger predators consume these 

organisms, concentrations of the PB– 

HAP in the animal tissues increases as 

does the potential for adverse effects. 

The five PB–HAP we evaluate as part of 

our screening analysis account for 99.8 

percent of all PB–HAP emissions 

nationally from stationary sources (on a 

mass basis from the 2005 NEI). 

In addition to accounting for almost 

all of the mass of PB–HAP emitted, we 

note that the TRIM.Fate model that we 

use to evaluate multipathway risk 

allows us to estimate concentrations of 

cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, 

POM and mercury in soil, sediment and 

water. For lead compounds, we 

currently do not have the ability to 

calculate these concentrations using the 

TRIM.Fate model. Therefore, to evaluate 

the potential for adverse environmental 

effects from lead compounds, we 

compare the estimated HEM-modeled 

exposures from the source category 

emissions of lead with the level of the 

secondary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) for lead.14 We 

consider values below the level of the 

secondary lead NAAQS to be unlikely to 

cause adverse environmental effects. 

Due to their well-documented 

potential to cause direct damage to 

terrestrial plants, we include two acid 

gases, HCl and HF, in the environmental 

screening analysis. According to the 

2005 NEI, HCl and HF account for about 

99 percent (on a mass basis) of the total 

acid gas HAP emitted by stationary 

sources in the U.S. In addition to the 

potential to cause direct damage to 

plants, high concentrations of HF in the 

air have been linked to fluorosis in 

livestock. Air concentrations of these 

HAP are already calculated as part of 

the human multipathway exposure and 

risk screening analysis using the HEM3– 

AERMOD air dispersion model, and we 

are able to use the air dispersion 

modeling results to estimate the 

potential for an adverse environmental 

effect. 

The EPA acknowledges that other 

HAP beyond the seven HAP discussed 

above may have the potential to cause 

adverse environmental effects. 

Therefore, the EPA may include other 

relevant HAP in its environmental risk 

screening in the future, as modeling 

science and resources allow. The EPA 

invites comment on the extent to which 

other HAP emitted by the source 

category may cause adverse 

environmental effects. Such information 

should include references to peerreviewed ecological effects benchmarks 

that are of sufficient quality for making 

regulatory decisions, as well as 

information on the presence of 

organisms located near facilities within 

the source category that such 

benchmarks indicate could be adversely 

affected. 

c. Ecological Assessment Endpoints and 

Benchmarks for PB–HAP 

An important consideration in the 

development of the EPA’s screening 

methodology is the selection of 

ecological assessment endpoints and 

benchmarks. Ecological assessment 

endpoints are defined by the ecological 

entity (e.g., aquatic communities 

including fish and plankton) and its 

attributes (e.g., frequency of mortality). 

Ecological assessment endpoints can be 

established for organisms, populations, 

communities or assemblages, and 

ecosystems. 

For PB–HAP (other than lead 

compounds), we evaluated the 

following community-level ecological 

assessment endpoints to screen for 

organisms directly exposed to HAP in 

soils, sediment and water: 

• Local terrestrial communities (i.e., 

soil invertebrates, plants) and 

populations of small birds and 

mammals that consume soil 

invertebrates exposed to PB–HAP in the 

surface soil. 

• Local benthic (i.e., bottom sediment 

dwelling insects, amphipods, isopods 

and crayfish) communities exposed to 

PB–HAP in sediment in nearby water 

bodies. 

• Local aquatic (water-column) 

communities (including fish and 

plankton) exposed to PB–HAP in nearby 

surface waters. 

For PB–HAP (other than lead 

compounds), we also evaluated the 

following population-level ecological 

assessment endpoint to screen for 

indirect HAP exposures of top 

consumers via the bioaccumulation of 

HAP in food chains: 

• Piscivorous (i.e., fish-eating) 

wildlife consuming PB–HAP– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37860 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

contaminated fish from nearby water 

bodies. 

For cadmium compounds, dioxins/

furans, POM and mercury, we identified 

the available ecological benchmarks for 

each assessment endpoint. An 

ecological benchmark represents a 

concentration of HAP (e.g., 0.77 ug of 

HAP per liter of water) that has been 

linked to a particular environmental 

effect level (e.g., a no-observed-adverseeffect level (NOAEL)) through scientific 

study. For PB–HAP, we identified, 

where possible, ecological benchmarks 

at the following effect levels: 

Probable effect levels (PEL): Level 

above which adverse effects are 

expected to occur frequently. 

Lowest-observed-adverse-effect level 

(LOAEL): The lowest exposure level 

tested at which there are biologically 

significant increases in frequency or 

severity of adverse effects. 

No-observed-adverse-effect levels 

(NOAEL): The highest exposure level 

tested at which there are no biologically 

significant increases in the frequency or 

severity of adverse effect. 

We established a hierarchy of 

preferred benchmark sources to allow 

selection of benchmarks for each 

environmental HAP at each ecological 

assessment endpoint. In general, the 

EPA sources that are used at a 

programmatic level (e.g., Office of 

Water, Superfund Program) were used, 

if available. If not, the EPA benchmarks 

used in regional programs (e.g., 

Superfund) were used. If benchmarks 

were not available at a programmatic or 

regional level, we used benchmarks 

developed by other federal agencies 

(e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Organization (NOAA)) or state agencies. 

Benchmarks for all effect levels are 

not available for all PB–HAP and 

assessment endpoints. 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. 

d. Ecological Assessment Endpoints and 

Benchmarks for Acid Gases 

The environmental screening analysis 

also evaluated potential damage and 

reduced productivity of plants due to 

direct exposure to acid gases in the air. 

For acid gases, we evaluated the 

following ecological assessment 

endpoint: 

• Local terrestrial plant communities 

with foliage exposed to acidic gaseous 

HAP in the air. 

The selection of ecological 

benchmarks for the effects of acid gases 

on plants followed the same approach 

as for PB–HAP (i.e., we examine all of 

the available chronic benchmarks). For 

HCl, the EPA identified chronic 

benchmark concentrations. We note that 

the benchmark for chronic HCl exposure 

to plants is greater than the reference 

concentration for chronic inhalation 

exposure for human health. This means 

that where the EPA includes regulatory 

requirements to prevent an exceedance 

of the reference concentration for 

human health, additional analyses for 

adverse environmental effects of HCL 

would not be necessary. 

For HF, the EPA identified chronic 

benchmark concentrations for plants 

and evaluated chronic exposures to 

plants in the screening analysis. High 

concentrations of HF in the air have also 

been linked to fluorosis in livestock. 

However, the HF concentrations at 

which fluorosis in livestock occur are 

higher than those at which plant 

damage begins. Therefore, the 

benchmarks for plants are protective of 

both plants and livestock. 

e. Screening Methodology 

For the environmental risk screening 

analysis, the EPA first determined 

whether any facilities in the OSWRO 

source category emitted any of the seven 

environmental HAP. For the OSWRO 

source category, we identified emissions 

of POM, HCl and HF. 

Because one or more of the seven 

environmental HAP evaluated are 

emitted by at least one facility in the 

source category, we proceeded to the 

second step of the evaluation. 

f. PB–HAP Methodology 

For cadmium, mercury, POM and 

dioxins/furans, the environmental 

screening analysis consists of two tiers, 

while lead compounds are analyzed 

differently as discussed earlier. In the 

first tier, we determined whether the 

maximum facility-specific emission 

rates of each of the emitted 

environmental HAP were large enough 

to create the potential for adverse 

environmental effects under reasonable 

worst-case environmental conditions. 

These are the same environmental 

conditions used in the human 

multipathway exposure and risk 

screening analysis. 

To facilitate this step, TRIM.FaTE was 

run for each PB–HAP under 

hypothetical environmental conditions 

designed to provide conservatively high 

HAP concentrations. The model was set 

to maximize runoff from terrestrial 

parcels into the modeled lake, which in 

turn, maximized the chemical 

concentrations in the water, the 

sediments, and the fish. The resulting 

media concentrations were then used to 

back-calculate a screening threshold 

emission rate that corresponded to the 

relevant exposure benchmark 

concentration value for each assessment 

endpoint. To assess emissions from a 

facility, the reported emission rate for 

each PB–HAP was compared to the 

screening threshold emission rate for 

that PB–HAP for each assessment 

endpoint. If emissions from a facility do 

not exceed the Tier I threshold, the 

facility ‘‘passes’’ the screen, and 

therefore, is not evaluated further under 

the screening approach. If emissions 

from a facility exceed the Tier I 

threshold, we evaluate the facility 

further in Tier II. 

In Tier II of the environmental 

screening analysis, the screening 

emission thresholds are adjusted to 

account for local meteorology and the 

actual location of lakes in the vicinity of 

facilities that did not pass the Tier I 

screen. The modeling domain for each 

facility in the Tier II analysis consists of 

eight octants. Each octant contains 5 

modeled soil concentrations at various 

distances from the facility (5 soil 

concentrations × 8 octants = total of 40 

soil concentrations per facility) and 1 

lake with modeled concentrations for 

water, sediment and fish tissue. In the 

Tier II environmental risk screening 

analysis, the 40 soil concentration 

points are averaged to obtain an average 

soil concentration for each facility for 

each 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 II threshold, the facility 

passes the screen, and typically is not 

evaluated further. If emissions from a 

facility exceed the Tier II threshold, the 

facility does not pass the screen and, 

therefore, may have the potential to 

cause adverse environmental effects. 

Such facilities are evaluated further to 

investigate factors such as the 

magnitude and characteristics of the 

area of exceedance. 

g. Acid Gas Methodology 

The environmental screening analysis 

evaluates the potential phytotoxicity 

and reduced productivity of plants due 

to chronic exposure to acid gases. The 

environmental risk screening 

methodology for acid gases is a singletier screen that compares the average 

off-site ambient air concentration over 

the modeling domain to ecological 

benchmarks for each of the acid gases. 

Because air concentrations are 

compared directly to the ecological 

benchmarks, emission-based thresholds 

are not calculated for acid gases as they 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37861 

15Short-term mobility is movement from one 

micro-environment to another over the course of 

hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 

from one residence to another over the course of a 

lifetime. 

are in the ecological risk screening 

methodology for PB–HAPs. 

For purposes of ecological risk 

screening, the EPA identifies a potential 

for adverse environmental effects to 

plant communities from exposure to 

acid gases when the average 

concentration of the HAP around a 

facility exceeds the LOAEL ecological 

benchmark. In such cases, we further 

investigate factors such as the 

magnitude and characteristics of the 

area of exceedance (e.g., land use of 

exceedance area, size of exceedance 

area) to determine if there is an adverse 

environmental effect. 

For further information on the 

environmental screening analysis 

approach, see the Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations Source Category, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

7. How did 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. The 

emissions data for estimating these 

‘‘facility-wide’’ risks were obtained from 

the 2005 NEI (available at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005). We 

analyzed risks due to the inhalation of 

HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for 

the populations residing within 50 km 

of each facility, consistent with the 

methods used for the source category 

analysis described above. For these 

facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled 

source category risks were compared to 

the facility-wide risks to determine the 

portion of facility-wide risks that could 

be attributed to the source category 

addressed in this proposal. We 

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 Draft Residual 

Risk Assessment for the Off-Site Waste 

and Recovery Operations Source 

Category 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. 

8. How did we consider uncertainties in 

risk assessment? 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we 

concluded that risk estimation 

uncertainty should be considered in our 

decision-making under the ample 

margin of safety framework. 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 protective 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. A more thorough discussion of 

these uncertainties is included in the 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

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 estimated 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. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The EPA did not include the effects 

of human mobility on exposures in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.15 The 

approach of not considering short or 

long-term population mobility does not 

bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR 

(by definition), nor does it affect the 

estimate of cancer incidence because the 

total population number remains the 

same. It does, however, affect the shape 

of the distribution of individual risks 

across the affected population, shifting 

it toward higher estimated individual 

risks at the upper end and reducing the 

number of people estimated to be at 

lower risks, thereby increasing the 

estimated number of people at specific 

high risk levels (e.g., 1-in-10 thousand 

or 1-in-1 million). 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. We reduce 

this uncertainty by analyzing large 

census blocks near facilities using aerial 

imagery and adjusting the location of 

the block centroid to better represent the 

population in the block, as well as 

adding additional receptor locations 

where the block population is not well 

represented by a single location. 

The assessment evaluates the cancer 

inhalation risks associated with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37862 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85.) 

17 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/

help_gloss.htm). 

18An 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. 

19According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) 

‘‘[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, 

that are applied to various elements of the risk 

assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC 

report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process, defined default option as 

‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

absence of data to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). 

Therefore, default options are not rules that bind 

the Agency; rather, the Agency may depart from 

them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific 

substance when it believes this to be appropriate. 

In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting public 

health and the environment, default assumptions 

are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not 

underestimated (although defaults are not intended 

to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An 

Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles 

and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

pollutant exposures over a 70-year 

period, which is the assumed lifetime of 

an individual. In reality, both the length 

of time that modeled emission sources 

at facilities actually operate (i.e., more 

or less than 70 years) and the domestic 

growth or decline of the modeled 

industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in 

the number or size of domestic 

facilities) will influence the future risks 

posed by a given source or source 

category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these 

factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk 

levels and in the total estimated number 

of cancer cases. However, in the 

unlikely scenario where a facility 

maintains, or even increases, its 

emissions levels over a period of more 

than 70 years, residents live beyond 70 

years at the same location, and the 

residents spend most of their days at 

that location, then the cancer inhalation 

risks could potentially be 

underestimated. However, annual 

cancer incidence estimates from 

exposures to emissions from these 

sources would not be affected by the 

length of time an emissions source 

operates. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient (outdoor) levels of pollutants. 

Because most people spend the majority 

of their time indoors, actual exposures 

may not be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, indoor levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overestimate of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures.16

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that should be highlighted. 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of 

independent factors that may vary 

greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology and human activity 

patterns. In this assessment, we assume 

that individuals remain for 1 hour at the 

point of maximum ambient 

concentration as determined by the cooccurrence of peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions. These 

assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures as it is unlikely 

that a person would be located at the 

point of maximum exposure when peak 

emissions and worst-case 

meteorological conditions occur 

simultaneously. 

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 non-cancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; 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’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the 

approach followed here as summarized 

in the next several paragraphs. A 

complete detailed discussion of 

uncertainties and variability in doseresponse relationships is given in the 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. 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).17 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.18 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate health 

protection, the EPA typically uses the 

upper bound estimates rather than 

lower bound or central tendency 

estimates in our risk assessments, an 

approach that may have limitations for 

other uses (e.g., priority-setting or 

expected benefits analysis). 

Chronic non-cancer RfC and reference 

dose (RfD) values represent chronic 

exposure levels that are intended to be 

health-protective levels. Specifically, 

these values provide an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral 

exposure (RfD) to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 

To derive values that are intended to be 

‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the 

methodology relies upon an uncertainty 

factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 

1994) which considers uncertainty, 

variability and gaps in the available 

data. The UF are applied to derive 

reference values that are intended to 

protect against appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects. The UF are 

commonly default values,19 e.g., factors 

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of 

compound-specific data; where data are 

available, UF may also be developed 

using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater 

tendency to overestimate risk in the 

sense that further study might support 

development of reference values that are 

higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer 

default assumptions are needed. 

However, for some pollutants, it is 

possible that risks may be 

underestimated. 

While collectively termed ‘‘UF,’’ these 

factors account for a number of different 

quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or 

human toxicity data in the development 

of the RfC. The UF are intended to 

account for: (1) Variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the 

human population (i.e., inter-individual 

variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal 

data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37863 

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. 

differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a 

study with less-than-lifetime exposure 

(i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in 

extrapolating the observed data to 

obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is 

incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. 

Many of the UF used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values 

are quite similar to those developed for 

chronic durations, but they more often 

use individual UF values that may be 

less than 10. The UF are applied based 

on chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

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 reference value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute reference 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 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of shortterm dose-response values at different 

levels of severity should be factored into 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to 

identify appropriate human health effect 

dose-response assessment values for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources in this 

risk assessment, some HAP emitted by 

this source category are lacking doseresponse assessments. Accordingly, 

these pollutants cannot be included in 

the quantitative risk assessment, which 

could result in quantitative estimates 

understating HAP risk. To help to 

alleviate this potential underestimate, 

where we conclude similarity with a 

HAP for which a dose-response 

assessment 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 new IRIS assessment of 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 with regard to 

consideration of HAP reductions 

achieved by various control options. 

For a group of compounds that are not 

speciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we 

conservatively use the most protective 

reference 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 reference value, we also 

apply the most protective reference 

value from the other compounds in the 

group to estimate risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

Assessment 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

PB–HAP emissions to determine 

whether a refined assessment of the 

impacts from multipathway exposures 

is necessary. This determination is 

based on the results of a two-tiered 

screening analysis that relies on the 

outputs from models that estimate 

environmental pollutant concentrations 

and human exposures for four PB–HAP. 

Two important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR risk assessments and inherent to 

any assessment that relies on 

environmental modeling are model 

uncertainty and input uncertainty.20

Model uncertainty concerns whether 

the selected models are appropriate for 

the assessment being conducted and 

whether they adequately represent the 

actual processes that might occur for 

that situation. An example of model 

uncertainty is the question of whether 

the model adequately describes the 

movement of a pollutant through the 

soil. This type of uncertainty is difficult 

to quantify. However, based on feedback 

received from previous EPA Science 

Advisory Board reviews and other 

reviews, we are confident that the 

models used in the screen are 

appropriate and state-of-the-art for the 

multipathway 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 I of the 

multipathway screen, we configured the 

models to avoid underestimating 

exposure and risk. This was 

accomplished by selecting upper-end 

values from nationally-representative 

data sets 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 and 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 II of the multipathway 

assessment, 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 I. By 

refining the screening approach in Tier 

II 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 

screen. The assumptions and the 

associated uncertainties regarding the 

selected ingestion exposure scenario are 

the same for Tier I and Tier II. 

For both Tiers I and II of the 

multipathway assessment, 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 

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 not screen out, 

it does not mean that multipathway 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility and that 

a refined multipathway analysis for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37864 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

21 In the context of this discussion, the term 

‘‘uncertainty,’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk 

assessment, 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. 

site might be necessary to obtain a more 

accurate risk characterization for the 

source category. 

For further information on 

uncertainties and the Tier I and II 

screening methods, refer to the risk 

document Appendix 4, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for TRIM-Based 

Multipathway Tiered Screening 

Methodology for RTR.’’ 

f. Uncertainties in the Environmental 

Risk Screening Assessment 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

environmental HAP emissions to 

perform an environmental screening 

assessment. The environmental 

screening assessment is based on the 

outputs from models that estimate 

environmental HAP concentrations. The 

same models, specifically the 

TRIM.FaTE multipathway model and 

the AERMOD air dispersion model, are 

used to estimate environmental HAP 

concentrations for both the human 

multipathway screening analysis and for 

the environmental screening analysis. 

Therefore, both screening assessments 

have similar modeling uncertainties. 

Two important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR environmental screening 

assessments—and inherent to any 

assessment that relies on environmental 

modeling—are model uncertainty and 

input uncertainty.21

Model uncertainty concerns whether 

the selected models are appropriate for 

the assessment being conducted and 

whether they adequately represent the 

movement and accumulation of 

environmental HAP emissions 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 Science 

Advisory Board reviews and other 

reviews, we are confident that the 

models used in the screen are 

appropriate and state-of-the-art for the 

environmental risk assessments 

conducted in support of our RTR 

analyses. 

Input uncertainty is concerned with 

how accurately the models have been 

configured and parameterized for the 

assessment at hand. For Tier I of the 

environmental screen for PB–HAP, we 

configured the models to avoid 

underestimating exposure and risk to 

reduce the likelihood that the results 

indicate the risks are lower than they 

actually are. This was accomplished by 

selecting upper-end values from 

nationally-representative data sets for 

the more influential parameters in the 

environmental model, including 

selection and spatial configuration of 

the area of interest, the location and size 

of any bodies of water, meteorology, 

surface water and soil characteristics 

and structure of the aquatic food web. 

In Tier I, we used the maximum facilityspecific emissions for the PB–HAP 

(other than lead compounds, which 

were evaluated by comparison to the 

secondary lead NAAQS) that were 

included in the environmental 

screening assessment and each of the 

media when comparing to ecological 

benchmarks. This is consistent with the 

conservative design of Tier I of the 

screen. In Tier II of the environmental 

screening analysis for PB–HAP, 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 

locations of water bodies near the 

facility location. By refining the 

screening approach in Tier II 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 

screen. To better represent widespread 

impacts, the modeled soil 

concentrations are averaged in Tier II to 

obtain one average soil concentration 

value for each facility and for each PB– 

HAP. For PB–HAP concentrations in 

water, sediment and fish tissue, the 

highest value for each facility for each 

pollutant is used. 

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 both Tiers I and II of the 

environmental screening assessment, 

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 potential 

risks for adverse environmental impacts. 

Uncertainty also exists in the 

ecological benchmarks for the 

environmental risk screening analysis. 

We established a hierarchy of preferred 

benchmark sources to allow selection of 

benchmarks for each environmental 

HAP at each ecological assessment 

endpoint. In general, EPA benchmarks 

used at a programmatic level (e.g., 

Office of Water, Superfund Program) 

were used if available. If not, we used 

EPA benchmarks used in regional 

programs (e.g., Superfund Program). If 

benchmarks were not available at a 

programmatic or regional level, we used 

benchmarks developed by other 

agencies (e.g., NOAA) or by state 

agencies. 

In all cases (except for lead 

compounds, which were evaluated 

through a comparison to the NAAQS), 

we searched for benchmarks at the 

following three effect levels, as 

described in section III.A.6 of this 

preamble: 

1. A no-effect level (i.e., NOAEL). 

2. Threshold-effect level (i.e., 

LOAEL). 

3. Probable effect level (i.e., PEL). 

For some ecological assessment 

endpoint/environmental HAP 

combinations, we could identify 

benchmarks for all three effect levels, 

but for most, we could not. In one case, 

where different agencies derived 

significantly different numbers to 

represent a threshold for effect, we 

included both. In several cases, only a 

single benchmark was available. In 

cases where multiple effect levels were 

available for a particular PB–HAP and 

assessment endpoint, we used all of the 

available effect levels to help us to 

determine whether risk exists and if the 

risks could be considered significant 

and widespread. 

The EPA evaluated the following 

seven HAP in the environmental risk 

screening assessment: cadmium, 

dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both 

inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), 

lead compounds, HCl and HF. These 

seven HAP represent pollutants that can 

cause adverse impacts for plants and 

animals either through direct exposure 

to HAP in the air or through exposure 

to HAP that is deposited from the air 

onto soils and surface waters. These 

seven HAP also represent those HAP for 

which we can conduct a meaningful 

environmental risk screening 

assessment. For other HAP not included 

in our screening assessment, 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 

the seven HAP that we are evaluating 

may have the potential to cause adverse 

environmental effects and, therefore, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37865 

22Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in 

the future, as modeling science and 

resources allow. 

Further information on uncertainties 

and the Tier I and II environmental 

screening methods is provided in 

Appendix 5 of the document ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for TRIM-Based 

Multipathway Tiered Screening 

Methodology for RTR: Summary of 

Approach and Evaluation.’’ Also, see 

the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

the Off-Site Waste and Recovery 

Operations Source Category, available 

in the docket for this action. 

B. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this proposal? 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

preamble, in evaluating and developing 

standards under section 112(f)(2), we 

apply a two-step process to address 

residual risk. 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) 22 of approximately 

[1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 

million].’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 

1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA 

must determine the emissions standards 

necessary to bring risks to an acceptable 

level without considering costs. In the 

second step of the process, the EPA 

considers whether the emissions 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety ‘‘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 tighter emission 

standards if necessary to provide an 

ample margin of safety. 

In past residual risk actions, the EPA 

considered a number of human health 

risk metrics associated with emissions 

from the categories under review, 

including the MIR, the number of 

persons in various risk ranges, cancer 

incidence, the maximum non-cancer HI 

and the maximum acute non-cancer 

hazard. See, e.g., 72 FR 25138, May 3, 

2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 2006. The 

EPA considered this health information 

for both actual and MACT-allowable 

emissions. See, e.g., 75 FR 65068, 

October 21, 2010; 75 FR 80220, 

December 21, 2010; 76 FR 29032, May 

19, 2011. The EPA also discussed risk 

estimation uncertainties and considered 

the uncertainties in the determination of 

acceptable risk and ample margin of 

safety in these past actions. The EPA 

considered this same type of 

information in support of this action. 

The agency is considering these 

various measures of health information 

to inform our determinations of risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

under CAA section 112(f). 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 [previous] 

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. In responding to comment on 

our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA explained that: 

‘‘[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 [her] 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 [her] judgment, believes are 

appropriate to determining what will ‘protect 

the public health’.’’ 

See 54 FR at 38057, September 14, 1989. 

Thus, the level of the MIR is only one 

factor to be weighed in determining 

acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of 

approximately one in 10 thousand 

should ordinarily be the upper end of 

the range of acceptability. As risks 

increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable 

under CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the Agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated 

in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA 

believes the relative weight of the many 

factors that can be considered in 

selecting an ample margin of safety can 

only be determined for each specific 

source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related 

factors) vary from source category to 

source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also 

consider the uncertainties associated 

with the various risk analyses, as 

discussed earlier in this preamble, in 

our determinations of acceptability and 

ample margin of safety. 

The EPA notes that it has not 

considered certain health information to 

date in making residual risk 

determinations. At this time, we do not 

attempt to quantify those HAP risks that 

may be associated with emissions from 

other facilities that do not include the 

source categories in question, mobile 

source emissions, natural source 

emissions, persistent environmental 

pollution or atmospheric transformation 

in the vicinity of the sources in these 

categories. 

The agency 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 non-cancer 

risks, where pollutant-specific exposure 

health reference levels (e.g., RfCs) are 

based on the assumption that thresholds 

exist for adverse health effects. For 

example, the agency recognizes that, 

although exposures attributable to 

emissions from a source category or 

facility alone may not indicate the 

potential for increased risk of adverse 

non-cancer 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 increased risk of 

adverse non-cancer health effects. In 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37866 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23EPA’s responses to this and all other key 

recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR 

risk assessment methodologies (which is available 

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memo 

in this proposed rule docket from David Guinnup 

entitled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the Key 

Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk 

Assessment Methodologies. 

May 2010, the 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.’’ 23

In response to the SAB 

recommendations, the EPA is 

incorporating cumulative risk analyses 

into its RTR risk assessments, including 

those reflected in this proposal. The 

agency is: (1) Conducting facility-wide 

assessments, which include source 

category emission points as well as 

other emission points within the 

facilities; (2) considering sources in the 

same category whose emissions result in 

exposures to the same individuals; and 

(3) for some persistent and 

bioaccumlative pollutants, analyzing the 

ingestion route of exposure. In addition, 

the RTR risk assessments have always 

considered aggregate cancer risk from 

all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer hazard indices from all noncarcinogens affecting the same target 

organ system. 

Although we are interested in placing 

source category and facility-wide HAP 

risks in the context of total HAP risks 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. Because of the contribution to 

total HAP risk from emission sources 

other than those that we have studied in 

depth during this RTR review (i.e., those 

sources located at facilities within the 

source category), such estimates of total 

HAP risks 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. 

C. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review focused on the 

identification and evaluation of 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the MACT standards 

were promulgated. Where we identified 

such developments, in order to inform 

our decision of whether it is 

‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions 

standards, we analyzed the technical 

feasibility of applying these 

developments, and the estimated costs, 

energy implications, non-air 

environmental impacts, as well as 

considering the emission reductions. 

We also considered the appropriateness 

of applying controls to new sources 

versus retrofitting existing sources. 

Based on our analyses of the available 

data and information, we identified 

potential developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies. For 

this exercise, we considered 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. 

• 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). 

We reviewed a variety of data sources 

in our investigation of potential 

practices, processes or controls to 

consider. Among the sources we 

reviewed were the NESHAP for various 

industries that were promulgated since 

the MACT standards reviewed in this 

action. We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses 

associated with these regulatory actions 

to identify any practices, processes and 

control technologies considered in these 

efforts that could be applied to emission 

sources in the OSWRO source category, 

as well as the costs, non-air impacts and 

energy implications associated with the 

use of these technologies. Additionally, 

we requested information from facilities 

regarding developments in practices, 

processes or control technology. Finally, 

we reviewed information from other 

sources, such as state and/or local 

permitting agency databases and 

industry-supported databases. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

This section of the preamble provides 

the results of our RTR for the OSWRO 

source category and our proposed 

decisions concerning changes to the 

OSWRO NESHAP. 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses? 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 2 of this preamble provides a 

summary of the results of the inhalation 

risk assessment for the source category. 

TABLE 2—OFF-SITE WASTE AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Maximum individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) a

Estimated population 

at increased 

risk levels of cancer 

Estimated 

annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic non-cancer 

TOSHI b Maximum 

screening 

acute Actual non-cancer HQ d

emissions 

level 

MACTallowable 

emissions 

level c

Actual 

emissions 

level 

MACTallowable 

emissions 

level 

9 .................................... 20 ≥ 1-in-1 million: 210,000 ....

≥ 10-in-1 million: 0 .............

0.02 0.6 1 HQREL = 1 (glycol 

ethers) 

aEstimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category. 

b Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the OSWRO source category for both actual and MACT-allowable emissions 

is the respiratory system. cThe development of allowable emission estimates can be found in the memo entitled MACT-Allowable Emissions for the Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations Source Category, which is available in the docket for this action. dThe maximum off-site acute value of 1 for actuals is driven by emissions of glycol ethers. See Section III.A.E for an explanation of acute 

dose-response values. Acute assessments are not performed with MACT-allowable emissions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37867 

The inhalation risk modeling 

performed to estimate risks based on 

actual and MACT-allowable emissions 

relied primarily on data from the CAA 

section 114 questionnaire responses and 

the NEI. The results of the chronic 

inhalation cancer risk assessment 

indicate that, based on estimates of 

current actual emissions, the maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risk posed by 

the OSWRO source category is 9-in-1 

million, with emissions of benzidine 

and 2,4-toluene diamine accounting for 

the majority of the risk. The total 

estimated cancer incidence from the 

OSWRO source category based on the 

actual emissions levels is 0.02 excess 

cancer cases per year, or one case every 

50 years, with emissions of benzidine 

and 2,4-toluene diamine contributing to 

the majority of the incidence. In 

addition, we note that approximately 

210,000 people are estimated to have 

cancer risks greater than or equal to 1- 

in-1 million as a result of actual 

emissions from this source category. 

When considering MACT-allowable 

emissions, the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk is estimated to be up 

to 20-in-1 million, driven by emissions 

of benzidine and 2,4-toluene diamine. 

Due to the way MACT-allowable risks 

were calculated, estimates of population 

exposure and cancer incidence are not 

available, but would be greater than 

those estimates presented based on 

actual emissions. However, since the 

MIR based on MACT-allowable 

emissions is 20-in-1 million, there are 

no people exposed to cancer risks 

greater than 100-in-1 million. 

The maximum modeled chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the OSWRO 

source category based on actual 

emissions was estimated to be 0.6, with 

emissions of chlorine contributing to the 

majority of the TOSHI. There are no 

people estimated to have exposure to 

TOSHI levels greater than 1 as a result 

of actual emissions from this source 

category. When considering MACTallowable emissions, the maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value was 

estimated to be up to 1, driven by 

emissions of chlorine. There are no 

people estimated to have exposure to 

TOSHI levels greater than 1 as a result 

of emissions at the MACT-allowable 

levels from this source category. 

Our screening analysis for worst-case 

acute impacts based on actual emissions 

indicates that an HQ value of 1 is not 

exceeded for any pollutants at any 

facility, indicating that the HAP 

emissions are believed to be without 

appreciable risk of acute health effects. 

In characterizing the potential for acute 

non-cancer risks of concern, it is 

important to remember the upward bias 

of these exposure estimates (e.g., worstcase meteorology coinciding with a 

person located at the point of maximum 

concentration during the hour) and to 

consider the results along with the 

conservative estimates used to develop 

peak hourly emissions as described 

earlier. Refer to Appendix 6 of the Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the OffSite Waste and Recovery Operations 

Source Category in the docket for this 

action for the detailed acute risk results. 

2. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

Multiple facilities reported emissions 

of PB–HAP, including 2- 

acetylaminofluorene (a POM 

compound), heptachlor, and trifluralin. 

Only one facility reported emissions of 

a PB–HAP that has an available RTR 

multipathway screening value: 2- 

acetylaminofluorene, a polycylic 

organic matter (POM) compound that 

was analyzed as benzo(a)pyrene TEQ. 

Reported emissions of the POM 2- 

acetylaminofluorene are below the 

multipathway screening level for this 

compound, indicating low potential for 

multipathway risks as a result of 

emissions of this PB–HAP. The 

remaining PB–HAP do not currently 

have RTR multipathway screening 

values, and they were not evaluated for 

potential non-inhalation risks. These 

HAP, however, are not emitted in 

appreciable quantities from OSWRO 

facilities. (For more information on PB– 

HAP emitted from this source category, 

please see the Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations Source Category 

document available in the docket for 

this action.) 

3. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

As described in section III.A.5, we 

conducted an environmental risk 

screening assessment for the OSWRO 

source category. Emissions of three 

environmental HAP were reported by 

OSWRO facilities: POM, hydrogen 

chloride and hydrogen fluoride. For 

POM, none of the individual modeled 

concentrations for any facility in the 

source category exceeded any of the 

ecological benchmarks (either the 

LOAEL or NOAEL). For the acid gases 

HCl and HF, the average modeled 

concentration of these chemicals around 

each facility (i.e., the average 

concentration of all off-facility-site data 

points in the modeling domain) did not 

exceed any ecological benchmarks. In 

addition, each individual modeled 

concentration of hydrogen chloride and 

hydrogen fluoride (i.e., each off-facilitysite data point in the modeling domain) 

was below the ecological benchmarks 

for all facilities. 

4. Facility-wide Inhalation Risk 

Assessment Results 

Table 3 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment is based on actual emission 

levels. For detailed facility-specific 

results, see Appendix 5 of the Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for the OffSite Waste and Recovery Operations 

Source Category in the docket for this 

proposed rule. 

TABLE 3—OFF-SITE WASTE AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ................................................................................... 200 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more ...................................... 1 

Number of facilities at which the OSWRO source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual 

cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more ............................................................................................................................. 0 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more .......................................... 17 

Number of facilities at which the OSWRO source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual 

cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more ................................................................................................................................... 7 

Chronic Non-cancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI ................................................................................................................ 4 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum non-cancer TOSHI greater than 1 ............................................................. 2 

Number of facilities at which the OSWRO source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum 

non-cancer TOSHI of 1 or more ......................................................................................................................................... 0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37868 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

The facility-wide MIR and TOSHI are 

based on actual emissions from all 

emissions sources at the identified 

OSWRO facilities. The results indicate 

that 17 facilities have a facility-wide 

cancer MIR greater than or equal to 1- 

in-1 million and one facility has a 

facility-wide cancer MIR greater than or 

equal to 100-in-1 million. The 

maximum facility-wide MIR is 200-in-1 

million due to emissions of beryllium 

compounds from the cement 

manufacturing processes at the facility 

site, with emission points from the 

OSWRO production source category 

contributing less than 1 percent of the 

maximum facility-wide risk. The results 

indicate that two facilities have a 

facility-wide non-cancer TOSHI greater 

than or equal to 1. The maximum 

facility-wide TOSHI is 4, and this 

TOSHI occurs at two facilities. At one 

of these facilities, the TOSHI is driven 

mainly by emissions of beryllium 

compounds from the same cement 

manufacturing processes mentioned 

above. The TOSHI at the other facility 

is driven mainly by emissions of 

chlorine from industrial inorganic 

chemical manufacturing processes and 

synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing processes at the facility 

site. In each instance, the OSWRO 

production source category contributes 

less than 1 percent to the facility-wide 

TOSHI. The focus of this analysis is the 

OSWRO source category and its low 

relative contribution to facility-wide 

risk. The maximum facility-wide MIR 

and TOSHI values presented here are 

the result of a screening analysis for the 

other source categories located at 

common facility sites. The screening 

analysis requires further refinement and 

takes place during the RTR review for 

those source categories. We anticipate 

reductions of HAP from the cement 

manufacturing processes due to the 

implementation of the recently 

promulgated MACT standard, with a 

compliance date of September 9, 2015, 

and the upcoming RTR review, with a 

consent decree deadline of June 15, 

2017 for proposal and June 15, 2018 for 

promulgation. We may consider options 

for achieving further reduction of HAP 

from the inorganic chemical and 

synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing processes in future 

reviews for those source categories. 

5. What demographic groups might 

benefit from this regulation? 

To determine whether or not to 

conduct a demographics analysis, which 

is an assessment of risks to individual 

demographic groups, we look at a 

combination of factors including the 

MIR, non-cancer TOSHI, population 

around the facilities in the source 

category, and other relevant factors. 

Actual emissions from the OSWRO 

source category result in no individuals 

being exposed to cancer risk greater 

than 9-in-1 million or a non-cancer 

TOSHI greater than 1. In addition, we 

estimate the cancer incidence for the 

source category to be 0.02 cases per 

year. Therefore, we did not conduct an 

assessment of risks to individual 

demographic groups for this proposed 

rule. However, we did conduct a 

proximity analysis, which identifies any 

overrepresentation of minority, low 

income or indigenous populations near 

facilities in the source category. The 

results of this analysis are presented in 

the section of this preamble entitled 

‘‘Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations.’’ 

B. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

As discussed in sections II.A and III.B 

of this preamble, we weigh all health 

risk factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the cancer 

MIR; the number of persons in various 

cancer and non-cancer risk ranges; 

cancer incidence; the maximum noncancer TOSHI; the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the extent of non-cancer 

risks; the potential for adverse 

environmental effects; the distribution 

of cancer and non-cancer risks in the 

exposed population; and risk estimation 

uncertainties (54 FR 38044, September 

14, 1989). 

For the OSWRO source category, the 

risk analysis we performed indicates 

that the cancer risks to the individual 

most exposed could be up to 9-in-1 

million due to actual emissions and up 

to 20-in-1 million due to MACTallowable emissions. These risks are 

considerably less than 100-in-1 million, 

which is the presumptive upper limit of 

acceptable risk. The risk analysis also 

shows relatively low cancer incidence 

(0.02 cases per year), as well as no 

appreciable risk of deleterious chronic 

or acute non-cancer health effects. In 

addition, the risk assessment indicates 

no significant potential multipathway 

health effects. 

While our analysis of facility-wide 

risks shows one facility with a 

maximum facility-wide cancer risk of 

100-in-1 million or greater and two 

facilities with a maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1, it also 

shows that OSWRO operations did not 

drive these risks. In fact, OSWRO 

operations contribute less than 1 

percent to the cancer MIR and less than 

1 percent to the non-cancer TOSHI). 

Considering all of the health risk 

information and factors discussed 

above, including the uncertainties 

discussed in section III.A.8 of this 

preamble, we propose that the risks 

from the OSWRO source category are 

acceptable. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety Analyses and 

Proposed Controls 

Although we are proposing that the 

risks from the OSWRO source category 

are acceptable, risk estimates for 

210,000 individuals in the exposed 

population are above 1-in-1 million 

based on actual emissions. We recognize 

that our risk analysis indicates that the 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed are well within EPA’s 

acceptable range (i.e., up to 9-in-1 

million due to actual emissions and up 

to 20-in-1 million due to MACTallowable emissions). However, as 

stated in the Benzene NESHAP, in 

protecting public health with an ample 

margin of safety, ‘‘EPA strives to 

provide maximum feasible protection 

against risks to health from HAP,’’ 

considering available health 

information, the incremental risk 

reduction associated with more 

stringent standards, technological 

feasibility, and other factors, such as 

costs and economic impacts of controls. 

54 FR at 38044–38045. Consequently, in 

this analysis, we investigated available 

emissions control options that might 

reduce the risk associated with 

emissions from the source category. We 

considered this information along with 

all of the health risks and other health 

information considered in determining 

risk acceptability. As explained below, 

we are proposing additional control 

requirements for equipment leaks and 

certain tanks because considering costs 

and other factors, we have determined 

that these additional controls are 

capable of further reducing risks to the 

individual most exposed, and thus, they 

provide an ample margin of safety. 

For the OSWRO source category, we 

did not identify any options that would 

reduce HAP emissions from containers, 

surface impoundments, oil-water 

separators, organic-water separators or 

transfer systems beyond what is 

currently required in the rule. For 

process vents, tanks and equipment 

leaks, we identified additional control 

options, which are described below. 

For 19 of the 38 facilities included in 

the OSWRO risk analysis, the available 

data (see discussion of emissions data in 

section III.A of this preamble) did not, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37869 

in general, attribute OSWRO emissions 

to specific emission sources. For 

example, the NEI data for many of these 

facilities grouped emissions under 

source classification codes (SCC) for 

non-specific processes, such as 

39999999—Miscellaneous Industrial 

Processes. For these facilities, we lack 

information as to which processes and 

emission point types are contributing to 

the risk estimates developed in the risk 

assessment. In contrast, CAA section 

114 response data for the other 19 

facilities were available, and the 

emissions data for these facilities were 

attributed to specific emission point 

types. However, the maximum cancer 

MIR and noncancer TOSHI values for 

the OSWRO source category are 

attributed to a facility for which only 

NEI data are available and for which we 

lack information regarding the processes 

and emission point types that contribute 

to these maximum risk values. Because 

we were unable to precisely determine 

the magnitude of HAP emissions from 

specific process types and how those 

emissions relate to the risk estimates, 

we conservatively assumed that the type 

of equipment under investigation was 

responsible for the maximum risks. For 

example, in our assessment of process 

vents, we assumed the maximum risks 

for the OSWRO source category were 

due to process vents, and then we 

evaluated how further controls might 

reduce this risk. While these 

assumptions may introduce some 

uncertainty regarding the risk 

reductions that would be achieved for 

each equipment type, we are presenting 

our analysis using the best information 

available. As noted in section VI of this 

preamble, we are requesting 

commenters to provide any site-specific 

emissions or other data that would 

enable us to better characterize the 

maximum risks and the risk reductions 

from the proposed control options for 

the OSWRO source category. 

In the ample margin of safety analysis, 

factors related to the appropriate level of 

control are considered, including the 

costs and economic impacts of the 

controls. For the OSWRO source 

category, the control options identified 

to reduce risks are the same as those 

identified in the technology review. As 

such, we relied on the control cost 

estimates and estimates of control cost 

effectiveness derived from the 

technology review analyses in our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

We believe that our ample margin of 

safety analysis is reasonable. However, 

we note that if we had data to more 

precisely assign HAP emissions to 

particular emission sources in the risk 

modeling file and if that data were to 

lead us to conclude that the MACT 

standards reflect an ample margin of 

safety, we are still proposing these same 

control options under the technology 

review because they are technologically 

applicable and cost effective for this 

source category based on our experience 

with similar emission sources emitting 

similar HAP at other chemical type 

facilities. We request comments on the 

proposed controls discussed below to 

provide an ample margin of safety for 

this source category. 

For process vents, as discussed in 

section IV.C of this preamble, we 

identified an emissions control option 

of requiring compliance with a 98 

percent reduction rather than a 95 

percent reduction in HAP emissions. To 

assess the maximum potential for risk 

reduction that could result from this 

process vent control option, we 

assumed that the maximum risks for the 

OSWRO source category are due to 

emissions from a process vent with 

emissions controlled at 95 percent. In 

this scenario, we estimate the HAP 

reduction resulting from compliance 

with a 98 percent reduction would be 10 

tpy from the current emissions level, 

with a cost effectiveness of $350,000/ton 

HAP reduction. We estimate this option 

would reduce the MIR at the MACTallowable emissions level for the source 

category from 20-in-1 million to 8-in-1 

million and reduce the maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI from 1 to 

0.4. Considering all of the health risks 

and other health information considered 

in our determination of risk 

acceptability, the potential for 

reductions in HAP emissions and risk, 

the uncertainty associated with the 

estimated potential risk reductions and 

the costs associated with this option, we 

are proposing that no additional HAP 

emissions controls for OSWRO process 

vents are necessary to provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

For tanks, as discussed in section IV.C 

of this preamble, we identified two 

emissions control options. Option 1 

requires Level 2 control of emissions for 

additional tanks containing liquids with 

lower vapor pressures. Option 2 

requires compliance with a 98 percent 

reduction rather than a 95 percent 

reduction in HAP emissions from tanks. 

As discussed above for process vents, to 

assess the maximum potential for risk 

reduction that could result from these 

two tank control options, we have 

assumed that the maximum risks for the 

OSWRO source category are due to 

emissions from tanks. For Option 1, we 

have assumed that the maximum risks 

are due to tanks that are not currently 

subject to Level 2 controls, which 

require a 95 percent reduction in 

emissions. In this scenario, we estimate 

the HAP reduction resulting from 

compliance with the control of 

additional tanks would be 73 tpy from 

the current emissions level, with a cost 

effectiveness of $300/ton HAP 

reduction. We estimate this option 

would reduce the MIR at the MACTallowable emissions level for the source 

category from 20-in-1 million to 1-in-1 

million and reduce the maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI from 1 to 

0.05. Under Option 2, we estimate the 

HAP reduction incremental to Option 1 

would be approximately 22 tpy, with a 

cost effectiveness of $13,000/ton HAP 

reduction and a cost effectiveness 

incremental to Option 1 of $56,000/ton 

HAP reduction. We estimate this option 

would reduce the MIR at the MACTallowable emissions level incremental 

to Option 1 for the source category from 

1-in-1 million to 0.4-in-1 million and 

reduce the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from 0.05 to 0.02. 

Considering all of the health risks and 

other health information considered in 

our determination of risk acceptability, 

the potential risk reductions and the 

costs associated with Option 1, we are 

proposing to require this additional 

level of control to provide an ample 

margin of safety. Considering all of the 

health risks and other health 

information considered in our 

determination of risk acceptability, the 

potential for reductions in risk, the 

uncertainty associated with the 

estimated potential risk reductions and 

the costs associated with Option 2, we 

are proposing that the additional HAP 

emissions controls for OSWRO tanks 

under Option 2 are not necessary to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In addition, as 

discussed further in preamble section 

IV.C, we are also proposing the Option 

1 additional control level as a result of 

the technology review. 

For equipment leaks, as discussed in 

section IV.C of this preamble, we 

identified two emission control options: 

Option 1 requires compliance with 40 

CFR part 63, subpart H, rather than 40 

CFR part 61, subpart V, without the 

connector leak detection and repair 

(LDAR) requirements of subpart H; 

Option 2 requires the same as Option 1 

but includes the connector LDAR 

requirement of subpart H. As discussed 

above for tanks, to assess the maximum 

potential for risk reduction that could 

result from these equipment leaks 

control options, we assumed that the 

maximum risks for the OSWRO source 

category are due to emissions from 

equipment leaks. We also assumed that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37870 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

24See Technology Review and Cost Impacts for 

the Proposed Amendments to the Off-Site Waste 

and Recovery Operations Source Category, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

since emissions from equipment leaks 

are estimated to be the same at actual 

and MACT-allowable emission levels, 

the risks due to equipment leaks at the 

MACT-allowable level are the same as 

risks due to equipment leaks at actual 

emissions levels. We additionally 

assumed, based on our analysis of 

estimated baseline equipment leak 

emissions,24 that half of the equipment 

leak emissions causing the maximum 

risks are from non-connector 

components (i.e. pumps and valves), 

and the other half are from connectors. 

Given these assumptions, under Option 

1, we estimate the HAP reduction 

resulting from compliance with subpart 

H without the subpart H connector 

monitoring requirements would be 69 

tpy from the baseline actual emissions 

level, with a cost effectiveness of 

$1,000/ton HAP reduction. We estimate 

this option would reduce the MIR at the 

MACT-allowable emissions level for the 

equipment leaks at the source category 

from 9-in-1 million to 7-in-1 million and 

reduce the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from 0.6 to 0.5. Under 

Option 2, we estimate the incremental 

HAP reduction resulting from 

compliance with subpart H including 

the subpart H connector monitoring 

requirements would be 70 tpy more 

than Option 1, with an overall cost 

effectiveness of $4,000/ton HAP 

reduction and a cost effectiveness 

incremental to Option 1 of $7,000/ton 

HAP reduction. We estimate this option 

would reduce the MIR at the MACTallowable emissions level incremental 

to Option 1 for the equipment leaks at 

the source category from 7-in-1 million 

to 5-in-1 million and reduce the 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

from 0.5 to 0.3. We note, as discussed 

in preamble section IV.C, we are 

proposing the additional control level of 

Option 2 as a result of the technology 

review. Considering the health risks and 

other health information evaluated in 

our determination of risk acceptability, 

that some risk reduction occurs with 

Option 2, and the costs associated with 

Option 2 are reasonable, we are 

proposing to require this additional 

level of control to provide an ample 

margin of safety. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighed all health risk 

measures and information considered in 

the risk acceptability determination, 

along with the costs of emissions 

controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and other relevant factors 

in making our ample margin of safety 

determination. Considering the health 

risk information, the potential risk 

reductions and the reasonable cost 

effectiveness of certain control options 

identified for tanks and equipment 

leaks, we propose that the standards for 

the OSWRO source category be revised 

to include the proposed control Option 

1 for tanks and the proposed control 

Option 2 for equipment leaks to provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. 

3. Adverse Environmental Effects 

We conducted an environmental risk 

screening assessment for the OSWRO 

source category for POM, HCl and HF. 

For POM, none of the individual 

modeled Tier I concentrations for any 

facility in the source category exceeded 

any of the ecological benchmarks (either 

the LOAEL or NOAEL). For HF and HCl, 

the average modeled concentration 

around each facility (i.e., the average 

concentration of all off-site data points 

in the modeling domain) did not exceed 

any ecological benchmark. Based on 

these results, we are proposing that it is 

not necessary to set a more stringent 

standard to prevent such an adverse 

environmental effect, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors. 

C. What are the results of the technology 

review and our proposed decisions? 

As described in section III.C of this 

preamble, our technology review 

focused on identifying developments in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies for the emission sources in 

the OSWRO production source category. 

To identify such developments since the 

MACT standards were developed, we 

consulted the EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse, reviewed subsequent 

regulatory development efforts and 

reviewed data from the 2013 CAA 

Section 114 survey of OSWRO facilities. 

For the OSWRO source category, we did 

not identify any developments in 

practices, processes or control 

technologies for containers, surface 

impoundments, oil-water separators, 

organic-water separators or transfer 

systems beyond what is currently 

required in the rule. For process vents, 

tanks and equipment leaks, we 

identified additional control options, 

and the following sections summarize 

the results of our technology review for 

these emissions sources. 

To perform the technology review, we 

needed information that was not 

included in the RTR emissions dataset 

used for modeling OSWRO risks. 

Therefore, to evaluate the costs and 

cost-effectiveness of various control 

options, we used a model plant 

approach. The model plant approach we 

used resulted in different baseline 

emission estimates than those included 

in the risk modeling dataset. More 

information concerning our technology 

review and model plant approach can 

be found in the memorandum titled, 

Technology Review and Cost Impacts 

for the Proposed Amendments to the 

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

1. Tanks 

For tanks at existing affected sources, 

we identified two potential 

developments in practices and control 

techniques. The current OSWRO MACT 

requirements at 40 CFR 63.685(b)(1) for 

tanks at an existing affected source 

depend on the capacity of the tank and 

the vapor pressure of the material being 

stored. ‘‘Level 2’’ control is required for: 

(1) Tanks with capacities greater than or 

equal to 75 cubic meters (m3), but less 

than 151 m3 and a vapor pressure of 

27.6 kilopascals (kPa) or greater and (2) 

tanks with capacities greater than or 

equal to 151 m3 and a vapor pressure of 

5.2 kPa or greater. ‘‘Level 2’’ control 

essentially requires one of five options: 

(1) A fixed roof tank equipped with an 

internal floating roof; (2) a fixed roof 

tank equipped with an external floating 

roof; (3) a tank with a vapor-tight cover 

and vented through a closed-vent 

system to a control device that has an 

efficiency of 95 percent or more; (4) a 

pressure tank; or (5) a tank inside a 

permanent total enclosure (PTE) that is 

vented through a closed-vent system to 

an enclosed combustion control device. 

Tanks of any capacity (effectively those 

less than 75 m3) with a vapor pressure 

of 76.6 kPa or greater are required to use 

one of the options listed above for Level 

2 control, except that fixed roof tanks 

with either an internal or an external 

floating roof cannot be used. For tanks 

with capacities and vapor pressures less 

than those stated above, ‘‘Level 1’’ 

control is required. ‘‘Level 1’’ control 

generally requires a fixed roof with 

closure devices. 

We evaluated two control options that 

would change the tank requirements if 

adopted. Option 1 would lower the 

vapor pressure threshold above which 

Level 2 controls would be required for 

some tanks. Option 2 would revise the 

vapor pressure threshold as in Option 1 

and increase the required control 

efficiency from the current 95 percent to 

a 98 percent emissions reduction for all 

tanks required to use Level 2 controls. 

Through the review of air toxics MACT 

standards developed subsequent to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37871 

OSWRO MACT standards, we noted 

that several other MACT standards refer 

to the Hazardous Organic NESHAP 

(HON) for their storage tank 

requirements. We evaluated revising the 

applicability of the OSWRO existing 

source requirements to use the same 

thresholds for Level 2 control as the 

thresholds for control required by the 

HON. As shown in Table 4, Option 1 

would require Level 2 emissions control 

for tanks with capacities greater than or 

equal to 75 m3, but less than 151 m3, if 

the vapor pressure of the stored material 

is 13 kPa or greater, instead of 27.6 kPa 

or greater as required by the current 

MACT standard. No other tank size or 

vapor thresholds would be changed 

with Option 1. For tanks at new affected 

sources, the current OSWRO 

applicability thresholds are consistent 

with those required for the chemical 

industry under other NESHAP, 

including the HON, so no revised 

applicability requirements were 

evaluated for tanks located at new 

sources. 

Because available data for the source 

category indicate most OSWRO tanks 

currently have fixed-roofs with 

emissions routed through a closed vent 

system to a control device, under 

Option 2 we considered the impacts of 

requiring a higher control efficiency 

than currently required by the OSWRO 

MACT standard. While carbon 

adsorption and other control devices are 

assumed to have a control efficiency of 

95 percent, other technologies are 

capable of achieving greater emissions 

control, such as thermal incinerators. 

Several of these devices have been 

demonstrated to achieve a control 

efficiency of 98 percent or greater. 

Under Option 2, we considered the 

impacts of requiring a 98 percent 

emissions reduction for tanks meeting 

the lowered vapor pressure threshold 

under Option 1, and all other tanks 

required to use Level 2 emission 

controls, assuming a recuperative 

thermal oxidizer (RCO) would be used 

to attain this increased level of control. 

Table 5 presents the emission 

reductions and costs of the two options 

considered for tanks at existing affected 

sources in the OSWRO source category 

under the technology review. For 

Option 1, data collected through our 

CAA section 114 questionnaire indicate 

that only some facilities have tanks in 

the size and vapor pressure range 

considered for this option, and based on 

these data we estimate that 

approximately three OSWRO facilities 

have tanks that would require 

additional control under Option 1. As 

seen in Table 5, for Option 1, we 

estimate the capital costs to be 

approximately $76,000, and the total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

approximately $21,000. The estimated 

HAP emissions reduction is 

approximately 73 tpy, and the cost 

effectiveness is approximately $300/ton. 

For Option 2, data collected through our 

CAA section 114 questionnaire indicate 

that only some facilities have tanks that 

currently require Level 2 emissions 

controls or that would require Level 2 

control with the revised vapor pressure 

threshold of Option 1, and based on this 

data we estimate that approximately 10 

OSWRO facilities have tanks that would 

require additional control under Option 

2. We estimate the capital costs to be 

approximately $2.8 million, and the 

total annualized costs are estimated to 

be approximately $1.3 million. The 

estimated HAP emissions reduction 

incremental to Option 1 is 

approximately 22 tpy, and the 

incremental cost effectiveness between 

Option 1 and Option 2 is approximately 

$56,000/ton. 

TABLE 4—REQUIREMENTS OF TANK OPTIONS 1 AND 2 FOR EXISTING OSWRO AFFECTED SOURCES

Options 1 and 2 applicability thresholds 

Then control 

level for options 1 and 2 Option 1 Requirements Option 2 Requirements 

If size (m3) is 

And vapor 

pressure (kPa) 

is 

<75 .................................................. <76.6 1 Fixed roof. 

≥76.6 a 2 95% control b .................................. 98% control.b

75 ≤ capacity < 151 ........................ <13.1 1 Fixed roof. 

≥13.1 2 95% control c .................................. 98% control.c

151 ≤ capacity ................................ <5.2 1 Fixed roof. 

≥5.2 2 95% control c .................................. 98% control.c

aExcept that fixed roof tanks equipped with an internal floating roof and tanks equipped with an external floating roof shall not be used. 

b Control efficiency would apply to tanks vented through a closed vent system to a control device and tanks inside a PTE that are vented to a 

combustion control device; use of a pressure tank would still be an available control option. c Control efficiency would apply to tanks vented through a closed vent system to a control device and tanks inside a PTE that are vented to a 

combustion control device; use of an internal or external floating roof or a pressure tank would still be available control options. 

TABLE 5—NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AND COSTS OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR TANKS AT OSWRO FACILITIES

Regulatory options HAP emissions 

reduction (tpy) Capital cost ($) Annual cost ($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Option 1 ........................................................... 72.8 76,000 21,000 300 ............................

Option 2 ........................................................... 95.0 2,800,000 1,300,000 13,000 56,000 

Based on our analysis, the costs of 

Option 1 are reasonable, given the level 

of HAP emissions reduction that would 

be achieved with this control option. 

The costs of Option 2 do not appear 

reasonable, given the level of HAP 

emissions reduction it would achieve. 

Therefore, as a result of the technology 

review, we are proposing to revise the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37872 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

OSWRO MACT standards in accordance 

with Option 1, i.e., to require Level 2 

controls for tanks at existing affected 

sources with capacities greater than or 

equal to 75 m3, but less than 151 m3, 

and a vapor pressure of 13.1 kPa or 

greater. We solicit comment on our 

assessment and conclusions regarding 

all aspects of both options. As noted in 

section IV.B.2, we are concurrently 

proposing to revise the OSWRO MACT 

standards for existing affected sources to 

require Level 2 controls for these tanks 

under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. 

2. Equipment Leaks 

The OSWRO MACT standards at 40 

CFR 63.691 currently require 

compliance with either 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart V, or 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, 

to control emissions from equipment 

leaks at existing and new affected 

sources. While many provisions of these 

two rules are the same or similar, 

subpart H requires the use of a more 

stringent leak definition for valves in 

gas and vapor service and in light liquid 

service, pumps in light liquid service, 

and connectors. Specifically, subpart H 

lowers the leak definition for valves 

from 10,000 ppm (in subpart V) to 500 

ppm, lowers the leak definition for 

pump seals from 10,000 ppm (in subpart 

V) to 1,000 ppm, and requires periodic 

instrument monitoring of connectors 

with a leak definition of 500 ppm, as 

opposed to instrument monitoring only 

being required if a potential leak is 

detected by visual, audible, olfactory, or 

other detection method (in subpart V). 

We identified the more stringent leak 

definitions of subpart H as a 

development in practices, processes or 

control technologies. 

Assuming conservatively that each of 

the OSWRO facilities currently comply 

with subpart V and do not already 

comply with subpart H, we analyzed the 

costs and emission reductions of two 

options: Option 1—switching from a 

subpart V LDAR program to a subpart H 

LDAR program, without the subpart H 

connector monitoring requirements; 

Option 2—switching from a subpart V 

LDAR program to a subpart H LDAR 

program, with the subpart H connector 

monitoring requirements. The estimated 

costs and emissions reductions 

associated with these two options for 

the OSWRO source category are shown 

in Table 6. For Option 1 (subpart H 

without connector monitoring), we 

estimated the capital costs to be 

approximately $320,000, and the total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

approximately $67,000. The estimated 

HAP emissions reduction is 

approximately 69 tpy, and the cost 

effectiveness is approximately $1,000/

ton. For Option 2 (subpart H with 

connector monitoring), we estimated the 

capital costs to be approximately 

$1,900,000, and the total annualized 

costs are estimated to be approximately 

$530,000. The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction is approximately 138 tpy, and 

the cost effectiveness is approximately 

$4,000/ton. The incremental cost 

effectiveness between Option 1 and 

Option 2 is approximately $7,000. 

TABLE 6—OSWRO EQUIPMENT LEAK OPTIONS EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COSTS

Regulatory alternatives HAP Emissions 

reduction (tpy) Capital cost ($) Annual cost ($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Option 1: Subpart H, no connector monitoring 68.5 320,000 67,000 1,000 ............................

Option 2: Subpart H with connector monitoring ............................................................. 138.1 1,900,000 530,000 4,000 7,000 

Based on our analysis, the costs of 

Option 2, which includes all of the 

requirements of Option 1, are 

reasonable, given the level of HAP 

emissions reduction that would be 

achieved with this control option. 

Therefore, as a result of the technology 

review, we are proposing to revise the 

OSWRO MACT standards, in 

accordance with Option 2, to require 

existing and new affected sources to 

comply with subpart H rather than 

subpart V, including the subpart H 

requirements for connectors in gas and 

vapor service and in light liquid service. 

As noted in section IV.B.2, we are 

concurrently proposing to revise the 

OSWRO MACT standards for existing 

and new affected sources to require 

compliance with subpart H rather than 

subpart V, including the subpart H 

requirements for connectors in gas and 

vapor service and in light liquid service 

under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. We solicit 

comment on our assessment and 

conclusions regarding all aspects of both 

options. 

3. Process Vents 

The current OSWRO MACT standards 

at 40 CFR 63.690 require emissions from 

process vents at existing and new 

affected sources to be routed through a 

closed vent system to a control device 

achieving at least 95 percent control. As 

discussed above for tanks, while carbon 

adsorption and other control devices are 

assumed to have a control efficiency of 

95 percent, other technologies are 

capable of achieving greater emissions 

control, such as thermal incinerators. 

Several of these devices have been 

demonstrated to achieve a control 

efficiency of 98 percent or greater. Based 

on the combination of reported control 

efficiencies for these devices and known 

application to low concentration organic 

vapor gas streams, we investigated the 

use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer 

with a control efficiency of 98 percent 

as a potential control option. 

Table 7 presents the emission 

reductions and costs of the 98 percent 

control options considered for process 

vents at existing affected sources in the 

OSWRO source category under the 

technology review. Data collected 

through our CAA section 114 

questionnaire indicate that only some 

facilities have process vents, and based 

on these data we estimate that 

approximately eight OSWRO facilities 

have process vents that would require 

additional control to reduce emissions 

by 98 percent. We estimated the capital 

costs of complying with an increase 

from 95 to 98 percent HAP control for 

process vents to be approximately $9.8 

million, and the total annualized costs 

are estimated to be approximately $3.3 

million. The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction is approximately 10 tpy, and 

the cost effectiveness is approximately 

$350,000/ton of HAP emission 

reduction. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37873 

TABLE 7—OSWRO PROCESS VENT OPTION IMPACTS

Regulatory option HAP emissions 

reduction (tpy) Capital cost ($) Annual cost ($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

98 percent control ............................................................................ 9.6 9,800,000 3,300,000 350,000 

Based on our estimate of costs and 

HAP reduction, we do not consider 

increasing the emission reduction to 98 

percent to be reasonable, and we are not 

proposing to revise the OSWRO MACT 

standards for process vents pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(6) to require this 

level of emissions control. We solicit 

comment on our analysis, and as noted 

in section IV.B.2, we also solicit 

comments regarding the emissions 

controls proposed as a result of this 

technology review, given the 

uncertainty in the emissions estimates 

and the potential impact on the 

estimates of cost effectiveness. 

D. What other actions are we proposing? 

We are also proposing revisions to the 

startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM) provisions of the MACT rule to 

ensure that they are consistent with the 

court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 

551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which 

vacated two provisions that exempted 

sources from the requirement to comply 

with otherwise applicable section 

112(d) emission standards during 

periods of SSM. Second, we are 

proposing to require electronic reporting 

of emissions test results. Third, we are 

proposing to revise the routine 

maintenance provisions and limit those 

provisions only to tanks routing 

emissions to a control device. Fourth, 

we are proposing to clarify what ‘‘seal 

the open end at all times’’ means for 

open-ended lines and valves in the 

equipment leak provisions of the rule. 

Fifth, we are proposing that emissions 

of HAP from safety devices and closure 

devices directly to the atmosphere are 

prohibited, and we are proposing to 

require monitoring of pressure releases 

from pressure relief devices (PRDs) that 

release directly to the atmosphere. 

Sixth, we are proposing minor 

clarifications to the sample run times 

and sample site location required for 

some performance test methods, and we 

are proposing to allow the use of a 

different performance test method in 

two cases. Seventh, we are proposing 

various minor clarifications and 

corrections to the rule. In addition to 

these proposed revisions, we are seeking 

comments containing information 

regarding flares used by facilities in this 

source category. We present details and 

the rationales for the proposed changes 

in the following sections. 

1. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunctions 

a. Background 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

We are proposing to eliminate the 

SSM exemption in the OSWRO 

NESHAP. Consistent with Sierra Club v. 

EPA, we are proposing standards in this 

rule that apply at all times. We are also 

proposing several revisions to Table 2 

(the General Provisions Applicability 

Table) as is explained in more detail 

below. For example, we are proposing to 

eliminate the incorporation of the 

General Provisions’ requirement that the 

source develop an SSM plan. We also 

are proposing to eliminate and revise 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM 

exemption as further described below. 

The EPA has attempted to eliminate 

provisions that are inappropriate, 

unnecessary, or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption in this 

proposal. We are specifically seeking 

comment on whether we have 

successfully done so. 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and, for 

the reasons explained below, has not 

proposed alternate standards for those 

periods. 

Information on periods of startup and 

shutdown received from OSWRO 

facilities through the CAA section 114 

questionnaire responses indicate that 

emissions during these periods are the 

same as during normal operations. The 

facilities do not process waste unless 

and until their control devices are 

operating to fully control emissions. 

Therefore, separate standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown are not 

necessary and are not being proposed. 

We solicit comment on our findings and 

conclusions regarding periods of startup 

and shutdown at OSWRO facilities. 

Periods of startup, normal operations, 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA 

has determined that CAA section 112 

does not require that emissions that 

occur during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 112 standards. Under section 

112, emissions standards for new 

sources must be no less stringent than 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

controlled similar source and for 

existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission 

limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in section 112 

that directs the EPA to consider 

malfunctions in determining the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 

sources when setting emission 

standards. As the DC Circuit has 

recognized, the phrase ‘‘average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of sources 

‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards, nothing in section 

112 requires the EPA to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. A 

malfunction should not be treated in the 

same manner as the type of variation in 

performance that occurs during routine 

operations of a source. A malfunction is 

a failure of the source to perform in a 

‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no 

statutory language compels the EPA to 

consider such events in setting 

standards based on ‘‘best performers.’’ 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emissions standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37874 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree, and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (the EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’’). See also 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, the goal of a 

‘‘best controlled or best performing 

source’’ is to operate in such a way as 

to avoid malfunctions of the source and 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are significantly less 

stringent than levels that are achieved 

by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. It is reasonable 

to interpret section 112 to avoid such a 

result. The EPA’s approach to 

malfunctions is consistent with CAA 

section 112 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless 

operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 

malfunction). Further, to the extent the 

EPA files an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emission 

standard, the source can raise any and 

all defenses in that enforcement action, 

and the federal district court will 

determine what, if any, relief is 

appropriate. The same is true for citizen 

enforcement actions. Similarly, the 

presiding officer in an administrative 

proceeding can consider any defense 

raised and determine whether 

administrative penalties are appropriate. 

In several prior rules, the EPA had 

included an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions in an effort to create a 

system that incorporates some 

flexibility, recognizing that there is a 

tension, inherent in many types of air 

regulations, to ensure adequate 

compliance, while simultaneously 

recognizing that despite the most 

diligent of efforts, emission standards 

may be violated under circumstances 

entirely beyond the control of the 

source. Although the EPA recognized 

that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides sufficient flexibility 

in these circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense to provide a more 

formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

case-by-case enforcement discretion 

approach is adequate); but see Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 

(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. Recently, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

such an affirmative defense in one of the 

EPA’s section 112(d) regulations. NRDC 

v. EPA, No. 10–1371 (D.C. Cir. April 18, 

2014) 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions 

in a section 112(d) rule establishing 

emission standards for Portland cement 

kilns). The court found that the EPA 

lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits 

and held that under the CAA, the 

authority to determine civil penalty 

amounts lies exclusively with the 

courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the 

Court found: ‘‘As the language of the 

statute makes clear, the courts 

determine, on a case-by-case basis, 

whether civil penalties are 

‘appropriate.’’’ See NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (‘‘[U]nder this 

statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit 

is a job for the courts, not EPA.’’). In 

light of NRDC, the EPA is not including 

a regulatory affirmative defense 

provision in this proposed rule. As 

explained above, if a source is unable to 

comply with emissions standards as a 

result of a malfunction, the EPA may 

use its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the DC Circuit 

recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the 

discretion to consider any defense 

raised and determine whether penalties 

are appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *24. (arguments 

that violation were caused by 

unavoidable technology failure can be 

made to the courts in future civil cases 

when the issue arises). The same logic 

applies to EPA administrative 

enforcement actions. 

b. Specific SSM-Related Proposed 

Changes 

To address the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacatur of portions of the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM, we are proposing revisions and 

additions to certain provisions of the 

OSWRO rule. As described in detail 

below, we are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions applicability table 

(Table 2 to Subpart DD) in several of the 

references related to requirements that 

apply during periods of SSM. We are 

also proposing revisions related to the 

following provisions of the OSWRO 

rule: (1) The general duty to minimize 

emissions at all times; (2) the 

requirement for sources to comply with 

the emission limits in the rule at all 

times, with clarifications for what 

constitutes a deviation; (3) performance 

testing conditions requirements; (4) 

excused monitoring excursions 

provisions; and (5) malfunction 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

i. General Duty 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by adding rows 

specifically for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i), 

63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii), and 

63.6(e)(3) and to include a ‘‘no’’ in the 

second column for the 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(i) entry. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

describes the general duty to minimize 

emissions. Some of the language in that 

section is no longer necessary or 

appropriate in light of the elimination of 

the SSM exemption. We are proposing 

instead to add general duty regulatory 

text at 40 CFR 63.683(e) that reflects the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37875 

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 63.683(e) does not 

include that language from 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1). 

We are also proposing to include a 

‘‘no’’ in the second column for the 

newly added entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(ii). Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) 

imposes requirements that are not 

necessary with the elimination of the 

SSM exemption or are redundant with 

the general duty requirement being 

added at 63.683(e). 

The provisions of 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(iii) still apply, and we are 

keeping the ‘‘yes’’ in the second column 

for that section. For 40 CFR 63.6(e)(2), 

we are proposing to include a ‘‘no’’ in 

the second column for that section 

because it is a reserved section in the 

General Provisions. 

We are also proposing to clarify in the 

applicability section of 40 CFR 

63.680(g)(1) and (2) that the emission 

limits of subpart DD apply at all times 

except when the affected source is not 

operating and that the owner or operator 

must not shut down items of equipment 

required or used for compliance with 

the requirements of subpart DD. 

ii. SSM Plan 

We are also proposing to include a 

‘‘no’’ in the second column for the 

newly added 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) entry. 

Generally, this paragraph requires 

development of an SSM plan and 

specifies SSM recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is 

proposing to remove the SSM 

exemptions. Therefore, affected units 

will be subject to an emission standard 

during such events. The applicability of 

a standard during such events will 

ensure that sources have ample 

incentive to plan for and achieve 

compliance and thus the SSM plan 

requirements are no longer necessary. 

iii. Compliance With Standards 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the 

‘‘yes’’ in column 2 to a ‘‘no.’’ The 

current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) 

exempts sources from non-opacity 

standards during periods of SSM. As 

discussed above, the court in Sierra 

Club vacated the exemptions contained 

in this provision and held that the CAA 

requires that some section 112 standard 

apply continuously. Consistent with 

Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to 

revise standards in this rule to apply at 

all times. 

iv. Performance Testing 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the 

‘‘yes’’ in column 2 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 

requirements. The EPA is instead 

proposing to add a performance testing 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.694(l). The 

performance testing requirements we 

are proposing to add differ from the 

General Provisions performance testing 

provisions in several respects. The 

regulatory text does not include the 

language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that 

restated the SSM exemption. However, 

consistent with 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 

performance tests conducted under this 

subpart should be based on 

representative performance (i.e., 

performance based on normal operating 

conditions) of the affected source. The 

EPA is proposing to add language that 

requires the owner or operator to record 

the process information that is 

necessary to document operating 

conditions during the test and include 

in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

normal operation. Section 63.7(e) 

requires that the owner or operator 

make available to the Administrator 

such records ‘‘as may be necessary to 

determine the condition of the 

performance test’’ upon request, but 

does not specifically require the 

information to be recorded. The 

regulatory text the EPA is proposing to 

add to this provision builds on that 

requirement and makes explicit the 

requirement to record the information. 

v. Monitoring 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) 

entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) 

by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 2 to 

a ‘‘no.’’ The cross-references to the 

general duty and SSM plan 

requirements in those subparagraphs are 

not necessary in light of other 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require 

good air pollution control practices (40 

CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the 

requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). 

vi. Recordkeeping 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the 

‘‘yes’’ in column 2 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during 

startup and shutdown. These recording 

provisions are no longer necessary 

because the EPA is proposing that 

recordkeeping and reporting applicable 

to normal operations will apply to 

startup and shutdown. In the absence of 

special provisions applicable to startup 

and shutdown, such as a startup and 

shutdown plan, there is no reason to 

retain additional recordkeeping for 

startup and shutdown periods. 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing 

the ‘‘yes’’ in column 2 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during a 

malfunction. The EPA is proposing to 

add such requirements to 40 CFR 

63.696(h). The regulatory text we are 

proposing to add differs from the 

General Provisions it is replacing in that 

the General Provisions require the 

creation and retention of a record of the 

occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of process, air pollution 

control, and monitoring equipment. The 

EPA is proposing that this requirement 

apply to any failure to meet an 

applicable standard and is requiring that 

the source record the date, time, and 

duration of the failure rather than the 

‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also 

proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.696(h) a 

requirement that sources keep records 

that include a list of the affected source 

or equipment and actions taken to 

minimize emissions, an estimate of the 

volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the standard for which the 

source failed to meet the standard, and 

a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. Examples of 

such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, measurements when 

available, or engineering judgment 

based on known process parameters. 

The EPA is proposing to require that 

sources keep records of this information 

to ensure that there is adequate 

information to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of any failure to 

meet a standard, and to provide data 

that may document how the source met 

the general duty to minimize emissions 

when the source has failed to meet an 

applicable standard. 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37876 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the ‘‘yes’’ in column 2 to a ‘‘no.’’ When 

applicable, the provision requires 

sources to record actions taken during 

SSM events when actions were 

inconsistent with their SSM plan. The 

requirement is no longer appropriate 

because SSM plans will no longer be 

required. The requirement previously 

applicable under 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to 

minimize emissions and record 

corrective actions is now applicable by 

reference to 40 CFR 63.696(h). 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing 

the ‘‘yes’’ in column 2 to a ‘‘no.’’ When 

applicable, the provision requires 

sources to record actions taken during 

SSM events to show that actions taken 

were consistent with their SSM plan. 

The requirement is no longer 

appropriate because SSM plans will no 

longer be required. 

vii. Reporting 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) by 

consolidating it with the entry for 

63.10(d)(5)(ii) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 2 to ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) 

describes the reporting requirements for 

startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. 

To replace the General Provisions 

reporting requirements, the EPA is 

proposing to add reporting requirements 

to 40 CFR 63.697(b)(3). The replacement 

language differs from the General 

Provisions requirement in that it 

eliminates periodic SSM reports as a 

stand-alone report. We are proposing 

language that requires sources that fail 

to meet an applicable standard at any 

time to report the information 

concerning such events in the semiannual summary report already required 

under this rule. We are proposing that 

the report must contain the number, 

date, time, duration, and the cause of 

such events (including unknown cause, 

if applicable), a list of the affected 

source or equipment, an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over any emission limit, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

Examples of such methods would 

include product-loss calculations, mass 

balance calculations, measurements 

when available, or engineering 

judgment based on known process 

parameters. The EPA is proposing this 

requirement to ensure that there is 

adequate information to determine 

compliance, to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of the failure to 

meet an applicable standard, and to 

provide data that may document how 

the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions during a failure to 

meet an applicable standard. 

We will no longer require owners or 

operators to determine whether actions 

taken to correct a malfunction are 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans would no longer be required. The 

proposed amendments therefore 

eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the 

description of the previously required 

SSM report format and submittal 

schedule from this section. These 

specifications are no longer necessary 

because the events will be reported in 

otherwise required reports with similar 

format and submittal requirements. 

We are proposing to revise the 

General Provisions table (Table 2) entry 

for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) by 

consolidating it with the entry for 

63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 2 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate 

report for startups, shutdown, and 

malfunctions when a source failed to 

meet an applicable standard but did not 

follow the SSM plan. We will no longer 

require owners and operators to report 

when actions taken during a startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction were not 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans would no longer be required. 

2. Electronic Reporting 

In this proposal, the EPA is describing 

a process to increase the ease and 

efficiency of performance test data 

submittal while improving data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of 

OSWRO facilities submit electronic 

copies of required performance test 

reports by direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer using EPA-provided 

software. The direct computer-tocomputer electronic transfer is 

accomplished through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The Central 

Data Exchange is EPA’s portal for 

submittal of electronic data. The EPAprovided software is called the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) which 

is used to generate electronic reports of 

performance tests and evaluations. The 

ERT generates an electronic report 

package which will be submitted using 

the CEDRI. The submitted report 

package will be stored in the CDX 

archive (the official copy of record) and 

EPA’s public database called WebFIRE. 

All stakeholders will have access to all 

reports and data in WebFIRE and 

accessing these reports and data will be 

very straightforward and easy (see the 

WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval 

link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/

index.cfm?action=fire.searchERT

Submission). A description and 

instructions for use of the ERT can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

ert/index.html and CEDRI can be 

accessed through the CDX Web site 

(www.epa.gov/cdx). A description of the 

WebFIRE database is available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.

cfm?action=fire.main. 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

applies only to those performance tests 

conducted using test methods that are 

supported by the ERT. The ERT 

supports most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at: http://www.

epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. 

We believe that industry would 

benefit from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Specifically, 

by using this approach, industry will 

save time in the performance test 

submittal process. Additionally, the 

standardized format that the ERT uses 

allows sources to create a more 

complete test report resulting in less 

time spent on data backfilling if a source 

failed to include all data elements 

required to be submitted. Also through 

this proposal industry may only need to 

submit a report once to meet the 

requirements of the applicable subpart 

because stakeholders can readily access 

these reports from the WebFIRE 

database. This also benefits industry by 

cutting back on recordkeeping costs as 

the performance test reports that are 

submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are 

no longer required to be retained in hard 

copy, thereby, reducing staff time 

needed to coordinate these records. 

Since the EPA will have performance 

test data in hand, we expect that there 

may be fewer or less substantial data 

collection requests in conjunction with 

prospective required residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews. This 

would result in a decrease in staff time 

needed to respond to data collection 

requests. 

State, local and tribal air pollution 

control agencies (S/L/Ts) may also 

benefit from having electronic versions 

of the reports they are now receiving. 

For example, S/L/Ts may be able to 

conduct a more streamlined and 

accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. For example, the 

ERT would allow for an electronic 

review process, rather than a manual 

data assessment, therefore, making 

review and evaluation of the source 

provided data and calculations easier 

and more efficient. In addition, the 

public stands to benefit from electronic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37877 

25See ‘‘Region V OEL data for VV rulemaking’’ 

available in the docket for this action. 

reporting of emissions data because the 

electronic data will be easier for the 

public to access. How the air emissions 

data are collected, accessed and 

reviewed will be more transparent for 

all stakeholders. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. The ERT clearly 

states what testing information would 

be required by the test method and has 

the ability to house additional data 

elements that might be required by a 

delegated authority. 

In addition the EPA must have 

performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 111, 

112 and 129 standards, as well as for 

many other purposes including 

compliance determinations, emission 

factor development and annual 

emission rate determinations. In 

conducting these required reviews, the 

EPA has found it ineffective and time 

consuming, not only for us, but also for 

regulatory agencies and source owners 

and operators, to locate, collect and 

submit performance test data. In recent 

years, though, stack testing firms have 

typically collected performance test data 

in electronic format, making it possible 

to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

A common complaint heard from 

industry and regulators is that emission 

factors are outdated or not 

representative of a particular source 

category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from most 

performance tests, the EPA would be 

able to ensure that emission factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. 

Finally, another benefit of the proposed 

data submittal to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data would 

greatly improve the overall quality of 

existing and new emissions factors by 

supplementing the pool of emissions 

test data for establishing emissions 

factors. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies and the EPA 

significant time, money and effort, 

while also improving the quality of 

emission inventories and air quality 

regulations. 

3. Routine Maintenance 

40 CFR 63.693(b)(3)(i) of the OSWRO 

NESHAP allows for control devices to 

be bypassed to perform planned routine 

maintenance of the closed-vent system 

or control device in situations when the 

routine maintenance cannot be 

performed during periods that the 

emission point vented to the control 

device is shut down. The facility is 

allowed to bypass the control device for 

up to 240 hours per year. 

The routine maintenance provision 

was originally established in the 

Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) (see 

40 CFR 63.119(e)(3)–(4); 57 FR 62710, 

December 31, 1992 (proposed); 59 FR 

19402, April 22, 1994 (final)) for 

facilities that elected to use a closed 

vent system and control device to 

comply with the emission limitation 

requirements for tanks. We included the 

routine maintenance provision in the 

HON for tanks routing emissions to 

control devices because the estimated 

HAP emissions to degas the tank would 

be greater than the emissions that would 

result if the tank emitted directly to the 

atmosphere for a short period of time 

during routine maintenance of the 

control device. 

We intended for the OSWRO 

NESHAP to track the HON maintenance 

provisions, and as such, those 

provisions should have been limited to 

tanks. We have not identified a basis for 

applying the routine maintenance 

provisions in the OSWRO NESHAP to 

emission points other than tanks. 

Therefore, we are proposing to limit the 

provision to tanks routing emissions to 

a control device, consistent with the 

rationale provided in the HON. We 

request comment on this proposed 

revision. 

4. Open-Ended Valves and Lines 

The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 

63.691(b) requires an owner or operator 

to control emissions from equipment 

leaks according to the requirements of 

either 40 CFR part 61, subpart V or 40 

CFR part 63, subpart H. For open-ended 

valves and lines, both subpart V in 

§ 61.242–6(a) and subpart H in 

§ 63.167(a) require that the open end be 

equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, 

or second valve that shall ‘‘seal the open 

end.’’ However, ‘‘seal’’ is not defined in 

either subpart, leading to uncertainty for 

the owner or operator as to whether 

compliance is being achieved. 

Inspections under the EPA’s Air Toxics 

LDAR initiative have provided evidence 

that while certain open-ended lines may 

be equipped with a cap, blind flange, 

plug or second valve, these are not 

providing a ‘‘seal’’ as the EPA interprets 

the term.25

In response to this uncertainty, we are 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.691(a) to 

clarify what ‘‘seal the open end’’ means 

for open-ended valves and lines. This 

proposed clarification explains that, for 

the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.167 of 

subpart H, open-ended valves and lines 

are ‘‘sealed’’ by the cap, blind flange, 

plug, or second valve instrument 

monitoring of the open-ended valve or 

line conducted according to Method 21 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates 

no readings of 500 ppm or greater. 

In addition, 40 CFR 63.167(d) of 

subpart H and 40 CFR 61.242–6(d) of 

subpart V exempt open-ended valves 

and lines that are in an emergency 

shutdown system, and which are 

designed to open automatically, from 

the requirements to be equipped with a 

cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve 

that seals the open end. We are 

proposing that these open-ended valves 

and lines follow the requirements of 40 

CFR 63.693(c)(2) for bypass devices that 

could be used to divert a vent stream 

from the closed-vent system to the 

atmosphere, which would require that 

each such open-ended line be equipped 

with either a flow indicator or a seal or 

locking device. We are also proposing 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.696(j)(2) and 

40 CFR 63.697(b)(6) for these openended values and lines. 

We solicit comments on our proposed 

approach to reducing the compliance 

uncertainty associated with ‘‘sealed’’ 

open-ended valves and lines and our 

proposed requirements for open-ended 

valves and lines that are in an 

emergency shutdown system and are 

designed to open automatically. 

5. Safety Devices, Pressure Tanks, 

Bypasses and PRDs 

The OSWRO MACT standards contain 

requirements for safety devices, closure 

devices on pressure tanks, PRDs and 

bypasses, established with the 

recognition that emission releases to the 

atmosphere from these devices and from 

bypasses of control equipment occur 

only in the event of unplanned and 

unpredictable events. While emissions 

vented to the atmosphere in these 

events may contain HAP that would 

otherwise be subject to the OSWRO 

MACT emission standards, the OSWRO 

MACT rule followed the EPA’s former 

practice prior to the Sierra Club 

decision of exempting malfunction 

events from otherwise applicable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37878 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

emissions standards. Consequently, as 

these events were assumed to occur 

during malfunctions, the OSWRO 

MACT standards did not restrict 

emissions of HAP from these equipment 

or events to the atmosphere. 

In the Sierra Club decision, the Court 

determined that the SSM exemption 

violated the CAA and vacated the 

regulatory provisions in the General 

Provisions containing the exemption. 

See section IV.D.1 of this preamble for 

additional discussion. To ensure the 

OSWRO MACT standards are consistent 

with the Court’s action, we are 

proposing to remove the SSM 

exemption from the rule. In addition, in 

order for our treatment of malfunctioncaused releases to the atmosphere to 

conform with the reasoning of the 

Court’s ruling, we are proposing to add 

a provision that releases of HAP listed 

in Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD 

directly to the atmosphere from PRDs 

and closure devices on pressure tanks in 

off-site material service are prohibited. 

We are also proposing to prohibit 

bypasses that divert a process vent or 

closed vent system stream to the 

atmosphere such that it does not first 

pass through an emission control 

device, except to perform planned 

routine maintenance of the closed-vent 

system or emission control device for 

tanks, as discussed in section IV.D.3 of 

this preamble. We are further proposing 

to require owners or operators to keep 

records and report any bypass and the 

amount of HAP released to the 

atmosphere with the next periodic 

report. In addition, to add clarity to 

these proposed provisions, we are 

proposing to add definitions for 

‘‘bypass,’’ ‘‘pressure release,’’ ‘‘pressure 

relief device or valve,’’ ‘‘in gas/vapor 

service,’’ ‘‘in light liquid service’’ ‘‘in 

heavy liquid service’’ and ‘‘in liquid 

service’’ to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD. 

We are also proposing to remove the 

definition of ‘‘safety device’’ and the 

provisions related to safety devices from 

40 CFR part 63, subpart DD, which 

would overlap with and be redundant of 

parts of the proposed definition of 

‘‘pressure relief device or valve’’ and the 

provisions related to these devices. To 

our knowledge, pressure relief devices 

or valves are the only safety devices 

used in OSWRO processes. 

To address potential releases from 

PRDs, we are also proposing to require 

facility owners or operators subject to 

the OSWRO MACT standards to employ 

monitoring of PRDs in off-site material 

service using a device or monitoring 

system that is capable of: (1) Identifying 

the pressure release; (2) recording the 

time and duration of each pressure 

release; and (3) notifying operators 

immediately that a pressure release is 

occurring. We are further proposing to 

require owners or operators to keep 

records and report any pressure release 

and the amount of HAP released to the 

atmosphere with the next periodic 

report. 

Pressure releases to the atmosphere 

from PRDs in off-site material service 

have the potential to emit large 

quantities of HAP. Where a release 

occurs, it is important to identify and 

mitigate it as quickly as possible. We 

recognize that releases from PRDs 

sometimes occur in order to protect 

systems from failures that could 

endanger worker safety and the systems 

that the PRDs are designed to protect. 

We have provided a balanced approach 

designed to minimize HAP emissions 

while recognizing that these events may 

be unavoidable even in a well-designed 

and maintained system. For purposes of 

estimating the costs of this requirement, 

we assumed that operators would install 

electronic indicators on each relief 

device that vents to the atmosphere to 

identify and record the time and 

duration of each pressure release. 

However, we are proposing that owners 

and operators could choose to use an 

existing system, such as a parameter 

monitoring system, as long as it is 

sufficient to identify a pressure release, 

notify operators immediately that a 

release is occurring and record the time 

and duration of the release. 

Based on our cost assumptions, the 

nationwide capital cost of installing 

these monitors for the OSWRO industry 

is approximately $1.75 million and the 

annualized cost of installing and 

operating these monitors is $250,000 per 

year. As noted above, the owner or 

operator may use parameter monitoring 

systems already in place. Therefore, our 

costs based on the installation of 

electronic indicators on each relief 

device that vents to the atmosphere is 

conservative and likely overstates the 

costs. 

6. Performance Test Method 

Clarifications and Alternative Methods 

The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 

63.694 specifies test methods and 

procedures to be used in determining 

compliance with the requirements of 

subpart DD. We are proposing several 

minor changes to these provisions to 

correct errors and to provide 

consistency, clarification and flexibility. 

We are proposing several minor 

clarifications to align the testing 

requirements with standard testing 

practices. We are proposing that test 

runs last ‘‘at least 1 hour’’, rather than 

stating that tests last ‘‘1 hour’’ in 

§ 63.694(f)(1) and (i)(1). This is 

consistent with standard testing practice 

and other provisions of the rule that 

specify a minimum sampling time 

instead of an absolute sampling time. 

Requiring a minimum sampling time 

allows owners and operators to conduct 

longer sampling runs when necessary. 

For example, an owner or operator may 

conduct longer sampling runs to achieve 

a lower detection limit for a specific 

compound. We are proposing to specify 

that a minimum of three test runs are 

required in § 63.694(l)(3)(i) and (l)(4)(i), 

consistent with the Part 63 General 

Provisions and standard testing 

practices. We are proposing to specify in 

§ 63.694(m)(2) that in the determination 

of process vent stream flow rate and 

total HAP concentration, the sample site 

selected must be at the center of the 

vent for vents smaller than 0.10 meter 

in diameter. EPA Methods 1 and 1A do 

not apply to stack diameters smaller 

than 0.10 meter in diameter, and the 

regulation as currently written states 

that it is unnecessary to traverse vents 

less than 0.10 meter in diameter, but is 

unclear on how sampling point 

selection must be chosen. We are 

proposing to clarify that the sampling 

point must be at the center of the vent; 

this sample point is the point most 

likely to provide a representative 

sample of the gas stream. 

To provide consistency with other 

parts of the OSWRO MACT standards, 

we are proposing to clarify the 

requirements of § 63.694(j)(3) for 

determining the maximum HAP vapor 

pressure for off-site material in a tank if 

the Administrator and the owner or 

operator disagree on a determination of 

the maximum HAP vapor pressure for 

an off-site material stream using 

knowledge. We are proposing that 

results from direct measurement of the 

HAP vapor pressure must be used in 

these instances. This is consistent with 

§ 63.694(b)(3)(iv), which uses the same 

language for VOHAP measurements. 

We also are proposing to correct a 

citation in § 63.694(k)(3). The regulation 

currently references the wrong section 

of Method 21 for instrument response 

factors. The appropriate section in EPA 

Method 21 is 8.1.1, not 3.1.2(a). 

We are proposing to allow the use of 

either EPA Method 25A or Method 18 

in § 63.694(l)(3) and (4). We are 

clarifying that Method 25A must be 

used for determining compliance with 

the enclosed combustion device total 

organic compound (TOC) limit, while 

Method 18 is used for determining 

compliance with the total HAP 

concentration limit. We are making this 

change because Method 25A is a flame 

ionization method that measures 

concentration as carbon equivalents. It 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37879 

is preferred over Method 18 for the 

measurement of TOC. Method 18 is 

used to determine the concentration of 

individual compounds, making it 

appropriate for measuring individual 

HAPs that can be summed and 

compared with the total HAP limit, 

especially when a finite list of HAPs is 

specified (such as in Table 1 of the 

OSWRO NESHAP). Because TOC 

includes all organic compounds (minus 

methane and ethane) and Method 18 

requires a set list of individual 

compounds to be measured. In order to 

use Method 18 for TOC measurements, 

one would have to know every organic 

compound in the gas stream and 

analyze each individually, which is a 

difficult and nearly impossible task in 

most cases. Therefore, we are proposing 

that TOC is to be measured with Method 

25A and total HAP is to be measured 

with Method 18. The changes in how 

the test methods are applied and how 

TOC is most appropriately measured 

result in changes in some of the 

equations in § 63.694 as well. 

We are proposing additional 

flexibility in some of the test methods 

that are allowed by the OSWRO 

NESHAP. We are including the use of 

EPA Method 3A as an alternative to EPA 

Method 3B in § 63.694(l)(4)(iii)(A) for 

determining the oxygen concentration to 

use in oxygen correction equations. EPA 

Method 3A is just as effective as EPA 

Method 3B in determining oxygen 

concentration. We have also included 

the use of EPA Methods 2F and 2G as 

options for flow rate measurement in 

§ 63.694(l)(2) and (m)(3). These methods 

are newer velocity measurement 

methods that were published after the 

original OSWRO rule. By allowing these 

test method alternatives in the rule, we 

are providing greater flexibility to 

sources and easing the burden on 

sources and delegated agencies by 

reducing the number of potential 

alternative method requests. 

7. Other Clarifications and Corrections 

We are proposing several 

miscellaneous minor changes to 

improve the clarity of the rule 

requirements. These proposed changes 

include: 

• Updating the list in § 63.684(b)(5) of 

combustion devices that may be used to 

destroy the HAP contained in an off-site 

material stream, to include incinerators, 

boilers or industrial furnaces for which 

the owner or operator complies with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE. Where the OSWRO MACT 

standards currently require that 

combustion devices used for the 

purposes of compliance with the 

OSWRO MACT standards must be 

regulated under various subparts of 

RCRA, many of these units now comply 

with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, 

which had not been promulgated when 

the OSWRO MACT standards were 

developed. We are also proposing 

conforming changes to the boiler and 

process heater control device 

requirements in § 63.693(g)(1)(v). These 

changes clarify that combustion units 

complying with the requirements of 

subpart EEE may be used for the 

purposes of compliance with the 

OSWRO MACT standards. 

• Revising the tank control level 

tables and the text in § 63.685(b) to 

clarify the control level required for 

tanks of any capacity (effectively those 

less than 75 m3) with a vapor pressure 

of 76.6 kPa or greater. Tanks meeting 

these capacity and vapor pressure 

thresholds are not included in the 

control level tables referred to in 

§ 63.685(b), currently Tables 3 and 4 of 

the OSWRO NESHAP, and instead text 

is included in § 63.685(b)(4) for these 

tanks. To clarify the requirements for 

these tanks, we are proposing to specify 

the requirements for these tanks in the 

tank control level tables (proposed 

Tables 3, 4 and 5) and remove the text 

in § 63.685(b)(4). 

• Clarifying that where § 63.691 

requires the owner or operator to control 

the HAP emitted from equipment leaks 

in accordance with either 40 CFR part 

61, subpart V or 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

H, the definitions in 40 CFR 61.241 and 

40 CFR 63.161 apply, with the 

differences listed, for the purposes of 

the OSWRO NESHAP. 

• Clarifying the requirement of 

§ 63.683(c)(1)(ii) that the average 

VOHAP concentration of the off-site 

material must be less than 500 ppmw at 

the point-of-delivery and clarifying the 

requirements of § 63.693(f)(1)(i)(B) and 

§ 63.693(f)(1)(ii)(B) are to achieve a total 

incinerator outlet concentration of less 

than or equal to 20 ppmv on a dry basis 

corrected to 3 percent oxygen. Due to 

clerical errors, the ppm values of these 

requirements are not in the current 

OSWRO NESHAP, and we are 

proposing to insert them. 

• Clarifying in §§ 63.684(h), 

63.693(b)(8) and 63.694(b)(3)(iv) that the 

Administrator may require a 

performance test, revisions to a control 

device design analysis, or that direct 

measurement be used in the 

determination of a VOHAP 

concentration, rather than that the 

Administrator may only request such 

actions. 

• Revising several references to the 

Part 63 General Provisions in Table 2 to 

correct errors, including errors where 

the entries in Table 2 conflict with the 

regulatory text in subpart DD and where 

references to specific sections of the 

General Provisions do not exist or are 

reserved. 

8. Flare Performance 

In addition to our proposed actions 

discussed above, we are seeking 

comments on the performance of flares 

used to control HAP emissions in this 

source category, as governed by the 

EPA’s General Provisions at 40 CFR 

63.11(b). In April 2012, the EPA 

conducted an external peer review of a 

draft technical report, ‘‘Parameters for 

Properly Designed and Operated Flares’’ 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/flare/2012

flaretechreport.pdf) (‘‘draft flare 

technical report’’). In this report, the 

EPA evaluated test data and identified 

a variety of parameters that may affect 

flare performance and that could be 

monitored to help ensure good 

combustion efficiency. Based on 

feedback received from the external adhoc peer review panel, the EPA has 

since undertaken an initiative to reevaluate parameters that may affect 

overall flare performance at source 

categories known to use flares for 

controlling HAP emissions (e.g., 

petroleum refining). 

Currently, OSWRO sources may 

choose from a variety of control 

techniques to control emissions from 

this source category. One option is to 

operate a flare to reduce HAP emissions 

in accordance with the provision in 40 

CFR 63.693(h). However, responses to 

the CAA section 114 questionnaire 

indicate that flares are not commonly 

used as control devices for this source 

category, and we know of only one 

facility that uses a flare as a primary 

control device in order to comply with 

the OSWRO NESHAP. In addition, none 

of the flare performance data used in the 

draft flare technical report comes from 

OSWRO sources nor does it provide any 

test data on non-assisted flare types, 

which based on available information, is 

the only flare type found in the OSWRO 

source category. As indicated in the 

EPA flare draft technical report, one of 

the primary factors that affects flare 

performance is over-assisting flares with 

too much steam or air and while this 

can potentially occur in steam-assisted 

and air-assisted flare designs, nonassisted flare types do not have a 

potential to over-assist. Thus, we have 

no information to suggest that flares at 

OSWRO sources are achieving poor 

destruction efficiency. We solicit 

comments on our discussion and 

conclusions regarding flare 

performance, including additional 

information on flare performance 

related to this source category. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37880 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Examples of types of information we 

seek from commenters regarding flares 

for the OSWRO source category include: 

Frequency of flaring; number and types 

of flares used; waste gas characteristics 

such as flow rate, composition and heat 

content; assist gas characteristics such 

as target assist gas to waste gas ratios 

and minimum assist gas flow rates; use 

of flare gas recovery and other flare 

minimization practices; and existing 

flare monitoring systems. 

E. What compliance dates are we 

proposing? 

Under CAA section 112(d), the 

proposed compliance date for new and 

existing affected sources for the revised 

SSM requirements, electronic reporting 

requirements, the revised routine 

maintenance provisions, the operating 

and pressure release management 

requirements for PRDs, and the revised 

requirements regarding bypasses and 

closure devices on pressure tanks is the 

effective date of the final amendments. 

We are proposing this compliance date 

because available information indicates 

these new and revised requirements 

should be immediately implementable 

by the facilities. 

We are also proposing that for existing 

affected sources subject to the OSWRO 

MACT standards, the compliance date 

for the PRD monitoring requirements is 

3 years from the effective date of the 

final amendments. This time is needed 

regardless of whether an owner or 

operator of a facility chooses to comply 

with the PRD monitoring provisions by 

installing PRD release indicator systems 

and alarms, employing parameter 

monitoring, routing releases to a control 

device, or choosing another compliance 

option as permitted under the proposed 

provisions. This time period will allow 

OSWRO facility owners and operators to 

research equipment and vendors, and to 

purchase, install, test and properly 

operate any necessary equipment by the 

compliance date. For new affected 

sources, the proposed compliance date 

for PRD monitoring requirements is the 

effective date of the final amendments. 

Finally, we are proposing revised 

requirements for equipment leaks and 

tanks under CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 

(f)(2). The compliance deadlines for 

standards developed under CAA section 

112(f)(2) are addressed in CAA sections 

112(f)(3) and (4). As provided in CAA 

Section 112(f)(4), risk standards shall 

not apply to existing affected sources 

until 90 days after the effective date of 

the rule, but the Administrator may 

grant a waiver for a particular source for 

a period of up to 2 years after the 

effective date. Here, the EPA is already 

aware of the steps needed for OSWRO 

facilities to comply with the proposed 

standards for equipment leaks and tanks 

and to reasonably estimate the amount 

of time it will take these facilities to do 

so. Therefore, consistent with CAA 

section 112(f)(4)(B), we are proposing 

that a two-year compliance period is 

necessary for the revised tank 

requirements to allow affected facilities 

to research equipment and vendors, 

purchase, install, test and properly 

operate any necessary equipment by the 

compliance date. We are also proposing, 

consistent with CAA section 

112(f)(4)(B), that a one-year compliance 

period is necessary for the revised 

equipment leak requirements to allow 

affected facilities that are currently 

complying with 40 CFR part 61, subpart 

V adequate time to purchase, install and 

test any necessary equipment and 

modify their existing LDAR programs. 

In addition, pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(6), we are proposing these same 

compliance dates for the revised tank 

and equipment leak standards. For new 

affected sources, the proposed 

compliance date for the revised tank 

and equipment leak standards is the 

effective date of the final amendments. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We estimate that there are 

approximately 52 major source OSWRO 

facilities. Based on available permit 

information, seven facilities are known 

to be exempt from most of the rule 

requirements due to the low HAP 

content of the off-site waste they receive 

or because they comply instead with 40 

CFR part 61, subpart FF, as allowed by 

the OSWRO NESHAP, and they are not 

expected to be affected by the proposed 

rule revisions. These facilities are only 

required to document that the total 

annual quantity of the HAP contained in 

the off-site material received at the plant 

site is less than 1 megagram per year, 

and they are not subject to any other 

emissions limits or monitoring, 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. We are not aware of any 

new OSWRO facilities that are expected 

to be constructed in the foreseeable 

future. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

For equipment leaks, we are 

proposing to eliminate the option of 

complying with 40 CFR part 61, subpart 

V, and requiring facilities in the 

OSWRO source category to comply with 

40 CFR part 63, subpart H, including 

connector monitoring. We estimate the 

HAP emission reduction for this change 

to be approximately 138 tpy. For tanks, 

we are proposing to require tanks of 

certain sizes and containing materials 

above certain vapor pressures to use 

Level 2 controls. We estimate the HAP 

emission reduction for this change to be 

approximately 73 tpy. We do not 

anticipate any HAP emission reduction 

from our proposed clarification of the 

rule provision ‘‘seal the open end’’ (in 

the context of open-ended valves and 

lines), clarification of the scope of the 

routine maintenance provisions, or 

requirement to electronically report the 

results of emissions testing. 

For the proposed revisions to the 

MACT standards regarding SSM, 

including monitoring of PRDs in off-site 

material service, we were not able to 

quantify the possible emission 

reductions so none are included in our 

assessment of air quality impacts. 

Therefore, the estimated total HAP 

emission reductions for the proposed 

rule revisions for the OSWRO source 

category are estimated to be 211 tpy. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

For equipment leaks, we are 

proposing to eliminate the option of 

complying with 40 CFR part 61, subpart 

V, and to require facilities in the 

OSWRO source category to comply with 

40 CFR part 63, subpart H (including 

connector monitoring). We estimate the 

nationwide capital costs to be $1.9 

million and the annualized costs to be 

$530,000. For tanks, we are proposing to 

require tanks of certain sizes and 

containing materials above certain vapor 

pressures to use Level 2 controls. We 

estimate the nationwide capital costs to 

be $76,000 and the annualized costs to 

be $21,000. We do not anticipate any 

quantifiable capital or annualized costs 

for our proposed definition of ‘‘seal’’ (in 

the context of open-ended valves and 

lines), clarification of the scope of the 

routine maintenance provisions and 

requirement to electronically report the 

results of emissions testing. 

For the proposed requirements to 

install and operate monitors on PRDs, 

we estimate the nationwide capital costs 

to be $1.75 million and the annualized 

costs to be $250,000. 

Therefore, the total capital costs for 

the proposed standards for the OSWRO 

source category are approximately $3.7 

million and the total annualized costs 

are approximately $800,000. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

Both the magnitude of control costs 

needed to comply with a regulation and 

the distribution of these costs among 

affected facilities can have a role in 

determining how the market will change 

in response to that regulation. Total 

annualized costs for the proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37881 

26EPA. June 1996. 

amendments are estimated to be about 

$800,000. The average annualized cost 

per facility is estimated to be about 

$24,000. 

Without detailed industry data, it is 

not possible to conduct a complete 

quantitative analysis of economic 

impacts. However, prior analyses 

suggest the impacts of these proposed 

amendments will be minimal. The 

Economic Impact Analysis for the Final 

OSWRO NESHAP 26 found that demand 

for off-site waste services was highly 

inelastic. This means that suppliers are 

predominantly able to pass along cost 

increases to consumers through higher 

prices with little, if any, decrease in the 

quantity of service demanded. While we 

do not have specific information on 

prices charged or the quantity of service 

provided, company revenues are a 

function of both these factors. The costto-sales ratio is less than one quarter of 

one percent for all of the 27 firms 

included in this analysis, suggesting any 

increase in price would be minimal. 

E. What are the benefits? 

We have estimated that this action 

will achieve HAP emissions reduction 

of 211 tons per year. The proposed 

standards will result in significant 

reductions in the actual and MACTallowable emissions of HAP and will 

reduce the actual and potential cancer 

risks and non-cancer health effects due 

to emissions of HAP from this source 

category, as discussed in section IV.B.2. 

We have not quantified the monetary 

benefits associated with these 

reductions; however, these avoided 

emissions will result in improvements 

in air quality and reduced negative 

health effects associate with exposure to 

air pollution of these emissions. 

VI. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting comments on all 

aspects of this proposed action. In 

addition to general comments on this 

proposed action, we are also interested 

in any additional data that may help to 

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 

Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files 

include detailed information for each 

HAP emissions release point for the 

facilities included 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 page, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, 

commenter phone number and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0360 (through one of 

the methods described in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble). 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a single facility or multiple facilities, 

you need only submit one file for all 

facilities. The file should contain all 

suggested changes for all sources at that 

facility. We request that all data revision 

comments be submitted in the form of 

updated Microsoft® Excel files that are 

generated by the Microsoft® Access file. 

These files are provided on the RTR 

Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by the EPA has been assigned 

the EPA ICR number 1717.10. 

The information requirements are 

based on notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to 

national emissions standards. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

All information submitted to the EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to agency 

policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B. 

We estimate approximately 52 

regulated entities are currently subject 

to subpart DD; however, five facilities 

are only subject to off-site waste HAP 

content determination requirements and 

are not subject to the emissions 

standards and other requirements of the 

OSWRO NESHAP due to the low HAP 

content of the off-site waste they 

receive. Also, two facilities are not 

subject to the emissions standards and 

other requirements of the OSWRO 

NESHAP because they comply instead 

with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, as 

allowed by the OSWRO NESHAP. 

Therefore, we estimate that there is an 

annual average of 45 respondents that 

are subject to the annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of the regulation. This is a 

decrease of 191 regulated entities from 

our estimate for the previous ICR (EPA 

ICR Number 1717.09, OMB Control 

Number 2060–0313) for the OSWRO 

source category. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) for the proposed amended 

subpart DD, including existing rule 

provisions unchanged by this proposal, 

is estimated to be 45,147 labor hours at 

a cost of $2.5 million per year. This 

represents a decrease of approximately 

$15 million and 133,000 labor hours 

from the previous ICR, due primarily to 

the reduction in the estimated number 

of regulated entities. In order to more 

accurately assess the change in burden 

resulting from these proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37882 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

amendments, we estimate that the 

burden for each of the 45 facilities 

subject to the annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of the regulations has 

increased by $6,000 and 92 labor hours 

from the previous ICR estimate. 

The total burden for the federal 

government (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standard) is estimated to be 449 labor 

hours per year at an annual cost of 

$20,200. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

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. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document for where to submit 

comments to the EPA. Send comments 

to OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after July 2, 2014, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by August 1, 2014. 

The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. Facilities in this 

source category are not categorized as a 

single industry and, as a result, cannot 

be classified under a single NAICS code 

category. During the development of 

these proposed amendments, the EPA 

identified 45 facilities affected by this 

proposal. These 45 facilities represent 

27 firms in 20 industries. These 

industries and the SBA size standards 

are shown in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—INDUSTRIES INCLUDED IN OSWRO SOURCE CATEGORY

NAICS Description SBA Size standard 

211111 ........ Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction ............................................................... 500 employees. 

221310 ........ Water Supply and Irrigation Systems ............................................................................ $7.0 million annual receipts. 

237310 ........ Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction .................................................................... $33.5 million annual receipts. 

324110 ........ Petroleum Refineries ..................................................................................................... 1,500 employees. 

325180 ........ Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing ............................................................ 1,000 employees. 

325194 ........ Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing ................. 750 employees. 

325199 ........ All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing ......................................................... 1,000 employees. 

325211 ........ Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing ................................................................... 750 employees. 

327310 ........ Cement Manufacturing ................................................................................................... 750 employees. 

331313 ........ Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production ................................................... 1,000 employees. 

333316 ........ Photographic and Photocopying Equipment Manufacturing ......................................... 1,000 employees. 

336411 ........ Aircraft Manufacturing .................................................................................................... 1,500 employees. 

424690 ........ Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers ........................................ 100 employees. 

561110 ........ Office Administrative Services ....................................................................................... $7.0 million annual receipts. 

562111 ........ Solid Waste Collection ................................................................................................... $35.5 million annual receipts. 

562211 ........ Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal ................................................................... $35.5 million annual receipts. 

562213 ........ Solid Waste Combustion and Incinerators .................................................................... $35.5 million annual receipts. 

562219 ........ Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal .................................................. $35.5 million annual receipts. 

562920 ........ Materials Recovery Facilities ......................................................................................... $19.0 million annual receipts. 

928110 ........ National Security a .......................................................................................................... n/a. 

a One facility is operated by the U.S. Department of Defense. Small business size standards are not established for this sector. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

For the small business screening 

analysis, the EPA identified the ultimate 

parent company (firm) for each facility 

and obtained firm-level employment 

and revenues using various sources, 

including the American Business 

Directory, Hoovers, corporate Web sites 

and publically available financial 

reports. The screening analysis shows 

that four of the 27 firms that own 

facilities in the OSWRO source category 

can be classified as small firms using 

the SBA size standards for their 

respective industries. Based on the sales 

test screening methodology, all four 

firms will experience minimal impact, 

or a cost-to-sales ratio of 1 percent or 

less. Details of this analysis can be 

found in the memo ‘‘Economic Impact 

Analysis for Risk and Technology 

Review: Off-site Waste and Recovery 

Operations Source Category’’ in the 

docket. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local 

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37883 

the private sector in any one year. The 

total annualized cost of this rule is 

estimated to be no more than $800,000 

in any one year. Thus, this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned or operated by state 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with the EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and State and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed rule from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). There are no Off-Site Waste 

Recovery Operation facilities that are 

owned or operated by tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. The 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed action from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866, and because the agency 

does not believe the environmental 

health risks or safety risks addressed by 

this action present a disproportionate 

risk to children. Because the proposed 

rule amendments would result in 

reduced emissions of HAP and reduced 

risk to anyone exposed, the EPA 

believes that the proposed rule 

amendments would provide additional 

protection to children. The EPA’s risk 

assessments are included in the docket 

for this proposed rule. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to HAP emitted by 

OSWRO facilities. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rule involves technical 

standards. The EPA proposes to add 

EPA Methods 2F and 2G to the list of 

methods allowed to determine process 

vent stream gas volumetric flow rate. No 

applicable VCS were identified for these 

methods. In addition, the EPA is 

proposing to allow EPA Method 3A as 

an alternative to EPA Method 3B for 

determining the oxygen concentration to 

use in oxygen correction equations. 

While several candidate VCS were 

identified (ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10– 

1981 Part 10, ASME B133.9–1994 

(2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 

12039:2001, ASTM D5835–95 (2013), 

ASTM D6522–00 (2011), and CAN/CSA 

Z223.2–M86 (1999)), we do not propose 

to use any of these standards in this 

proposed rule. The use of these VCS 

would not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation 

data and other important technical and 

policy considerations. The EPA also 

proposes to require the use of EPA 

Method 25A to determine compliance 

with the control device percent 

reduction requirement, if the owner or 

operator chooses to measure total 

organic content. While the agency 

identified two candidate VCS (ISO 

14965:2000(E), EN 12619 (1999)) as 

being potentially applicable, we do not 

propose to use either standard in this 

proposed rule. The use of these VCS 

would not be practical due to the 

limited measurement ranges of these 

methods. (For more detail, see 

‘‘Voluntary Consensus Standard Results 

for NESHAP: Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations 40 CFR Part 63, 

Subpart DD’’ in the docket for this 

proposed rule.) 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rule and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practical and permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low income or indigenous 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority, low income or indigenous 

populations. 

To gain a better understanding of the 

source category and near source 

populations, the EPA conducted a 

proximity analysis for OSWRO facilities 

to identify any overrepresentation of 

minority, low income or indigenous 

populations. This analysis only gives 

some indication of the prevalence of 

sub-populations that may be exposed to 

air pollution from the sources; it does 

not identify the demographic 

characteristics of the most highly 

affected individuals or communities, 

nor does it quantify the level of risk 

faced by those individuals or 

communities. More information on the 

source category’s risk can be found in 

section IV of this preamble. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37884 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

In determining the aggregate 

demographic makeup of the 

communities near affected sources, the 

EPA focused on those census blocks 

within 3 miles of affected sources, 

determined the demographic 

composition (e.g., race, income, etc.) of 

these census blocks, and compared 

them to the corresponding compositions 

nationally. The results of this proximity 

analysis show that most demographic 

categories were below or within 20 

percent of their corresponding national 

averages except for the African 

American and minority populations. 

The African American segment of the 

population within 3 miles of any source 

affected by this proposed rule exceeds 

the national average by 166 percent, or 

21 percentage points (34 percent versus 

13 percent). The minority population 

within 3 miles exceeds the national 

average by 64 percent, or 24 percentage 

points, (61 percent versus 37 percent). 

However, as noted previously, risks 

from this source category were found to 

be acceptable for all populations. 

Additionally, the proposed changes to 

the standard increase the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations by reducing emissions from 

equipment leaks and tanks. 

Further details concerning this 

analysis are presented in the December 

3, 2013 memorandum titled, 

Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations, RTR, a 

copy of which is available in the docket 

for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0360). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 30, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to amend Title 

40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart DD—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 63.680 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (2); 

and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.680 Applicability and designation of 

affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Existing sources. The owner or 

operator of an affected source that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction before October 13, 1994, 

must achieve compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart on or before 

the date specified in paragraph 

(e)(1)(i),(ii), or (iii) of this section as 

applicable to the affected source. 

(i) For an affected source that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction before October 13, 1994 

and receives off-site material for the first 

time before February 1, 2000, the owner 

or operator of this affected source must 

achieve compliance with the provisions 

of the subpart (except §§ 63.685(b)(1)(ii), 

63.691(b), and 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of 

this subpart) on or before February 1, 

2000 unless an extension has been 

granted by the Administrator as 

provided in 40 CFR 63.6(i). These 

existing affected sources shall be in 

compliance with the tank requirements 

of § 63.685(b)(1)(ii) of this subpart two 

years after the publication date of the 

final amendments on [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the 

equipment leak requirements of 

§ 63.691(b) of this subpart one year after 

the publication date of the final 

amendments on [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and the 

pressure relief device monitoring 

requirements of § 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 

of this subpart three years after the 

publication date of the final 

amendments on [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(ii) For an affected source that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction before October 13, 1994, 

but receives off-site material for the first 

time on or after February 1, 2000, but 

before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the owner or operator of 

the affected source must achieve 

compliance with the provisions of this 

subpart (except §§ 63.685(b)(1)(ii), 

63.691(b), and 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of 

this subpart) upon the first date that the 

affected source begins to manage off-site 

material. These existing affected sources 

shall be in compliance with the tank 

requirements of § 63.685(b)(1)(ii) of this 

subpart two years after the publication 

date of the final amendments on [DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

the equipment leak requirements of 

§ 63.691(b) of this subpart one year after 

the publication date of the final 

amendments on [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and the 

pressure relief device monitoring 

requirements of § 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 

of this subpart three years after the 

publication date of the final 

amendments on [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(iii) For an affected source that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction before October 13, 1994, 

but receives off-site material for the first 

time on or after [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the 

owner or operator of the affected source 

must achieve compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart (except 

§§ 63.685 (b)(1)(ii), 63.691(b), and 

63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this subpart) 

upon the first date that the affected 

source begins to manage off-site 

material. These existing affected sources 

shall be in compliance with the tank 

requirements of § 63.685(b)(1)(ii) of this 

subpart two years after the publication 

date of the final amendments on [DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 

the equipment leak requirements of 

§ 63.691(b) of this subpart one year after 

the publication date of the final 

amendments on [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and the 

pressure relief device monitoring 

requirements of § 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 

of this subpart three years after the 

publication date of the final 

amendments on [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(2) New sources. The owner or 

operator of an affected source for which 

construction or reconstruction 

commences on or after October 13, 

1994, must achieve compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart (except 

§§ 63.685(b)(2), 63.691(b), and 

63.691(c)(i) and (ii) of this subpart) on 

or before July 1, 1996, or upon initial 

startup of operations, whichever date is 

later as provided in 40 CFR 63.6(b). New 

affected sources that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after 

October 13, 1994, but on or before 

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall be in 

compliance with the tank requirements 

of § 63.685(b)(2) of this subpart two 

years after the publication date of the 

final amendments, the equipment leak 

requirements of § 63.691(b) of this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37885 

subpart one after the publication date of 

the final amendments, and the pressure 

relief device monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.691(c)(i) and (ii) of this subpart 

three years after the effective date of the 

final amendments. New affected sources 

that commence construction or 

reconstruction after July 2, 2014 shall be 

in compliance with the tank 

requirements of § 63.685(b)(2) of this 

subpart, the equipment leak 

requirements of § 63.691(b) of this 

subpart, and the pressure relief device 

monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this subpart 

upon initial startup or by the effective 

date of the final amendments, 

whichever is later. 

* * * * * 

(g) Applicability of this subpart. (1) 

The emission limitations set forth in 

this subpart and the emission 

limitations referred to in this subpart 

shall apply at all times except during 

periods of non-operation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. 

(2) The owner or operator shall not 

shut down items of equipment that are 

required or utilized for compliance with 

this subpart during times when 

emissions are being routed to such items 

of equipment, if the shutdown would 

contravene requirements of this subpart 

applicable to such items of equipment. 

■ 3. Section 63.681 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Bypass’’, ‘‘In gas/vapor 

service’’, ‘‘In heavy liquid service’’, ‘‘In 

light liquid service’’, ‘‘In liquid service’’, 

‘‘Pressure release’’, and ‘‘Pressure relief 

device or valve’’; 

■ b. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Pointof-treatment’’ and ‘‘Process vent’’; and 

■ c. Removing the definition of ‘‘Safety 

device’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.681 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Bypass means diverting a process vent 

or closed vent system stream to the 

atmosphere such that it does not first 

pass through an emission control 

device. 

* * * * * 

In gas/vapor service means that a 

piece of equipment in off-site material 

service contains a gas or vapor at 

operating conditions. 

In heavy liquid service means that a 

piece of equipment in off-site material 

service is not in gas/vapor service or in 

light liquid service. 

In light liquid service means that a 

piece of equipment in off-site material 

service contains a liquid that meets the 

following conditions: 

(1) The vapor pressure of one or more 

of the organic compounds is greater 

than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 °C, 

(2) The total concentration of the pure 

organic compounds constituents having 

a vapor pressure greater than 0.3 

kilopascals at 20 °C is equal to or greater 

than 20 percent by weight of the total 

process stream, and 

(3) The fluid is a liquid at operating 

conditions. 

Note to In light liquid service. Vapor 

pressures may be determined by the 

methods described in 40 CFR 

60.485(e)(1). 

In liquid service means that a piece of 

equipment in off-site material service is 

not in gas/vapor service. 

* * * * * 

Point-of-treatment means a point after 

the treated material exits the treatment 

process but before the first point 

downstream of the treatment process 

exit where the organic constituents in 

the treated material have the potential to 

volatilize and be released to the 

atmosphere. For the purpose of applying 

this definition to this subpart, the first 

point downstream of the treatment 

process exit is not a fugitive emission 

point due to an equipment leak from 

any of the following equipment 

components: Pumps, compressors, 

valves, connectors, instrumentation 

systems, or pressure relief devices. 

Pressure release means the emission 

of materials resulting from the system 

pressure being greater than the set 

pressure of the pressure relief device. 

This release can be one release or a 

series of releases over a short time 

period. 

Pressure relief device or valve means 

a safety device used to prevent 

operating pressures from exceeding the 

maximum allowable working pressure 

of the process equipment. A common 

pressure relief device is a spring-loaded 

pressure relief valve. Devices that are 

actuated either by a pressure of less than 

or equal to 2.5 pounds per square inch 

gauge or by a vacuum are not pressure 

relief devices. 

* * * * * 

Process vent means an open-ended 

pipe, stack, or duct through which a gas 

stream containing HAP is continuously 

or intermittently discharged to the 

atmosphere from any of the processes 

listed in § 63.680(c)(2)(i) through (vi) of 

this subpart. For the purpose of this 

subpart, a process vent is none of the 

following: a pressure relief device; an 

open-ended line or other vent that is 

subject to the equipment leak control 

requirements under § 63.691 of this 

subpart; or a stack or other vent that is 

used to exhaust combustion products 

from a boiler, furnace, process heater, 

incinerator, or other combustion device. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 63.683 is revised by adding 

paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows: 

§ 63.683 Standards: General. 

* * * * * 

(e) General Duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

the owner operator to make any further 

efforts to reduce emissions if levels 

required by the applicable standard 

have been achieved. Determination of 

whether a source is operating in 

compliance with operation and 

maintenance requirements will be based 

on information available to the 

Administrator, which may include, but 

is not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

(f) In addition to the cases listed in 

§ 63.695(e)(4) of this subpart, deviation 

means any of the cases listed in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this 

section. 

(1) Any instance in which an affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an 

owner or operator of such a source, fails 

to meet any requirement or obligation 

established by this subpart, including, 

but not limited to, any emission limit, 

operating limit or work practice 

standard. 

(2) When a performance test indicates 

that emissions of a pollutant in Table 1 

to this subpart are exceeding the 

emission standard for the pollutant 

specified in Table 1 to this subpart. 

(3) When the average value of a 

monitored operating parameter, based 

on the data averaging period for 

compliance specified in § 63.695 of this 

subpart, does not meet the operating 

limit specified in § 63.693 of this 

subpart. 

(4) When an affected source 

discharges directly into the atmosphere 

from any of the sources specified in 

paragraphs (f)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) A pressure relief device, as defined 

in § 63.681 of this subpart. 

(ii) A bypass, as defined in § 63.681 of 

this subpart. 

(5) Any instance in which the affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an 

owner or operator of such a source, fails 

to meet any term or condition specified 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37886 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

in paragraph (f)(5)(i) or (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) Any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable 

requirement in this subpart. 

(ii) Any term or condition relating to 

compliance with this subpart that is 

included in the operating permit for an 

affected source to obtain such a permit. 

(6) Any failure to collect required 

data, except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). 

■ 5. Section 63.684 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(5)(v) and revising 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 63.684 Standards: Off-site Material 

Treatment. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(v) An incinerator, boiler, or 

industrial furnace for which the owner 

or operator has submitted a Notification 

of Compliance under 40 CFR 63.1207(j) 

and 63.1210(d) and complies with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE at all times (including times when 

non-hazardous waste is being burned). 

* * * * * 

(h) The Administrator may at any 

time conduct or require that the owner 

or operator conduct testing necessary to 

demonstrate that a treatment process is 

achieving the applicable performance 

requirements of this section. The testing 

shall be conducted in accordance with 

the applicable requirements of this 

section. The Administrator may elect to 

have an authorized representative 

observe testing conducted by the owner 

or operator. 

■ 6. Section 63.685 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(1), and (b)(2); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(4); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2)(i), 

(c)(2)(iii)(B), (g)(2), and (h)(3); and 

■ d. Removing paragraph (i)(3) and 

redesignating paragraph (i)(4) as 

paragraph (i)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 63.685 Standards: Tanks. 

* * * * * 

(b) According to the date an affected 

source commenced construction or 

reconstruction and the date an affected 

source receives off-site material for the 

first time as established in § 63.680(e)(i) 

through (iii) of this subpart, the owner 

or operator shall control air emissions 

from each tank subject to this section in 

accordance with either paragraph 

(b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

(1)(i) For a tank that is part of an 

existing affected source but the tank is 

not used for a waste stabilization 

process as defined in § 63.681 of this 

subpart, the owner or operator shall 

determine whether the tank is required 

to use either Tank Level 1 controls or 

Tank Level 2 controls as specified for 

the tank by Table 3 of this subpart based 

on the off-site material maximum HAP 

vapor pressure, the tank’s design 

capacity. The owner or operator shall 

control air emissions from a tank 

required by Table 3 to use Tank Level 

1 controls in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section. The owner or operator shall 

control air emissions from a tank 

required by Table 3 to use Tank Level 

2 controls in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(ii) For a tank that is part of an 

existing affected source but the tank is 

not used for a waste stabilization 

process as defined in § 63.681 of this 

subpart, the owner or operator shall 

determine whether the tank is required 

to use either Tank Level 1 controls or 

Tank Level 2 controls as specified for 

the tank by Table 4 of this subpart based 

on the off-site material maximum HAP 

vapor pressure and the tank’s design 

capacity. The owner or operator shall 

control air emissions from a tank 

required by Table 4 to use Tank Level 

1 controls in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section. The owner or operator shall 

control air emissions from a tank 

required by Table 4 to use Tank Level 

2 controls in accordance with the 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(2) For a tank that is part of a new 

affected source but the tank is not used 

for a waste stabilization process as 

defined in § 63.681 of this subpart, the 

owner or operator shall determine 

whether the tank is required to use 

either Tank Level 1 controls or Tank 

Level 2 controls as specified for the tank 

by Table 5 of this subpart based on the 

off-site material maximum HAP vapor 

pressure and the tank’s design capacity. 

The owner or operator shall control air 

emissions from a tank required by Table 

5 to use Tank Level 1 controls in 

accordance with the requirements of 

paragraph (c) of this section. The owner 

or operator shall control air emissions 

from a tank required by Table 5 to use 

Tank Level 2 controls in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

determine the maximum HAP vapor 

pressure for an off-site material to be 

managed in the tank using Tank Level 

1 controls before the first time the offsite material is placed in the tank. The 

maximum HAP vapor pressure shall be 

determined using the procedures 

specified in § 63.694(j) of this subpart. 

Thereafter, the owner or operator shall 

perform a new determination whenever 

changes to the off-site material managed 

in the tank could potentially cause the 

maximum HAP vapor pressure to 

increase to a level that is equal to or 

greater than the maximum HAP vapor 

pressure limit for the tank design 

capacity category specified in Table 3, 

Table 4, or Table 5 of this subpart, as 

applicable to the tank. 

(2) * * * 

(i) The owner or operator controls air 

emissions from the tank in accordance 

with the provisions specified in subpart 

OO of 40 CFR part 63—National 

Emission Standards for Tanks—Level 1, 

except that 40 CFR 63.902(c)(2) and (3) 

shall not apply for the purposes of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) At all other times, air emissions 

from the tank must be controlled in 

accordance with the provisions 

specified in 40 CFR part 67, subpart 

OO—National Emission Standards for 

Tanks—Level 1, except that 40 CFR 

63.902(c)(2) and (3) shall not apply for 

the purposes of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) Whenever an off-site material is in 

the tank, the fixed roof shall be installed 

with each closure device secured in the 

closed position and the vapor headspace 

underneath the fixed roof vented to the 

control device except that to the control 

device except that venting to the control 

device is not required, and opening of 

closure devices or removal of the fixed 

roof is allowed at the following times: 

(i) To provide access to the tank for 

performing routine inspection, 

maintenance, or other activities needed 

for normal operations. Examples of such 

activities include those times when a 

worker needs to open a port to sample 

liquid in the tank, or when a worker 

needs to open a hatch to maintain or 

repair equipment. Following completion 

of the activity, the owner or operator 

shall promptly secure the closure device 

in the closed position or reinstall the 

cover, as applicable, to the tank. 

(ii) To remove accumulated sludge or 

other residues from the bottom of the 

tank. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37887 

(h) * * * 

(3) Whenever an off-site material is in 

the tank, the tank shall be operated as 

a closed system that does not vent to the 

atmosphere except at those times when 

purging of inerts from the tank is 

required and the purge stream is routed 

to a closed-vent system and control 

device designed and operated in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 63.693 of this subpart. 

(i) * * * 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

inspect and monitor the closed-vent 

system and control device as specified 

in § 63.693. 

■ 7. Section 63.686 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.686 Standards: Oil-water and organic 

water separators. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) A floating roof in accordance with 

all applicable provisions specified in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart VV—National 

Emission Standards for Oil-Water 

Separators and Organic-Water 

Separators, except that §§ 63.1043(c)(2), 

63.1044(c)(2), and 63.1045(b)(3)(i) shall 

not apply for the purposes of this 

subpart. For portions of the separator 

where it is infeasible to install and 

operate a floating roof, such as over a 

weir mechanism, the owner or operator 

shall comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(2) A fixed-roof that is vented through 

a closed-vent system to a control device 

in accordance with all applicable 

provisions specified in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart VV—National Emission 

Standards for Oil-Water Separators and 

Organic-Water Separators, except that 

§§ 63.1043(c)(2), 63.1044(c)(2), and 

63.1045(b)(3)(i) shall not apply for the 

purposes of this subpart. 

(3) A pressurized separator that 

operates as a closed system in 

accordance with all applicable 

provisions specified in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart VV—National Emission 

Standards for Oil-Water Separators and 

Organic-Water Separators, except that 

§§ 63.1043(c)(2), 63.1044(c)(2), and 

63.1045(b)(3)(i) shall not apply for the 

purposes of this subpart. 

■ 8. Section 63.687 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.687 Standards: Surface 

impoundments. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) A floating membrane cover in 

accordance with the applicable 

provisions specified in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart QQ—National Emission 

Standards for Surface Impoundments, 

except that §§ 63.942(c)(2) and (3) and 

63.943(c)(2) shall not apply for the 

purposes of this subpart; or 

(2) A cover that is vented through a 

closed-vent system to a control device 

in accordance with all applicable 

provisions specified in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart QQ—National Emission 

Standards for Surface Impoundments, 

except that §§ 63.942(c)(2) and (3) and 

63.943(c)(2) shall not apply for the 

purposes of this subpart. 

■ 9. Section 63.688 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), 

and (b)(3)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 63.688 Standards: Containers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The owner or operator controls air 

emissions from the container in 

accordance with the standards for 

Container Level 1 controls as specified 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP—National 

Emission Standards for Containers, 

except that §§ 63.922(d)(4) and (5) and 

63.923(d)(4) and (5) shall not apply for 

the purposes of this subpart. 

(ii) As an alternative to meeting the 

requirements in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of 

this section, an owner or operator may 

choose to control air emissions from the 

container in accordance with the 

standards for either Container Level 2 

controls or Container Level 3 controls as 

specified in subpart PP of 40 CFR part 

63—National Emission Standards for 

Containers, except that §§ 63.922(d)(4) 

and (5) and 63.923(d)(4) and (5) shall 

not apply for the purposes of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) The owner or operator controls air 

emissions from the container in 

accordance with the standards for 

Container Level 2 controls as specified 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PP—National 

Emission Standards for Containers, 

except that §§ 63.922(d)(4) and (5) and 

63.923(d)(4) and (5) shall not apply for 

the purposes of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.689 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.689 Standards: Transfer systems. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) Whenever an off-site material is in 

the transfer system, the cover shall be 

installed with each closure device 

secured in the closed position, except 

the opening of closure devices or 

removal of the cover is allowed to 

provide access to the transfer system for 

performing routine inspection, 

maintenance, repair, or other activities 

needed for normal operations. Examples 

of such activities include those times 

when a worker needs to open a hatch or 

remove the cover to repair conveyance 

equipment mounted under the cover or 

to clear a blockage of material inside the 

system. Following completion of the 

activity, the owner or operator shall 

promptly secure the closure device in 

the closed position or reinstall the 

cover, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 63.691 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b); and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.691 Standards: Equipment leaks. 

* * * * * 

(b) According to the date an affected 

source commenced construction or 

reconstruction and the date an affected 

source receives off-site material for the 

first time, as established in § 63.680(e)(i) 

through (iii) of this subpart, the owner 

or operator shall control the HAP 

emitted from equipment leaks in 

accordance with the applicable 

provisions specified in either paragraph 

(b)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1)(i) The owner or operator controls 

the HAP emitted from equipment leaks 

in accordance with §§ 61.241 through 

61.247 in 40 CFR part 61, subpart V— 

National Emission Standards for 

Equipment Leaks, with the difference 

noted in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv) of 

this section for the purposes of this 

subpart; or 

(ii) The owner or operator controls the 

HAP emitted from equipment leaks in 

accordance with §§ 63.161 through 

63.182 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H— 

National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

Equipment Leaks, with the differences 

noted in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) 

of this section for the purposes of this 

subpart. 

(iii) On or after [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

AMENDMENTS IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 40 

CFR 61.242–6(a)(2), the open end is 

sealed when instrument monitoring of 

the open-ended valve or line conducted 

according to Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A indicates no readings of 

500 ppm or greater. 

(iv) On or after [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for the 

purpose of complying with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 61.242–6(d), 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37888 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

open-ended valves or lines in an 

emergency shutdown system which are 

designed to open automatically in the 

event of a process upset and that are 

exempt from the requirements in 40 

CFR 61.242–6(a), (b), and (c) must 

comply with the requirements in 

§ 63.693(c)(2) of this subpart. 

(2) The owner or operator controls the 

HAP emitted from equipment leaks in 

accordance with §§ 63.161 through 

§ 63.183 in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H— 

National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Equipment Leaks, with the differences 

noted in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (v) 

of this section for the purposes of this 

subpart. 

(i) For each valve in gas/vapor or in 

light liquid service, as defined in 

§ 63.681 of this subpart, that is part of 

an affected source under this subpart, an 

instrument reading that defines a leak is 

500 ppm or greater as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. 

(ii) For each pump in light liquid 

service, as defined in § 63.681 of this 

subpart, that is part of an affected source 

under this subpart, an instrument 

reading that defines a leak is 1,000 ppm 

or greater as detected by Method 21 of 

40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Repair is 

not required unless an instrument 

reading of 2,000 ppm or greater is 

detected. 

(iii) On or after [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for the 

purpose of complying with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.167(a)(2), the 

open end is sealed when instrument 

monitoring of the open-ended valve or 

line conducted according to Method 21 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates 

no readings of 500 ppm or greater. 

(iv) On or after [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], for the 

purpose of complying with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.167(d), openended valves or lines in an emergency 

shutdown system which are designed to 

open automatically in the event of a 

process upset and that are exempt from 

the requirements in 40 CFR 63.167(a), 

(b), and (c) must comply with the 

requirements in § 63.693(c)(2) of this 

subpart. 

(v) For the purposes of this subpart, 

the pressure relief device requirements 

of § 63.691(c) of this subpart rather than 

those of 40 CFR 63.165 shall apply. 

(c) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. Except as provided in 

paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the 

owner or operator must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section for 

pressure relief devices in off-site 

material service. 

(1) Operating requirements. Except 

during a pressure release event, operate 

each pressure relief device in off-site 

material gas or vapor service with an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. 

(2) Pressure release requirements. For 

pressure relief devices in off-site 

material gas or vapor service, the owner 

or operator must comply with either 

paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section 

following a pressure release, as 

applicable. 

(i) If the pressure relief device does 

not consist of or include a rupture disk, 

the pressure relief device shall be 

returned to a condition indicated by an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background, as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A, no later than 5 calendar days after the 

pressure release device returns to offsite material service following a 

pressure release, except as provided in 

40 CFR 63.171. 

(ii) If the pressure relief device 

consists of or includes a rupture disk, 

except as provided in 40 CFR 63.171, 

install a replacement disk as soon as 

practicable but no later than 5 calendar 

days after the pressure release. 

(3) Pressure release management. 

Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) 

of this section, emissions of HAP listed 

in Table 1 of this subpart may not be 

discharged directly to the atmosphere 

from pressure relief devices in off-site 

material service, and according to the 

date an affected source commenced 

construction or reconstruction and the 

date an affected source receives off-site 

material for the first time, as established 

in § 63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 

subpart, the owner or operator must 

comply with the requirements specified 

in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section for all pressure relief devices in 

off-site material service. 

(i) The owner or operator must equip 

each pressure relief device in off-site 

material service with a device(s) or use 

a monitoring system. The device or 

monitoring system may be either 

specific to the pressure release device 

itself or may be associated with the 

process system or piping, sufficient to 

indicate a pressure release to the 

atmosphere. Examples of these types of 

devices or monitoring systems include, 

but are not limited to, a rupture disk 

indicator, magnetic sensor, motion 

detector on the pressure relief valve 

stem. The devices or monitoring 

systems must be capable of meeting the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) Identifying the pressure release; 

(B) Recording the time and duration 

of each pressure release; and 

(C) Notifying operators immediately 

that a pressure release is occurring. 

(ii) If any pressure relief device in offsite material service releases directly to 

the atmosphere as a result of a pressure 

release event, the owner or operator 

must calculate the quantity of HAP 

listed in Table 1 of this subpart released 

during each pressure release event and 

report this quantity as required in 

§ 63.697(b)(5). Calculations may be 

based on data from the pressure relief 

device monitoring alone or in 

combination with process parameter 

monitoring data and process knowledge. 

(4) Pressure relief devices routed to a 

drain system, process or control device. 

If a pressure relief device in off-site 

material service is designed and 

operated to route all pressure releases 

through a closed vent system to a drain 

system, process or control device, 

paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) of this 

section do not apply. The closed vent 

system and the process or control device 

(if applicable) must meet the 

requirements of § 63.693 of this subpart. 

The drain system (if applicable) must 

meet the requirements of § 63.689 of this 

subpart. 

■ 12. Section 63.693 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (8), 

(c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2) introductory text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(iii); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i)(B) and 

(ii)(B) and (g)(1)(v) to read as follows: 

§ 63.693 Standards: Closed-vent systems 

and control devices. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Whenever gases or vapors 

containing HAP are routed from a tank 

through a closed-vent system connected 

to a control device used to comply with 

the requirements of § 63.685(b)(1), (2), 

or (3) of this subpart, the control device 

must be operating except as provided 

for in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) The control device may only be 

bypassed for the purpose of performing 

planned routine maintenance of the 

closed-vent system or control device in 

situations when the routine 

maintenance cannot be performed 

during periods that tank emissions are 

vented to the control device. 

(ii) On an annual basis, the total time 

that the closed-vent system or control 

device is bypassed to perform routine 

maintenance shall not exceed 240 hours 

per each calendar year. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37889 

(8) In the case when an owner or 

operator chooses to use a design 

analysis to demonstrate compliance of a 

control device with the applicable 

performance requirements specified in 

this section as provided for in 

paragraphs (d) through (g) of this 

section, the Administrator may require 

that the design analysis be revised or 

amended by the owner or operator to 

correct any deficiencies identified by 

the Administrator. If the owner or 

operator and the Administrator do not 

agree on the acceptability of using the 

design analysis (including any changes 

required by the Administrator) to 

demonstrate that the control device 

achieves the applicable performance 

requirements, then the disagreement 

must be resolved using the results of a 

performance test conducted by the 

owner or operator in accordance with 

the requirements of § 63.694(l) of this 

subpart. The Administrator may choose 

to have an authorized representative 

observe the performance test conducted 

by the owner or operator. Should the 

results of this performance test not agree 

with the determination of control device 

performance based on the design 

analysis, then the results of the 

performance test will be used to 

establish compliance with this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) A closed-vent system that is 

designed to operate at a pressure below 

atmospheric pressure. The system shall 

be equipped with at least one pressure 

gauge or other pressure measurement 

device that can be read from a readily 

accessible location to verify that 

negative pressure is being maintained in 

the closed-vent system when the control 

device is operating. 

(2) In situations when the closed-vent 

system includes bypass devices that 

could be used to divert a vent stream 

from the closed-vent system to the 

atmosphere at a point upstream of the 

control device inlet, each bypass device 

must be equipped with either a flow 

indicator as specified in paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section or a seal or 

locking device as specified in paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section, except as 

provided for in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of 

this section: 

* * * * * 

(iii) Equipment needed for safety 

reasons, including low leg drains, openended valves and lines not in 

emergency shutdown systems, and 

pressure relief devices subject to the 

requirements of § 63.691(c) of this 

subpart are not subject to the 

requirements of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and 

(ii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) To achieve a total incinerator 

outlet concentration for the TOC, less 

methane and ethane, of less than or 

equal to 20 ppmv on a dry basis 

corrected to 3 percent oxygen. 

(ii) * * * 

(B) To achieve a total incinerator 

outlet concentration for the HAP, listed 

in Table 1 of this subpart, of less than 

or equal to 20 ppmv on a dry basis 

corrected to 3 percent oxygen. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) Introduce the vent stream to a 

boiler or process heater for which the 

owner or operator either has been issued 

a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 

and complies with the requirements of 

40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or has 

certified compliance with the interim 

status requirements of 40 CFR part 266, 

subpart H; or has submitted a 

Notification of Compliance under 40 

CFR 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) and 

complies with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart EEE at all times 

(including times when non-hazardous 

waste is being burned). 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.694 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(3)(iv), (f)(1), 

(i)(1), (j)(3), (k)(3), (l) introductory text, 

(l)(3) introductory text, (l)(3)(i), 

(l)(3)(ii)(B), (l)(4) introductory text, 

(l)(4)(i), (l)(4)(ii)(A) and (B), (l)(4)(iii)(A), 

and (m)(2) and (3) to read as follows: 

§ 63.694 Testing methods and procedures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) In the event that the 

Administrator and the owner or 

operator disagree on a determination of 

the average VOHAP concentration for an 

off-site material stream using 

knowledge, then the results from a 

determination of VOHAP concentration 

using direct measurement as specified 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall 

be used to establish compliance with 

the applicable requirements of this 

subpart. The Administrator may 

perform or require that the owner or 

operator perform this determination 

using direct measurement. 

(f) * * * 

(1) The actual HAP mass removal rate 

(MR) shall be determined based on 

results for a minimum of three 

consecutive runs. The sampling time for 

each run shall be at least 1 hour. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) The actual HAP mass removal rate 

(MRbio) shall be determined based on 

results for a minimum of three 

consecutive runs. The sampling time for 

each run shall be at least 1 hour. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(3) Use of knowledge to determine the 

maximum HAP vapor pressure of the 

off-site material. Documentation shall 

be prepared and recorded that presents 

the information used as the basis for the 

owner’s or operator’s knowledge that 

the maximum HAP vapor pressure of 

the off-site material is less than the 

maximum vapor pressure limit listed in 

Table 3, Table 4, or Table 5 of this 

subpart for the applicable tank design 

capacity category. Examples of 

information that may be used include: 

the off-site material is generated by a 

process for which at other locations it 

previously has been determined by 

direct measurement that the off-site 

material maximum HAP vapor pressure 

is less than the maximum vapor 

pressure limit for the appropriate tank 

design capacity category. In the event 

that the Administrator and the owner or 

operator disagree on a determination of 

the maximum HAP vapor pressure for 

an off-site material stream using 

knowledge, then the results from a 

determination of HAP vapor pressure 

using direct measurement as specified 

in paragraph (j)(2) of this section shall 

be used to establish compliance with 

the applicable requirements of this 

subpart. The Administrator may 

perform or require that the owner or 

operator perform this determination 

using direct measurement. 

(k) * * * 

(3) The detection instrument shall 

meet the performance criteria of Method 

21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

except the instrument response factor 

criteria in section 8.1.1 of Method 21 

shall be for the weighted average 

composition of the organic constituents 

in the material placed in the unit at the 

time of monitoring, not for each 

individual organic constituent. 

* * * * * 

(l) Control device performance test 

procedures. Performance tests shall be 

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. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37890 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

* * * * * 

(3) To determine compliance with the 

control device percent reduction 

requirement, the owner or operator shall 

use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A to measure the HAP in 

Table 1 of this subpart or Method 25A 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to 

measure TOC. Method 18 may be used 

to measure methane and ethane, and the 

measured concentration may be 

subtracted from the Method 25A 

measurement. Alternatively, any other 

method or data that has been validated 

according to the applicable procedures 

in Method 301 in 40 CFR part 63, 

appendix A may be used. The following 

procedures shall be used to calculate 

percent reduction efficiency: 

(i) A minimum of three sample runs 

must be performed. The minimum 

sampling time for each run shall be 1 

hour. For Method 18, either an 

integrated sample or a minimum of four 

grab samples shall be taken. If grab 

sampling is used, then the samples shall 

be taken at approximately equal 

intervals in time such as 15 minute 

intervals during the run. 

(ii) * * * 

(B) When the TOC mass rate is 

calculated, the average concentration 

reading (minus methane and ethane) 

measured by Method 25A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A shall be used in the 

equation in paragraph (l)(3)(ii)(A) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(4) To determine compliance with the 

enclosed combustion device total HAP 

concentration limit of this subpart, the 

owner or operator shall use Method 18 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to 

measure the total HAP in Table 1 of this 

subpart of Method 25A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A to measure TOC. 

Method 18 may be used to measure 

methane and ethane and the measured 

concentration may be subtracted from 

the Method 25A measurement. 

Alternatively, any other method or data 

that has been validated according to 

Method 301 in appendix A of this part, 

may be used. The following procedures 

shall be used to calculate parts per 

million by volume concentration, 

corrected to 3 percent oxygen: 

(i) A minimum of three sample runs 

must be performed. The minimum 

sampling time for each run shall be 1 

hour. For Method 18, either an 

integrated sample or a minimum of four 

grab samples shall be taken. If grab 

sampling is used, then the samples shall 

be taken at approximately equal 

intervals in time, such as 15 minute 

intervals during the run. 

(ii) * * * 

(A) The TOC concentration (CTOC) is 

the average concentration readings 

provided by Method 25 A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, minus the 

concentration of methane and ethane. 

(B) The total HAP concentration 

(CHAP) shall be computed according to 

the following equation: 

Where: 

CHAP = Total concentration of HAP 

compounds listed in Table 1 of this 

subpart, dry basis, parts per million by 

volume. 

Cij = Concentration of sample components j 

of sample i, dry basis, parts per million 

by volume. 

n = Number of components in the sample. 

x = Number of samples in the sample run. 

(iii) * * * 

(A) The emission rate correction 

factor or excess air, integrated sampling 

and analysis procedures of Method 3B 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A shall be 

used to determine the oxygen 

concentration (%O2dry). Alternatively, 

the owner or operator may use Method 

3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to 

determine the oxygen concentration. 

The samples shall be collected during 

the same time that the samples are 

collected for determining TOC 

concentration or total HAP 

concentration. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(2) No traverse site selection method 

is needed for vents smaller than 0.10 

meter in diameter. For vents smaller 

than 0.10 meter in diameter, sample at 

the center of the vent. 

(3) Process vent stream gas volumetric 

flow rate must be determined using 

Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A, as 

appropriate. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 63.695 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(5); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (e)(4) and (5); 

and 

■ d. Removing paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.695 Inspection and monitoring 

requirements. 

(a) The owner or operator must 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

all monitoring system components 

according to §§ 63.8 of this part, 

63.684(e), 63.693(d)(3), (e)(3), (f)(3), 

(g)(3), and (h)(3) of this subpart, and 

paragraph (a)(5) of this section and 

perform the inspection and monitoring 

procedures specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (4) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(5)(i) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments), the owner or operator 

must operate the continuous monitoring 

system at all times the affected source 

is operating. A monitoring system 

malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 

not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

The owner or operator is required to 

complete monitoring system repairs in 

response to monitoring system 

malfunctions and to return them 

monitoring system to operation as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

(ii) The owner or operator may not 

use data recorded during monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. The owner or operator 

must use all the data collected during 

all other required data collection 

periods in assessing the operation of the 

control device and associated control 

system. The owner or operator must 

report any periods for which the 

monitoring system failed to collect 

required data. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) A deviation for a given control 

device is determined to have occurred 

when the monitoring data or lack of 

monitoring data result in any one of the 

criteria specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(i) 

through (iii) of this section being met. 

When multiple operating parameters are 

monitored for the same control device 

and during the same operating day more 

than one of these operating parameters 

meets a deviation criterion specified in 

paragraphs (e)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02JY14.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37891 

section, then a single deviation is 

determined to have occurred for the 

control device for that operating day. 

(i) A deviation occurs when the daily 

average value of a monitored operating 

parameter is less than the minimum 

operating parameter limit (or, if 

applicable, greater than the maximum 

operating parameter limit) established 

for the operating parameter in 

accordance with the requirements of 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section. 

(ii) A deviation occurs when the 

period of control device operation is 4 

hours or greater in an operating day and 

the monitoring data are insufficient to 

constitute a valid hour of data for at 

least 75 percent of the operating hours. 

Monitoring data are insufficient to 

constitute a valid hour of data if 

measured values are unavailable for any 

of the 15-minute periods within the 

hour. 

(iii) A deviation occurs when the 

period of control device operation is 

less than 4 hours in an operating day 

and more than 1 of the hours during the 

period does not constitute a valid hour 

of data due to insufficient monitoring 

data. Monitoring data are insufficient to 

constitute a valid hour of data if 

measured values are unavailable for any 

of the 15-minute periods within the 

hour. 

(5) For each deviation, except when 

the deviation occurs during periods of 

non-operation of the unit or the process 

that is vented to the control device 

(resulting in cessation of HAP emissions 

to which the monitoring applies), the 

owner or operator shall be deemed to 

have failed to have applied control in a 

manner that achieves the required 

operating parameter limits. Failure to 

achieve the required operating 

parameter limits is a violation of this 

standard. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 63.696 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) and adding 

paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows: 

§ 63.696 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(h) An owner or operator shall record 

the malfunction information specified 

in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) In the event that an affected unit 

fails to meet an applicable standard, 

record the number of failures. For each 

failure record the date, time and 

duration of the failure. 

(2) For each failure to meet an 

applicable standard, record and retain a 

list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

(3) Record actions taken to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.683(e) of this subpart and any 

corrective actions taken to return the 

affected unit to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

(i) For pressure relief devices in offsite material service, keep records of the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(i)(1) through (5) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(1) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices that the owner or 

operator elects to route emissions 

through a closed-vent system to a 

control device, process or drain system 

under the provisions in § 63.691(c)(4) of 

this subpart. 

(2) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices that do not 

consist of or include a rupture disk, 

subject to the provisions in 

§ 63.691(c)(2)(i) of this subpart. 

(3) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices equipped with 

rupture disks, subject to the provisions 

in § 63.691(c)(2)(ii) of this subpart. 

(4) The dates and results of the 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A, monitoring following a pressure 

release for each pressure relief device 

subject to the provisions in 

§ 63.691(c)(2)(i) of this subpart. The 

results of each monitoring event shall 

include: 

(i) The measured background level. 

(ii) The maximum instrument reading 

measured at each pressure relief device. 

(5) For pressure relief devices in offsite material service subject to 

§ 63.691(c)(3) of this subpart, keep 

records of each pressure release to the 

atmosphere, including the following 

information: 

(i) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

(ii) The date, time, and duration of the 

pressure release. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart 

emitted during the pressure release and 

the calculations used for determining 

this quantity. 

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(v) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(j)(1) For pressure tank closure 

devices, as specified in § 63.685(h)(2) of 

this subpart, keep records of each 

release to the atmosphere, including the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(j)(3) through (7) of this section. 

(2) For each closed vent system that 

includes bypass devices that could 

divert a stream away from the control 

device and into the atmosphere, as 

specified in § 63.693(c)(2) of this 

subpart, and each open-ended valve or 

line in an emergency shutdown system 

which is designed to open automatically 

in the event of a process upset, as 

specified in 40 CFR 63.167(d) or 40 CFR 

61.242–6(d), keep records of each 

release to the atmosphere, including the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(j)(3) through (9) of this section. 

(3) The source, nature, and cause of 

the release. 

(4) The date, time, and duration of the 

release. 

(5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP 

listed in Table 1 of this subpart emitted 

during the release and the calculations 

used for determining this quantity. 

(6) The actions taken to prevent this 

release. 

(7) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such release. 

(8) Hourly records of whether the 

bypass flow indicator specified under 

§ 63.693(c)(2) of this subpart was 

operating and whether a diversion was 

detected at any time during the hour, as 

well as records of the times of all 

periods when the vent stream is 

diverted from the control device or the 

flow indicator is not operating. 

(9) Where a seal mechanism is used 

to comply with § 63.693(c)(2) of this 

subpart, hourly records of flow are not 

required. In such cases, the owner or 

operator shall record that the monthly 

visual inspection of the seals or closure 

mechanism has been done, and shall 

record the duration of all periods when 

the seal mechanism is broken, the 

bypass line valve position has changed, 

or the key for a lock-and-key type lock 

has been checked out, and records of 

any car-seal that has broken. 

■ 16. Section 63.697 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text, adding paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) 

and (a)(3); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(3) and (4); 

and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.697 Reporting requirements. 

(a) Each owner or operator of an 

affected source subject to this subpart 

must comply with the notification 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section and the reporting 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (3) of this section. 

(1) * * * 

(i) For pressure relief devices in offsite material service subject to the 

requirements of § 63.691(c) of this 

subpart, the owner or operator must 

submit the information listed in 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section in the 

notification of compliance status 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37892 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

required under § 63.9(h) of this part 

within 150 days after the first applicable 

compliance date for pressure relief 

device monitoring. 

(ii) For pressure relief devices in offsite material service, a description of the 

device or monitoring system to be 

implemented, including the pressure 

relief devices and process parameters to 

be monitored (if applicable), a 

description of the alarms or other 

methods by which operators will be 

notified of a pressure release, and a 

description of how the owner or 

operator will determine the information 

to be recorded under § 63.696(i)(5)(ii) 

through (iii) of this subpart (i.e., the 

duration of the pressure release and the 

methodology and calculations for 

determining the quantity of HAP listed 

in Table 1 of this subpart emitted during 

the pressure release). 

* * * * * 

(3) Electronic reporting. Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 63.2 of 

this part) required by this subpart, the 

owner or operator must submit the 

results of the performance test according 

to the manner specified by either 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

(i) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), the owner or operator must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the EPA via the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) accessed through the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://

cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). 

Performance test data must be submitted 

in a file format generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT. Owners or 

operators who claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI) must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT, including information 

claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

flash drive, or other commonly used 

electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked 

as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/ 

CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX 

as described earlier in this paragraph 

(a)(3)(i). 

(ii) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, the owner or operator must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 

60.4. 

(b) * * * 

(3) Reports of malfunctions. If a 

source fails to meet an applicable 

standard, report such events in the 

Periodic Report. Report the number of 

failures to meet an applicable standard. 

For each instance, report the date, time 

and duration of each failure. For each 

failure the report must include a list of 

the affected sources or equipment, an 

estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over any emission 

limit, and a description of the method 

used to estimate the emissions. 

(4) A summary report specified in 

§ 63.10(e)(3) of this part shall be 

submitted on a semiannual basis (i.e., 

once every 6-month period). The 

summary report must include a 

description of all deviations as defined 

in § 63.695(e) of this subpart that have 

occurred during the 6-month reporting 

period. For each deviation caused when 

the daily average value of a monitored 

operating parameter is less than the 

minimum operating parameter limit (or, 

if applicable, greater than the maximum 

operating parameter limit), the report 

must include the daily average values of 

the monitored parameter, the applicable 

operating parameter limit, and the date 

and duration of the period that the 

deviation occurred. For each deviation 

caused by lack of monitoring data, the 

report must include the date and 

duration of period when the monitoring 

data were not collected and the reason 

why the data were not collected. 

(5) For pressure relief devices in offsite material service subject to 

§ 63.691(c) of this subpart, Periodic 

Reports must include the information 

specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) For pressure relief devices in offsite material service subject to 

§ 63.691(c) of this subpart, report the 

results of all monitoring conducted 

within the reporting period. 

(ii) For pressure relief devices in offsite material service subject to 

§ 63.691(c)(2)(i) of this subpart, report 

any instrument reading of 500 ppm 

above background or greater, if detected 

more than 5 days after the pressure 

release. 

(iii) For pressure relief devices in offsite material service subject to 

§ 63.691(c)(3) of this subpart, report 

each pressure release to the atmosphere, 

including the following information: 

(A) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

(B) The date, time, and duration of the 

pressure release. 

(C) An estimate of the quantity of 

HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart 

emitted during the pressure release and 

the method used for determining this 

quantity. 

(D) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(E) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(6) Pressure tank closure device or 

bypass deviation report. The owner or 

operator must submit to the 

Administrator the information specified 

in paragraph (b)(6)(iv) of this section 

when any of the conditions in 

paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this 

section are met. 

(i) Any pressure tank closure device, 

as specified in § 63.685(h)(2) of this 

subpart, has released to the atmosphere. 

(ii) Any closed vent system that 

includes bypass devices that could 

divert a vent a stream away from the 

control device and into the atmosphere, 

as specified in § 63.693(c)(2) of this 

subpart, has released directly to the 

atmosphere. 

(iii) Any open-ended valve or line in 

an emergency shutdown system which 

is designed to open automatically in the 

event of a process upset, as specified in 

40 CFR 63.167(d) or 40 CFR 61.242– 

6(d), has released directly to the 

atmosphere. 

(iv) The pressure tank closure device 

or bypass deviation report must include 

the information specified in paragraphs 

(b)(6)(iv)(A) through (E) of this section. 

(A) The source, nature and cause of 

the release. 

(B) The date, time and duration of the 

discharge. 

(C) An estimate of the quantity of 

HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart 

emitted during the release and the 

method used for determining this 

quantity. 

(D) The actions taken to prevent this 

release. 

(E) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such releases. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Section 63.698 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) introductory text 

and adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.698 Implementation and enforcement. 

* * * * * 

(c) The authorities that cannot be 

delegated to State, local, or Tribal 

agencies are as specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (5) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(5) Approval of alternatives to the 

electronic reporting requirements in 

§ 63.697(a)(3). 

■ 18. Table 2 to subpart DD of part 63 

is amended by: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37893 

■ a. Removing entries 63.1(a)(13) and 

63.1(a)(14); 

■ b. Revising entries 63.1(b)(2), 

63.1(c)(3), and 63.1(c)(4); 

■ c. Removing entry 63.4(a)(1) through 

63.4(a)(3) and adding entries 63.4(a)(1)– 

63.4(a)(2) and 63.4(a)(3); 

■ d. Revising entries 63.4(a)(5) and 

63.5(a)(1); 

■ e. Revising entries 63.5(b)(5), 

63.6(b)(3), 63.6(b)(4); 

■ f. Removing entry 63.6(e) and adding 

entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) through 

63.6(e)(1)(iii), 63.6(e)(2), and 63.6(e)(3); 

■ g. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1); 

■ h. Adding entry 63.7(a)(4); 

■ i. Revising entries 63.7(e)(1) and 

63.7(f); 

■ j. Revising entry 63.8(c)(1)(iii); 

■ k. Revising entry 63.9(g); 

■ l. Revising entries 63.10(b)(2)(i) 

through (v); 

■ m. Removing entry 63.10(c) and 

adding entries 63.10(c)(1)–(6), 

63.10(c)(7)–(8), and 63.10(c)(9)–(15); 

■ n. Removing entries 63.10(d)(5)(i) and 

63.10(d)(5)(ii), and adding entry 

63.10(d)(5); 

■ o. Removing entry 63.10(e) and 

adding entries 63.10(e)(1)–63.10(e)(2), 

63.10(e)(3), and 63.10(e)(4); and 

■ p. Adding entry 63.16 to read as 

follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF PARAGRAPHS IN SUBPART A OF THIS PART 63—GENERAL

PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DD 

Subpart A reference Applies to 

Subpart DD Explanation 

*******

63.1(b)(2) ............................ No ............... Reserved. 

*******

63.1(c)(3) ............................ No ............... Reserved. 

63.1(c)(4) ............................ No ............... Reserved. 

*******

63.4(a)(1)–63.4(a)(2) .......... Yes.

63.4(a)(3) ............................ No ............... Reserved. 

*******

63.4(a)(5) ............................ No ............... Reserved. 

*******

63.5(a)(1) ............................ Yes.

*******

63.5(b)(5) ............................ No ............... Reserved. 

*******

63.6(b)(3) ............................ No.

63.6(b)(4) ............................ No.

*******

63.6(e)(1)(i) ......................... No ............... See § 63.683(e) of this subpart for general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) ........................ No ...............

63.6(e)(1)(iii) ....................... Yes ..............

63.6(e)(2) ............................ No ............... Reserved. 

63.6(e)(3) ............................ No.

63.6(f)(1) ............................. No.

*******

63.7(a)(4) ............................ Yes.

*******

63.7(e)(1) ............................ No ............... See § 63.694(l) of this subpart. 

*******

63.7(f) ................................. Yes.

*******

63.8(c)(1)(iii) ....................... No.

*******

63.9(g) ................................ Yes.

*******

63.10(b)(2)(i) ....................... No.

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ...................... No ............... See § 63.696(h) of this subpart for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted 

over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. 

63.10(b)(2)(iii) ..................... Yes.

63.10(b)(2)(iv) ..................... No.

63.10(b)(2)(v) ...................... No.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

37894 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART DD OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF PARAGRAPHS IN SUBPART A OF THIS PART 63—GENERAL

PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DD—Continued 

Subpart A reference Applies to 

Subpart DD Explanation 

*******

63.10(c)(1)–(6) .................... No.

63.10(c)(7)–(8) .................... Yes.

63.10(9)–(15) ...................... No.

*******

63.10(d)(5) .......................... No ............... See § 63.697(b)(3) of this subpart for reporting of malfunctions. 

63.10(e)(1)–63.10(e)(2) ...... No.

63.10(e)(3) .......................... Yes.

63.10(e)(4) .......................... No.

*******

63.16 ................................... No.

* * * * * ■ 19. Table 3 to subpart DD of part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART DD OF PART 63—TANK CONTROL LEVELS FOR TANKS AT EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES AS

REQUIRED BY 40 CFR 63.685(b)(1)(i) 

Tank design capacity 

(cubic meters) 

Maximum HAP vapor pressure of 

off-site material managed in tank 

(kilopascals) 

Tank control level 

Design capacity less than 75 m3 .... Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

less than 76.6 kPa.

Level 1. 

Design capacity less than 75 m3 .... Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

equal to or greater than 76.6 

kPa.

Level 2, except that fixed roof tanks equipped with an internal floating 

roof and tanks equipped with an external floating roof as provided 

for in § 63.685(d)(1) and (2) of this subpart shall not be used. 

Design capacity equal to or greater 

than 75 m3 and less than 151 m3.

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

less than 27.6 kPa.

Level 1. 

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

equal to or greater than 27.6 

kPa.

Level 2. 

Design capacity equal to or greater 

than 151 m3.

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

less than 5.2 kPa.

Level 1. 

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

equal to or greater than 5.2 kPa.

Level 2. 

■ 20. Table 4 to subpart DD of part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART DD OF PART 63—TANK CONTROL LEVELS FOR TANKS AT EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES AS

REQUIRED BY 40 CFR 63.685(b)(1)(ii) 

Tank design capacity 

(cubic meters) 

Maximum HAP vapor pressure of 

off-site material managed in tank 

(kilopascals) 

Tank control level 

Design capacity less than 75 m3 .... Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

less than 76.6 kPa.

Level 1. 

Design capacity less than 75 m3 .... Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

equal to or greater than 76.6 

kPa.

Level 2, except that fixed roof tanks equipped with an internal floating 

roof and tanks equipped with an external floating roof as provided 

for in § 63.685(d)(1) and (2) of this subpart shall not be used. 

Design capacity equal to or greater 

than 75 m3 and less than 151 m3.

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

less than 13.1 kPa.

Level 1. 

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

equal to or greater than 13.1 

kPa.

Level 2. 

Design capacity equal to or greater 

than 151 m3.

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

less than 5.2 kPa.

Level 1. 

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

equal to or greater than 5.2 kPa.

Level 2. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37895 

■ 21. Table 5 is added to subpart DD of 

part 63 to read as follows: 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART DD OF PART 63—TANK CONTROL LEVELS FOR TANKS AT NEW AFFECTED SOURCES AS REQUIRED

BY 40 CFR 63.685(b)(2) 

Tank design capacity 

(cubic meters) 

Maximum HAP vapor pressure of 

off-site material managed in tank 

(kilopascals) 

Tank control level 

Design capacity less than 38 m3 .... Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

less than 76.6 kPa.

Level 1. 

Design capacity less than 38 m3 .... Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

equal to or greater than 76.6 

kPa.

Level 2, except that fixed roof tanks equipped with an internal floating 

roof and tanks equipped with an external floating roof as provided 

for in § 63.685(d)(1) and (2) of this subpart shall not be used. 

Design capacity equal to or greater 

than 38 m3 and less than 151 m3.

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

less than 13.1 kPa.

Level 1. 

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

equal to or greater than 13.1 

kPa.

Level 2. 

Design capacity equal to or greater 

than 151 m3.

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

less than 0.7 kPa.

Level 1. 

Maximum HAP vapor pressure 

equal to or greater than 0.7 kPa.

Level 2. 

[FR Doc. 2014–13490 Filed 7–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2