14248 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360; FRL–9923–26– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR47 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) conducted for the Off-Site Waste 

and Recovery Operations (OSWRO) 

source category regulated under 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In 

addition, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing amendments 

to correct and clarify regulatory 

provisions related to emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction (SSM); add requirements 

for reporting of performance testing 

through the Electronic Reporting Tool 

(ERT); revise the routine maintenance 

provisions; clarify provisions pertaining 

to open-ended valves and lines (OELs); 

add monitoring requirements for 

pressure relief devices (PRDs); clarify 

provisions for some performance test 

methods and procedures; and make 

several minor clarifications and 

corrections. The revisions to the final 

rule increase the level of emissions 

control and environmental protection 

provided by the OSWRO NESHAP. 

DATES: This final action is effective on 

March 18, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet, and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room Number 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST), Monday through Friday. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

Ms. Paula Hirtz, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–2618; fax number: 

(919) 541–0246; and email address: 

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 Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

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

email address: smith.darcie@epa.gov. 

For information about the applicability 

of the NESHAP to a particular entity, 

contact Ms. Marcia Mia, EPA Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance; U.S. EPA, WJC West 

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–7042; and email 

address: 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: 

ADAF—age-dependent adjustment factors 

BDT—best demonstrated technology 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CBI—confidential business information 

CDX—Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI—Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CRA—Congressional Review Act 

CWA—Clean Water Act 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA—Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-To-Know Act 

ERT—Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR—Federal Register 

HAP—hazardous air pollutants 

HON—Hazardous Organic NESHAP 

HQ—hazard quotient 

ICR—information collection request 

IPT—integrated project team 

kPa—kilopascals 

LDAR—leak detection and repair 

MACT—maximum achievable control 

technology 

MIR—maximum individual risk 

MON—Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP 

NAICS—North American Industry 

Classification System 

NATA—National Air Toxics Assessment 

NEIC—National Enforcement Investigations 

Center 

NESHAP—National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS—Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OECA—Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OEL—open-ended valve or line 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

OSHA—Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

OSWRO—off-site waste and recovery 

operations 

PB–HAP—hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

POM—polycyclic organic matter 

ppm—parts per million 

ppmv—parts per million by volume 

ppmw—parts per million by weight 

PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act 

PRD—pressure relief device 

psi—pounds per square inch 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RQ—reportable quantity 

RTR—residual risk and technology review 

SBA—Small Business Administration 

SCAQMD—South Coast Air Quality 

Management District 

SOCMI—synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry 

SSM—startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TOSHI—target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy—tons per year 

TSDF—hazardous waste treatment, storage 

and disposal facilities 

TTN—Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

VCS—voluntary consensus standards 

VOC—volatile organic compound 

VOHAP—volatile organic hazardous air 

pollutant 

XML—extensible markup language 

Background Information. On July 2, 

2014 (79 FR 37850), the EPA proposed 

revisions to the OSWRO NESHAP based 

on our RTR, and we also proposed to 

amend provisions related to emissions 

during periods of SSM, to add 

requirements for electronic reporting of 

performance testing and monitoring 

requirements for PRDs, to revise routine 

maintenance provisions, to clarify 

provisions for OELs and for some 

performance test methods and 

procedures and to make several minor 

clarifications and corrections. In this 

action, we are finalizing decisions and 

revisions for the rule. We summarize 

key comments we timely received 

regarding the proposed rule and provide 

our responses in this preamble. A 

summary of the public comments on the 

proposal not presented in the preamble 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14249 

and the EPA’s responses to those 

comments are available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360. The 

background information also includes 

discussion and technical analyses of 

other issues addressed in this final rule. 

A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the 

regulatory language that incorporates 

the changes in this action is available in 

the docket. 

Organization of This Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What is the OSWRO source category and 

how does the NESHAP promulgated on 

July 1, 1996, regulate HAP emissions 

from the source category? 

C. What changes have been made to the 

standards since promulgation of the 

NESHAP for the OSWRO source 

category? 

D. What changes did we propose for the 

OSWRO source category in our July 2, 

2014, proposal? 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the OSWRO 

source category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

OSWRO source category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction? 

D. What other changes have been made to 

the NESHAP? 

E. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the revisions to the OSWRO 

NESHAP? 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

OSWRO source category? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the OSWRO 

Source Category 

B. Technology Review for the OSWRO 

Source Category 

C. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

Provisions for the OSWRO Source 

Category 

D. Other Changes Made to the OSWRO 

NESHAP 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental and 

Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action are shown in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and source category Examples of regulated entities 

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

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

wastewater treatment facilities; nonhazardous wastewater treatment facilities other than publicly-owned 

treatment works; used solvent recovery plants; RCRA exempt hazardous waste recycling operations; 

used oil re-refineries. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by the final 

action for the source category listed. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in the appropriate 

NESHAP. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of any aspect 

of this NESHAP, please contact the 

appropriate person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will be available on the Internet 

through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for 

information and technology exchange in 

various areas or air pollution control. 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 

of this final action at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/offwaste/

oswropg.html. Following publication in 

the Federal Register, the EPA will post 

the Federal Register version and key 

technical documents at this same Web 

site. 

Additional information is available on 

the RTR Web site at http://

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

This information includes an overview 

of the RTR program, links to project 

Web sites for the RTR source categories 

and detailed emissions and other data 

we used as inputs to the risk 

assessments. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

307(b)(1), judicial review of this final 

action is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by May 18, 2015. 

Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by the EPA to enforce the 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

the EPA to reconsider the rule, ‘‘[i]f the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14250 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit has affirmed this approach of 

implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. 

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

determines that the existing technology-based 

standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then 

the Agency is free to readopt those standards during 

the residual risk rulemaking.’’). 

2The OSWRO MACT rule defines ‘‘waste,’’ ‘‘used 

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

Definitions. 

person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to the EPA that it was 

impracticable to raise such objection 

within [the period for public comment] 

or if the grounds for such objection 

arose after the period for public 

comment (but within the time specified 

for judicial review) and if such objection 

is of central relevance to the outcome of 

the rule.’’ Any person seeking to make 

such a demonstration should submit a 

Petition for Reconsideration to the 

Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, 

Room 3000, EPA WJC West Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to 

both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from stationary sources. In the 

first stage, we must identify categories 

of sources emitting one or more of the 

HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and 

then promulgate technology-based 

NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major 

sources’’ are those that emit, or have the 

potential to emit, any single HAP at a 

rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, 

or any combination of HAP at a rate of 

25 tpy or more. For major sources, these 

standards are commonly referred to as 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards and must 

reflect the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements 

and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts). In developing 

MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) 

directs the EPA to consider the 

application of measures, processes, 

methods, systems or techniques, 

including but not limited to those that 

reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP 

emissions through process changes, 

substitution of materials or other 

modifications; enclose systems or 

processes to eliminate emissions; 

collect, capture or treat HAP when 

released from a process, stack, storage or 

fugitive emissions point; are design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards; or any combination of the 

above. 

For these MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

MACT floor requirements and may not 

be based on cost considerations. See 

CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emission control achieved in 

practice by the best-controlled similar 

source. The MACT standards for 

existing sources can be less stringent 

than floors for new sources, but they 

cannot be less stringent than the average 

emission limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor, under CAA section 

112(d)(2). We may establish standards 

more stringent than the floor, based on 

the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

In the second stage of the regulatory 

process, the CAA requires the EPA to 

undertake two different analyses, which 

we refer to as the technology review and 

the residual risk review. Under the 

technology review, we must review the 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the 

residual risk review, we must evaluate 

the risk to public health remaining after 

application of the technology-based 

standards and revise the standards, if 

necessary, to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety and other relevant factors, 

an adverse environmental effect. The 

residual risk review is required within 

8 years after promulgation of the 

technology-based standards, pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f). In conducting the 

residual risk review, if the EPA 

determines that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(f).1 For more 

information on the statutory authority 

for this rule, see 79 FR 37850. 

B. What is the OSWRO source category 

and how does the NESHAP promulgated 

on July 1, 1996, regulate HAP emissions 

from the source category? 

The EPA promulgated the OSWRO 

NESHAP on July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34139). 

The standards are codified at 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart DD. The OSWRO 

industry consists of facilities that 

conduct operations to manage, convey 

or handle wastes or recoverable 

materials that are received from other 

facilities. The source category covered 

by the OSWRO NESHAP currently 

includes approximately 56 facilities. 

However, based on available permit 

information, seven facilities are known 

to be exempt from most of the rule 

requirements due to the low HAP 

content of the off-site waste they receive 

or because they comply instead with 40 

CFR part 61, subpart FF, as allowed by 

the OSWRO NESHAP, and they are not 

expected to be affected by the final rule 

amendments. 

In general, the rule applies to waste 

management units and recovery 

operations that are located at major 

sources of HAP emissions, are used to 

manage, convey or handle used oil, used 

solvent or waste received from other 

facilities, and contain at least one of 97 

organic HAP specified in the rule.2 The 

HAP emission sources at facilities 

subject to the OSWRO NESHAP are 

tanks, containers, surface 

impoundments, oil-water separators, 

organic-water separators, process vents 

and transfer systems used to manage 

offsite material and equipment leaks. 

The MACT standards regulate these 

emissions sources through emission 

limits, equipment standards and work 

practices. 

C. What changes have been made to the 

standards since promulgation of the 

NESHAP for the OSWRO source 

category? 

Rule changes have been made to the 

OSWRO NESHAP since the 

promulgation of the NESHAP on July 1, 

1996, in several separate actions. On 

July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38950), the EPA 

issued a direct final rule that amended 

specific provisions in the rule to resolve 

issues and questions raised after 

promulgation of the final rule. In this 

action, the EPA also amended other rule 

language to correct technical omissions, 

to make requirements consistent with 

other related air rules, and to correct 

typographical, printing and grammatical 

errors. On January 8, 2001 (66 FR 1263), 

the EPA published technical corrections 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14251 

and minor technical amendments for 

the OSWRO NESHAP. In addition, the 

EPA published proposed and final rules 

on January 16, 2002 (67 FR 2286), and 

June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37334), 

respectively, to clarify which parts of 

several existing NESHAP, including the 

OSWRO NESHAP, can be delegated to 

state, local and tribal agencies. The EPA 

also published proposed and final rules 

on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43992), and 

April 20, 2006 (71 FR 20446), 

respectively, to revise certain aspects of 

SSM requirements in several existing 

NESHAP, including the OSWRO 

NESHAP. 

D. What changes did we propose for the 

OSWRO source category in our July 2, 

2014, proposal? 

On July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37850), the 

EPA published proposed amendments 

to the OSWRO NESHAP based on the 

RTR analyses and also proposed other 

revisions. The proposed revisions 

include the following: 

• Revisions to the tank requirements 

to require increased control of emissions 

for tanks in a specific size range that 

also contain material above a specified 

vapor pressure; 

• Revisions to the equipment leak 

requirements to remove the option to 

comply with either 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart H or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, 

and require compliance with only 40 

CFR part 63, subpart H; 

• Revisions to requirements related to 

emissions during periods of SSM; 

• The addition of requirements for 

reporting of performance testing through 

the ERT; 

• Revisions to the routine 

maintenance provisions to limit the 

applicability of the provisions to tanks; 

• Clarifications to the ‘‘sealed’’ 

requirement of the provisions for OELs; 

• Addition of monitoring 

requirements for PRDs; 

• Clarification of provisions for some 

performance test methods and 

procedures; and 

• Several minor clarifications and 

corrections. 

III. What is included in this final rule? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 for the 

OSWRO source category, and amends 

the OSWRO NESHAP, as proposed, 

based on those determinations. This 

action also finalizes the proposed 

changes to the NESHAP described in 

section II.D. of this preamble. We are 

also finalizing minor changes to the 

NESHAP in consideration of comments 

received during the public comment 

period for the proposed rulemaking, as 

described in section IV.D.2 of this 

preamble. In the following subsections, 

we introduce and summarize the final 

amendments to the OSWRO NESHAP. 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the risk review for the OSWRO 

source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

are revising the tank and equipment 

leak requirements of the OSWRO 

NESHAP. Specifically, as we proposed, 

we are finalizing our determination that 

risks from the OSWRO source category 

are acceptable, considering all of the 

health information and factors evaluated 

and also considering risk estimation 

uncertainty; we are finalizing revisions 

to the tank requirements to require 

increased control of emissions for tanks 

in a specific size range that also contain 

material above a specified vapor 

pressure; and we are finalizing revisions 

to the equipment leak requirements to 

remove the option to comply with either 

40 CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart V, and require 

compliance with only 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart H. We evaluated the costs, 

emissions reductions, energy 

implications and cost effectiveness of 

these revised standards and determined 

that these measures are cost effective 

and technically feasible and will 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health and prevent 

adverse environmental effects from 

exposure to emissions from the OSWRO 

source category. 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the technology review for the 

OSWRO source category? 

We determined that there are 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies that warrant 

revisions to the NESHAP for this source 

category. Therefore, to satisfy the 

requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), 

we are revising the MACT standards to 

include those developments. 

Specifically, as we proposed, we are 

finalizing revisions to the tank 

requirements to require increased 

control of emissions for tanks in a 

specific size range that also contain 

material above a specified vapor 

pressure, and we are finalizing 

revisions, as proposed, to the equipment 

leak requirements to remove the option 

to comply with either 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart H or 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, 

and require compliance with only 40 

CFR part 63, subpart H. As noted in 

section III.A of the preamble, we are 

concurrently promulgating these tank 

and equipment leak revisions under 

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

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction? 

We are finalizing, as proposed, 

changes to the OSWRO NESHAP to 

eliminate the SSM exemption. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 

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

established standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. Table 2 to Subpart DD 

of Part 63 (General Provisions 

applicability table) is being revised to 

change several references related to 

requirements that apply during periods 

of SSM. We also eliminated or revised 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the eliminated 

SSM exemption. The EPA also made 

changes to the rule to remove or modify 

inappropriate, unnecessary or 

redundant language in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. We determined 

that facilities in this source category can 

meet the applicable emission standards 

in the OSWRO NESHAP at all times, 

including periods of startup and 

shutdown; therefore, the EPA 

determined that no additional standards 

are needed to address emissions during 

these periods. 

D. What other changes have been made 

to the NESHAP? 

This rule also finalizes, as proposed, 

revisions to several other OSWRO 

NESHAP requirements. We describe the 

revisions in the following paragraphs. 

To increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and data accessibility, we 

are finalizing, as proposed, a 

requirement that owners and operators 

of OSWRO facilities submit electronic 

copies of certain required performance 

test reports through an electronic 

performance test report tool called the 

ERT. This requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not require any additional 

performance testing and applies only to 

those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. 

We are finalizing the proposed 

revisions to the routine maintenance 

provisions to limit their applicability to 

tanks routing emissions to a control 

device rather than any equipment or 

process routing emissions to a control 

device. This revision restores the 

OSWRO NESHAP provisions to the 

original intent for them to be consistent 

with the routine maintenance 

provisions of the Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP (HON). 

To reduce compliance uncertainty 

associated with ‘‘sealed’’ OELs, we are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14252 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

finalizing the proposed revisions to 

clarify that OELs are ‘‘sealed’’ by a cap, 

blind flange, plug or second valve when 

instrument monitoring of the OEL 

conducted according to Method 21 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no 

readings of 500 parts per million (ppm) 

or greater. For OELs that are exempt 

from the requirements to be equipped 

with a cap, blind flange, plug or second 

valve, we are requiring them to be 

equipped with a flow indicator, seal or 

locking device. 

To conform with the reasoning of the 

Court’s ruling in Sierra Club v. EPA, we 

are finalizing the proposed requirements 

regarding releases directly to the 

atmosphere from safety devices, 

pressure tanks, bypasses and PRDs. 

These requirements prohibit bypasses of 

control devices and prohibit emissions 

released directly to the atmosphere from 

PRDs and closure devices on pressure 

tanks. In addition, we are finalizing the 

proposed recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with releases to 

the atmosphere from bypasses and 

PRDs. We are also finalizing the 

proposed requirements that PRDs be 

monitored with a device or monitoring 

system that is capable of: (1) Identifying 

the pressure release; (2) recording the 

time and duration of each pressure 

release; and (3) notifying operators 

immediately that a pressure release is 

occurring. 

We are finalizing, as proposed, several 

minor changes to the test methods and 

procedures required by the NESHAP to 

correct errors and to provide 

consistency, clarification and flexibility. 

In addition, we are finalizing, as 

proposed, several miscellaneous minor 

changes to improve the clarity of the 

rule requirements. 

We are also finalizing minor changes 

to the NESHAP in consideration of 

comments received during the public 

comment period for the proposed 

rulemaking, as described in section IV. 

D.2 of this preamble. 

E. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the revisions to the 

OSWRO NESHAP? 

The effective date and compliance 

dates for the revisions to the OSWRO 

NESHAP being promulgated in this 

action have not changed since proposal. 

The revisions to the OSWRO NESHAP 

being promulgated in this action are 

effective on March 18, 2015. 

The compliance date for the revised 

SSM requirements, electronic reporting 

requirements, the revised routine 

maintenance provisions, the operating 

and pressure release management 

requirements for PRDs, and the revised 

requirements regarding bypasses and 

closure devices on pressure tanks for 

existing OSWRO facilities is the 

effective date of the standards March 18, 

2015. The compliance date for existing 

OSWRO facilities to comply with the 

PRD monitoring requirements is 3 years 

from the effective date of the standards, 

March 20, 2018. The compliance date 

for existing OSWRO facilities to comply 

with the revised tank requirements is 2 

years from the effective date of the 

standards, March 20, 2017. For 

equipment leaks, the compliance date 

for existing sources is 1 year from the 

effective date of the standards, March 

18, 2016. 

New sources must comply with all of 

the standards immediately upon the 

effective date of the standard, March 18, 

2015, or upon startup, whichever is 

later. 

IV. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

OSWRO source category? 

For each issue, this section provides 

a description of what we proposed and 

what we are finalizing for the issue, the 

EPA’s rationale for the final decisions 

and amendments and a summary of key 

comments and responses. For all 

comments not discussed in this 

preamble, comment summaries and the 

EPA’s responses can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket. 

A. Residual Risk Review for the OSWRO 

Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f) for the OSWRO 

source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

conducted a residual risk review and 

presented the results of this review, 

along with our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety, in the July 2, 2014, 

proposed rule for the OSWRO NESHAP 

(79 FR 37850). The results of the risk 

assessment are presented briefly below 

in Table 2, and in more detail in the 

residual risk document, Residual Risk 

Assessment for the Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations Source Category in 

Support of the February 2015 Risk and 

Technology Review Final Rule, which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. Based on actual emissions 

for the OSWRO source category, the 

maximum individual risk (MIR) was 

estimated to be up to 9-in-1 million, the 

maximum chronic non-cancer target 

organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) 

value was estimated to be up to 0.6, and 

the maximum off-site acute hazard 

quotient (HQ) value was estimated to be 

up to 1. The total estimated national 

cancer incidence from this source 

category, based on actual emission 

levels, was 0.02 excess cancer cases per 

year, or one case in every 50 years. 

Based on MACT-allowable emissions for 

the OSWRO source category, the MIR 

was estimated to be up to 20-in-1 

million, and the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value was estimated to be 

up to 1. We also found there were 

emissions of one persistent and bioaccumulative HAP (PB–HAP) with an 

available RTR multipathway screening 

value, and the reported emissions of this 

HAP, 2-acetylaminofluorene (which is a 

polycyclic organic matter (POM) 

compound), were below the 

multipathway screening value for this 

compound. Emissions of three 

environmental HAP, POM, hydrogen 

chloride and hydrogen fluoride, were 

reported by OSWRO facilities. For each 

of these three HAP, the modeled 

concentrations were below the 

respective ecological benchmark values. 

The maximum facility-wide MIR was 

200-in-1 million and the maximum 

facility-wide TOSHI was 4. These risks 

were found to be due to emissions from 

non-OSWRO processes at the facility 

site and were based on actual emissions. 

We weighed all health risk factors in our 

risk acceptability determination, and we 

proposed that the residual risks from the 

OSWRO source category are acceptable. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14253 

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 

Actual acute 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 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 actual emissions is driven by emissions of glycol ethers. Acute assessments are not performed 

with MACT-allowable emissions. 

We then considered whether the 

OSWRO NESHAP provides an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health 

and whether more stringent standards 

are necessary to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. In considering 

whether the standards should be 

tightened to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health, we 

considered the same risk factors that we 

considered for our acceptability 

determination and also considered the 

costs, technological feasibility and other 

relevant factors related to emissions 

control options that might reduce risk 

associated with emissions from the 

source category. The control options 

identified to reduce risk were the same 

as those identified under the technology 

review for the OSWRO source category. 

Based on that analysis, we proposed to 

require more stringent controls for tanks 

of certain sizes and containing materials 

above a certain vapor pressure. We also 

proposed to require facilities to comply 

with the more stringent leak detection 

and repair (LDAR) program of 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart H rather than to allow 

facilities to comply with either 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart V. Furthermore, we proposed 

that additional HAP emissions controls 

for OSWRO process vents are not 

necessary to provide an ample margin of 

safety. Based on the results of our 

screening analysis for risks to the 

environment, we also proposed that 

more stringent standards are not 

necessary to prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

2. How did the risk review change for 

the OSWRO source category since the 

proposed rule? 

Information received by the EPA 

during the proposal comment period 

indicates that four additional facilities, 

not included in the risk review for the 

OSWRO source category, are subject to 

the OSWRO NESHAP. These facilities 

include Eastman Chemical Company in 

Kingsport, Tennessee; Eastman 

Chemical Company in Longview, Texas; 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company 

in Orange, Texas; and E. I. DuPont de 

Nemours and Company in Axis, 

Alabama. 

To determine whether to conduct 

additional risk modeling for these 

facilities, we reviewed the title V 

permits and the results of previously 

performed risk modeling for these 

facilities. The review of the facility title 

V permits, as well as conversations with 

facility representatives, indicated that 

these facilities are primarily chemical 

manufacturing plants with processes 

subject to other NESHAPs that also 

process some amount of waste received 

from other facilities within their 

companies. A review of previously 

modeled facility-wide risks for these 

four facilities as part of the risk reviews 

for the other NESHAP indicate that the 

maximum facility-wide cancer risks due 

to emissions of HAP range from 6-in-1 

million to 40-in-1 million. These risks 

are relatively low when compared to the 

upper end of the range of acceptability 

of 100-in-1 million. The maximum 

facility-wide non-cancer risks due to 

HAP emissions range from 0.08 to 1. In 

addition, the results show that the 

facility-wide cancer and non-cancer 

risks are attributed to HAP emissions 

from non-OSWRO processes. As the 

OSWRO processes are minor operations 

at these facilities, the risk due to 

OSWRO operations is expected to be a 

small fraction of the facility-wide risk. 

Adding these facilities to the dataset 

and performing additional modeling 

would not be expected to result in 

increased maximum risks from the 

source category, for the reasons 

discussed above. Thus, we determined 

that additional modeling to include 

these facilities is not necessary, and, 

based on available information, the risks 

from these four facilities do not change 

our decisions regarding risk 

acceptability or ample margin of safety 

for the OSWRO source category. We 

have not otherwise changed any aspects 

of our risk review since the proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the risk review, and what are our 

responses? 

The comments received on the 

proposed risk review were generally 

supportive of our determination of risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

analysis and requirement for additional 

control. A summary of these comments 

and our responses can be found in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions for the risk review? 

For the reasons explained in the 

proposed rule, we determined that the 

risks from the OSWRO source category 

are acceptable, and the revised 

requirements for tanks and equipment 

leaks described above will provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public. 

In addition, for the reasons explained in 

the proposal, we determined that more 

stringent standards are not necessary to 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. Since proposal, neither the risk 

assessment nor our determinations 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety or adverse 

environmental effects have changed. 

Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 

112(f)(2), we are revising the OSWRO 

NESHAP to require the 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart H LDAR program and more 

stringent emissions controls for certain 

tanks to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14254 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Technology Review for the OSWRO 

Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(6) for the OSWRO 

source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

conducted a technology review, which 

focused on identifying and evaluating 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies for the 

emission sources in the OSWRO source 

category. At proposal, we identified 

developments in practices, processes or 

control technologies for process vents, 

tanks and equipment leaks. 

For process vents, one potential 

control technology was identified at 

proposal, use of a regenerative thermal 

oxidizer, which could increase the 

emissions capture and control efficiency 

from 95 percent to 98 percent for those 

process vents that are currently 

controlled with a carbon adsorption 

system or other device achieving 95- 

percent control. We estimated an 

additional emission reduction of 10 tpy 

of HAP would be associated with this 

increase in emissions control efficiency, 

and the estimated costs would be 

$350,000 per ton of HAP emission 

reduction. 

For tanks, we identified two potential 

developments in practices and control 

techniques at proposal. Option 1 would 

lower the vapor pressure threshold 

above which ‘‘Level 2’’ control would be 

required for some tanks. ‘‘Level 2’’ 

control essentially requires one of five 

options: (1) A fixed roof tank equipped 

with an internal floating roof; (2) a fixed 

roof tank equipped with an external 

floating roof; (3) a tank with a vaportight cover and vented through a closedvent system to a control device that has 

an efficiency of 95 percent or more; (4) 

a pressure tank; or (5) a tank inside a 

permanent total enclosure that is vented 

through a closed-vent system to an 

enclosed combustion control device. 

Option 1 would require Level 2 

emissions control for tanks with 

capacities greater than or equal to 75 

cubic meters (m3), but less than 151 m3, 

if the vapor pressure of the stored 

material is 13 kilopascals (kPa) or 

greater, instead of 27.6 kPa or greater as 

required by the current MACT standard. 

Option 2 would revise the vapor 

pressure threshold as in Option 1 and 

increase the required control efficiency 

from the current 95-percent to a 98- 

percent emissions reduction for all 

tanks required to use Level 2 controls. 

For tank Option 1, we estimated an 

additional emission reduction of up to 

73 tpy and estimated the costs would be 

$300 per ton of HAP emission 

reduction. For tank Option 2, we 

estimated the HAP emissions reduction 

incremental to Option 1 would be 

approximately 22 tpy and the 

incremental cost effectiveness between 

Option 1 and Option 2 would be 

$56,000 per ton of HAP emission 

reduction. 

For equipment leaks, we identified 

the more stringent leak definitions of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart H over those of 40 

CFR part 61, subpart V as a 

development in practices, processes or 

control technologies at proposal. To 

implement the subpart H LDAR 

program, two options were identified: 

Option 1—switching from the subpart V 

LDAR program to the subpart H LDAR 

program, without the connector 

monitoring requirements; Option 2— 

switching from the subpart V LDAR 

program to the subpart H LDAR 

program, with the connector monitoring 

requirements. For Option 1, we 

estimated an additional emission 

reduction of up to 69 tpy and estimated 

the costs would be $1,000 per ton of 

HAP emission reduction. For Option 2, 

we estimated the HAP emissions 

reduction incremental to Option 1 

would be approximately 70 tpy and the 

incremental cost effectiveness between 

Option 1 and Option 2 would be $7,000 

per ton of HAP emission reduction. 

Based on the costs and the emission 

reductions that would be achieved with 

the identified developments, we 

proposed to revise the MACT standard 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to 

require Level 2 controls for tanks with 

capacities greater than or equal to 75 

m3, but less than 151 m3, if the vapor 

pressure of the stored material is 13 kPa 

or greater and to require facilities to 

comply with the subpart H LDAR 

program, including the subpart H 

requirements for connectors in gas/

vapor service and in light liquid service. 

We proposed that it was not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require 98- 

percent control, based on the use of a 

regenerative thermal oxidizer, for 

process vents. More information 

concerning our technology review can 

be found in the memorandum titled, 

Technology Review and Cost Impacts 

for the Proposed Amendments to the 

Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations 

Source Category, which is available in 

the docket, and in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, 79 FR at 37870 to 37873. 

2. How did the technology review 

change for the OSWRO source category? 

a. Tanks 

The analysis of the proposed control 

requirements for tanks at existing 

OSWRO facilities has been revised to 

reflect new data submitted by industry 

during the comment period. As part of 

its comments, the Cement Kiln 

Recycling Coalition provided 

information to demonstrate that 

alternative values or assumptions 

should be used in the analysis of tank 

emission reductions and costs of 

control. These comments were 

associated with the proposed 

requirement that Level 2 controls be 

used for tanks with capacities greater 

than or equal to 75 m3, but less than 151 

m3, if the vapor pressure of the stored 

material is 13 kPa or greater (i.e., Option 

1). We reviewed this information, 

determined that several suggested 

changes were appropriate because they 

more accurately reflect the conditions of 

tanks in the OSWRO source category, 

and revised our analysis of tank 

emissions reductions and control costs 

to incorporate the data submitted by the 

commenter, where such incorporation 

was deemed appropriate. The major 

revisions to the analysis included the 

use of different parameters in estimating 

HAP emissions per tank and the 

inclusion of additional emissions 

control equipment and ancillary 

equipment. In addition, through further 

review of our previous analysis, we 

determined that the number of tanks 

nationwide that would require control 

under Option 1 was overestimated, and 

we revised the estimated number of 

tanks that would be affected by Option 

1 in this analysis. 

As shown in Table 3, our revised 

estimate of the capital costs for the tanks 

Option 1 requirement is approximately 

$139,000, and the total annualized costs 

are estimated to be approximately 

$192,000. The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction is approximately 26 tpy, and 

the cost effectiveness is approximately 

$7,000/ton. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14255 

TABLE 3—REVISED ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND COSTS OF CONTROL OPTION 1 FOR TANKS AT

OSWRO FACILITIES

Regulatory alternative 

HAP 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

($) 

Annual costs 

($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP) 

Option 1 ........................................................................................................... 26.4 139,000 192,000 7,000 

At proposal, we also evaluated the 

impacts of requiring an increased HAP 

emissions control efficiency of 98 

percent based on the use of a 

regenerative thermal oxidizer (i.e., 

Option 2) and found that the costs of 

Option 2 were not reasonable given the 

level of HAP emissions reductions that 

it would achieve. No comments were 

received regarding Option 2, and we 

have not revised the analysis for Option 

2. 

For further details on the revised 

tanks analysis, see the technical 

memorandum titled, Revised 

Technology Review for the Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations Tanks, 

available in the docket for this action. 

b. Equipment Leaks 

As part of its comments on the 

proposed rule, one commenter noted 

that the EPA did not account for 

monitoring of agitator seals on tanks in 

its analysis of the costs of implementing 

the more stringent leak definitions for 

equipment in 40 CFR part 63 subpart H. 

We have revised our analysis of the 

costs and emissions reductions 

associated with switching from the 40 

CFR part 61, subpart V LDAR program 

to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart H LDAR 

program to include the expected 

emissions reductions and costs 

associated with monitoring agitator 

seals for leaks. Also, based on 

information received after proposal that 

there are four additional facilities in the 

source category that would be subject to 

the LDAR requirements of the rule, we 

have revised the analysis to include 

those facilities. We included this 

information in the evaluation of both 

regulatory options: Option 1—switching 

from a subpart V LDAR program to a 

subpart H LDAR program, without the 

subpart H connector monitoring 

requirements and Option 2—switching 

from a subpart V LDAR program, with 

the subpart H connector monitoring 

requirements. 

The revised estimated costs and 

emissions reductions associated with 

these two options are shown in Table 4. 

For Option 1 (subpart H without 

connector monitoring), we estimate the 

capital costs to be approximately 

$414,000, and the total annualized costs 

are estimated to be approximately 

$155,000. The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction is approximately 109 tpy, and 

the cost effectiveness is approximately 

$1,000/ton. For Option 2 (subpart H 

with connector monitoring), we estimate 

the capital costs to be approximately 

$2,089,000, and the total annualized 

costs are estimated to be approximately 

$664,000. The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction is approximately 185 tpy, and 

the cost effectiveness is approximately 

$4,000/ton. The incremental cost 

effectiveness between Option 1 and 

Option 2 is approximately $7,000. 

TABLE 4—REVISED ESTIMATED NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION AND COSTS OF EQUIPMENT LEAK CONTROL OPTIONS

AT OSWRO FACILITIES

Regulatory alternative 

HAP 

emissions 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

($) 

Annual costs 

($/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Option 1: Subpart H, no connector monitoring .................... 108.7 414,000 155,000 1,000 ........................

Option 2: Subpart H with connector monitoring .................. 184.5 2,089,000 664,000 4,000 7,000 

In addition to these revisions to the 

equipment leak analysis, we also 

considered comments regarding the 

costs of connector monitoring. In its 

comments on the proposed rule, one 

commenter claimed that the costs the 

EPA included in its analysis for ongoing 

connector monitoring and 

administrative activities were too low. 

Although we do not agree with the 

commenter and we continue to believe 

the costs we used in the analysis for 

these activities are reasonable, we 

conducted an additional analysis to 

assess the potential effect of using the 

values provided by the commenter on 

the cost effectiveness of Option 2. This 

additional analysis showed there would 

be a slight increase in the Option 2 total 

annualized cost to $672,000. The cost 

effectiveness would remain 

approximately $4,000, and the 

incremental cost effectiveness between 

Option 1 and Option 2 would still be 

approximately $7,000. 

For further details on the revised 

equipment leaks analysis, see the 

technical memorandum titled, Revised 

Technology Review for the Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations 

Equipment Leaks, available in the 

docket for this action. 

c. Process Vents and Other OSWRO 

Equipment and Processes 

For process vents and other 

equipment and processes at OSWRO 

facilities, the technology review has not 

changed since proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the technology review, and what are 

our responses? 

The following is a summary of the key 

comments received regarding the 

OSWRO source category technology 

review and our responses to these 

comments. Additional comments on the 

technology review and our responses 

can be found in the comment summary 

and response document available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0360). 

Comment: One commenter states that 

the EPA did not account for monitoring 

of agitator seals on tanks in its analysis 

of the costs of implementing the more 

stringent leak definitions for equipment 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14256 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance. October 1999. Enforcement 

Alert: Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing 

‘Fugitive Emissions’ Under Leak Detection and 

Repair Programs. 

4Memorandum from D. Randall, RTI 

International, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 30, 

2007. Statistical Analysis of Valve Leak Frequencies 

Obtained by Industry and EPA for Petroleum 

Refining Process Units. 

5Memorandum from C. Hancy, RTI International, 

to J. Howard, USEPA. December 21, 2011. Analysis 

of Emissions Reduction Techniques for Equipment 

Leaks. This memorandum is available in the docket 

for this action. 

asserts that many tanks at OSWRO 

facilities are equipped with agitators. 

Response: We acknowledge that we 

did not, prior to proposal, analyze the 

impacts of including monthly 

monitoring of agitators with Method 21 

for the proposed rule. We performed 

this analysis in response to comments 

and have determined that the capital 

costs per facility for agitator monitoring 

are approximately $1,000, and the total 

annualized costs are estimated to be 

approximately $2,000. The estimated 

HAP emissions reduction is 

approximately 0.7 tpy, and the cost 

effectiveness is approximately $2,000/

ton. Agitator monitoring would be 

included in both LDAR Options 1 and 

2. To determine the effect of including 

agitator monitoring in the LDAR 

program options, we compared the costs 

and emissions reductions on a per 

facility basis rather than for the whole 

source category to avoid issues with 

differences in the number of facilities 

included in the source category. The 

effect of including agitator monitoring 

in Option 1 is an increase in the per 

facility capital costs from approximately 

$7,000 to approximately $8,000, an 

increase in the total annualized costs 

from approximately $1,500 to 

approximately $3,000, an increase in the 

estimated HAP emissions reduction 

from approximately 1.5 to 

approximately 2.2 tpy, and the cost 

effectiveness value remaining at 

approximately $1,000/ton. The effect of 

including agitator monitoring in Option 

2 is an increase in the per facility capital 

costs from approximately $41,000 to 

approximately $43,000, an increase in 

the total annualized costs from 

approximately $12,000 to approximately 

$14,000, and an increase in the 

estimated HAP emissions reduction 

from approximately 3.1 to 

approximately 3.8 tpy. The cost 

effectiveness remains at approximately 

$4,000/ton, and the incremental cost 

effectiveness compared with Option 1 

remains the same at $7,000/ton. Further 

details on the revised equipment leaks 

analysis are documented in the 

technical memorandum titled, Revised 

Technology Review for the Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations 

Equipment Leaks, available in the 

docket for this action. 

Based on our analysis of the costs of 

a 40 CFR part 63, subpart H LDAR 

program with monthly agitator 

monitoring using Method 21, we are 

finalizing, as proposed, the requirement 

that OSWRO facilities comply with 

subpart H, including the subpart H 

requirements for connectors in gas/

vapor service and in light liquid service. 

Comment: Several commenters 

dispute the EPA’s emission reduction 

estimates related to connector 

monitoring. One of these commenters 

notes that the EPA based its costeffectiveness calculations on the 

approach from the December 21, 2011, 

memorandum, Analysis of Emissions 

Reduction Techniques for Equipment 

Leaks, developed for the Uniform 

Standards, and provides comments on 

the approach used in this memorandum. 

This commenter and another 

commenter state that the leak rate factor 

of 1.7 for connectors was determined for 

the refining industry, and the EPA 

provides no basis that it applies to the 

synthetic organic chemical 

manufacturing industry (SOCMI) or the 

OSWRO source category. One 

commenter states that if the EPA 

believes the 1.7 factor is warranted, it 

should use petroleum refinery leak rates 

as a starting point instead of SOCMI 

rates. The commenter asserts that based 

on the experience of member companies 

with process units subject to HON 

connector monitoring, commencement 

of Method 21 monitoring with a leak 

definition of 500 ppm will not reduce 

emissions by 50 percent, as the EPA 

estimates. This commenter submitted a 

report that concluded there is no 

statistical difference in average leak 

rates between the initial Method 21 

inspections and subsequent inspections 

and that volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from connectors at 

plants subject to the HON or 

Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON) 

are far below SOCMI average factor 

estimates. The commenter suggests that 

sensory methods of detecting leaks are 

adequate and the imposition of Method 

21 in addition to current practices will 

not further reduce the number of leaks. 

The commenter asserts that operators 

are trained to recognize hazards 

associated with leaks using sensory 

methods and are expected to take 

prompt action when leaks occur. 

Another commenter asserts that the 

revised monitoring requirements for 

connectors will not result in substantial, 

or any, HAP emission reductions. The 

commenter’s assertion is based on data 

obtained from LDAR records of its 

member facilities, where only five 

connectors were found to have a leak 

above 500 ppm out of 10,542 connectors 

analyzed over the past year. The 

commenter also asserts that the EPA’s 

assumption of 82-percent HAP 

composition is incorrect, and was taken 

from an OSWRO NESHAP background 

information document from 1994 which 

is based on an outdated HAP list (i.e., 

methyl ethyl ketone has since been 

removed). 

Response: The EPA stands by our 

analysis of emission reduction estimates 

related to connector monitoring for the 

OSWRO source category. 

Regarding the factor used in 

estimating the leak frequency, we 

increased the connector leak frequency 

by a factor of 1.7. As explained below, 

we believe it is appropriate to apply this 

factor to the OSWRO source category to 

account for differences in industryreported and National Enforcement 

Investigations Center (NEIC) measured 

leak frequencies. In 1999, the NEIC 

published the results of a comparative 

monitoring study at 17 petroleum 

refineries, which showed the percentage 

of valves identified as leaking by NEIC 

was always higher than the results of 

monitoring conducted by the petroleum 

refiners.3 This NEIC report states that 

the disparity between the NEIC and 

company results may be attributable to 

refineries not monitoring in the manner 

prescribed in Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A–7. In a subsequent 

analysis of these results, the NEIC 

results were shown to be higher than the 

industry results by a factor of at least 2.6 

at the 99-percent confidence level.4 As 

the initial connector leak frequency 

used in the analysis of OSWRO 

connector leak emissions was the same 

as that used in the Uniform Standards 

analysis,5 which was based on 

industry–supplied data for facilities 

regulated by the MON, we applied a 

factor to account for the differences 

noted between industry-supplied data 

and NEIC-measured leak frequency data. 

For the OSWRO analysis, the factor of 

1.7 was used rather than 2.6. This 1.7 

factor represents the 10th percentile of 

the data set (i.e., 90 percent of the NEIC 

leak frequencies were at least 1.7 times 

higher than the leak frequencies 

reported by the refineries). This 

conservative factor was chosen, in part, 

to account for the possibility that 

refineries and OSWRO facilities could 

leak at different rates. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

applying the connector leak frequency 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14257 

6Memorandum from K. Parrish and D. Randall, 

RTI International, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 

30, 2007. Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory 

Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI. 

7Memorandum from K. Parrish and D. Randall, 

RTI International, to K. Rackley, USEPA. October 

30, 2007. Final Impacts Analysis for Regulatory 

Options for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the SOCMI. 

factor of 1.7 necessitates the use of 

petroleum refinery leak frequency rates. 

Since the process equipment and 

chemicals used at OSWRO facilities are 

more similar to those of the SOCMI than 

those at petroleum refineries, we believe 

it is appropriate to use SOCMI leak 

frequencies. Further, the factor we 

applied to the connector leak frequency 

to account for differences noted between 

industry-supplied and NEIC-measured 

data already accounted for potential 

differences in leak frequencies between 

petroleum refineries and OSWRO 

facilities by using the more conservative 

factor of 1.7 than the factor of 2.6 that 

would be applied to refinery data. We 

note that the initial leak frequency of 

0.36 percent used in the OSWRO 

analysis is the same as that reported by 

the commenter’s member companies for 

the HON initial monitoring, and we 

made the conservative assumption that 

the subsequent leak frequency after 

implementation of Method 21 

monitoring of connectors would be the 

same as the initial leak frequency. 

However, we also assumed, as we have 

in other rulemakings, that these leaking 

connectors would be fixed so that the 

average leak frequency over each 

monitoring cycle would be equal to onehalf of the subsequent leak frequency 

(i.e., 0.18 percent).6

We disagree with the commenter’s 

claim that the estimated emissions per 

connector used in the EPA’s analysis are 

too high. The leak rates used were based 

on those reported in the Protocol for 

Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates 

(EPA–453/R–95–017, November 1995), 

which determined these leak rates based 

on screening data from 33 chemical 

production units and bagging data from 

22 chemical production units. We 

consider this to be relevant and robust 

data, and the resulting average leak 

emissions rates are appropriate to use in 

our analyses. 

We agree with the commenter that the 

HAP composition used in our analyses 

of 82 percent was taken from the 1994 

OSWRO NESHAP background 

information document. The commenter 

did not provide any information to 

show that another estimate of HAP 

composition would be appropriate, and, 

without any basis for a different value, 

we have not changed our analyses to 

include a different HAP composition. 

Comment: Two commenters dispute 

the EPA’s assessment of the costs to 

monitor connectors. Specifically, one 

commenter disputes the EPA’s assumed 

cost of $2.50 per monitored connector 

and outlines the various challenges in 

monitoring connectors in comparison 

with other types of equipment 

components. The other commenter 

states that the EPA underestimated the 

annual administrative costs of 

monitoring connectors and provides 

their own estimate of $27,000. Both 

commenters provide a revised analysis 

of the cost of connector monitoring 

based on a recent study conducted by 

one company at one facility, and 

conclude that monitoring connectors 

would cost $6.50 per component and 

$18,139/ton. Another commenter states 

that the requirement to conduct 

connector monitoring could result in 

OSWRO facilities being forced to hire 

outside consultants to perform the 

monitoring due to the large number of 

connectors at each site and that the 

annual monitoring costs for connectors 

could be the same as that for all other 

monitored components. 

Response: We have considered the 

commenters’ concerns that the 

estimated connector monitoring costs 

used in our analysis of the costs of an 

LDAR program, including periodic 

connector monitoring using Method 21, 

are too low. The two areas in which the 

commenters dispute the estimated 

connector monitoring costs are in the 

ongoing monitoring costs per connector 

and the estimated annual administrative 

and reporting costs. Regarding ongoing 

monitoring costs, we do not believe the 

$2.50 used in the EPA’s analysis is an 

unreasonable estimate of the monitoring 

costs per connector. This estimate is 

based on an average monitoring cost per 

component of $1.00 to $1.50, and then 

increased to $2.50 to account for 

industry claims that connectors are 

more difficult than other components to 

monitor.7 However, to determine how a 

fee of $6.50 per connector, as suggested 

by the commenters, would affect the 

cost effectiveness of the provisions, we 

conducted an additional analysis of 

costs of an LDAR program using this 

value. We note that all monitoring costs 

already assume an outside contractor 

would be used. Regarding the 

administrative and reporting costs, the 

submitted study includes $27,000 per 

year for these activities for connectors 

alone. At the labor rates used in the 

study, this equates to 781 hours per 

year. We do not find this amount of time 

to be reasonable for connector 

administrative and reporting costs, 

especially considering that connector 

monitoring may only be required once 

every four years. However, it may be 

possible that our estimate of 50 hours 

per year at a labor rate of $92.92 per 

hour overestimates the labor rate and 

underestimates the amount of time 

required to complete the necessary 

administrative requirements. Therefore, 

we conducted an additional analysis of 

the costs of the LDAR program assuming 

twice as many hours as we previously 

estimated and the labor rates provided 

by the commenter for these 

administrative actions. Using these 

more conservative values, the 

incremental cost effectiveness for 

connectors would be $6,825/ton. This 

incremental cost effectiveness is still 

$7,000/ton of HAP reduced, as was 

calculated without the alternate 

connector monitoring costs. Therefore, 

using these alternative values would not 

change our determination that the costs 

of the subpart H LDAR program 

(including connector monitoring) are 

reasonable, given the level of HAP 

emissions reduction that would be 

achieved, and we are finalizing the 

equipment leak amendments to require 

subpart H LDAR (including connector 

monitoring) as proposed. 

Comment: One commenter states the 

EPA used several assumptions the 

commenter does not agree with in its 

estimate of emissions from tanks. One is 

that the EPA overestimated the tank 

throughput. The commenter asserts that, 

based on data from its members, the 

average waste throughput is typically 

less than 20,000,000 gallons for each 

facility, which is much lower than the 

EPA’s estimate of 35,000,000 gallons per 

facility. The commenter also disagrees 

with the EPA’s assumption that OSWRO 

tanks contain 100-percent HAP, as 

hazardous wastes processed by OSWRO 

facilities contain a large portion of 

organic and inorganic non-HAP 

constituents. The commenter estimates 

that as little as 50 percent of the tank 

constituents are HAP and provided a 

suggested mix of HAP constituents. The 

commenter also states that the EPA’s 

selection of Houston as the location of 

the model facility is inappropriate 

because of its average sub-tropical 

temperatures, and a location more 

representative of the national average 

should be selected. The commenter also 

states that the EPA’s use of the default 

conservation vent pressure settings of 

0.03 pounds per square inch (psi) and 

¥0.03 psi in the calculation of 

uncontrolled emissions is too low, and 

actual pressure settings for tanks 

currently subject to the OSWRO Level 1 

control requirements are typically set at 

0.5 psi. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14258 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

This commenter also disputes the 

EPA’s estimate of the costs that would 

be incurred by facilities to comply with 

the proposed amendments to the vapor 

pressure thresholds for tank control 

level. The commenter states that 

contrary to the EPA’s assumptions, there 

are a significant number of sources that 

would require the installation of a new 

control device or would have to upgrade 

and/or expand their existing control 

device systems to comply with the 

Control Level 2 standards. The 

commenter asserts that the EPA 

provided no assessment of whether 

existing control devices are sized to 

accommodate additional vented 

sources, and control devices are 

typically not sized with significant 

excess capacity due to economic and 

space considerations. The commenter 

states that the EPA also did not consider 

flame arrestors to prevent back-flash to 

tanks, which would cost $10,000 per 

unit. In addition, the commenter asserts 

that the EPA did not consider capital 

costs related to engineering installation, 

or regulatory and safety costs, such as 

additional process hazard reviews and 

analyses under either the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) Process Safety Management or 

CAA Risk Management Plan regulations 

that would likely be required if tanks 

are connected to a control device. 

The commenter also disputes EPA’s 

estimate of annual costs, and states that 

the EPA did not consider the additional 

cost associated with operation of the 

control device itself, such as costs 

associated with replacement and 

disposal or regeneration of carbon (for a 

carbon adsorption system). The 

commenter asserts that the annual cost 

should still be applied even if there is 

an existing control device because 

annual carbon costs are a function of the 

throughput of the newly affected units. 

The commenter further asserts that 

additional annual and capital costs 

would be incurred from the operation of 

a nitrogen blanketing system that may 

be required if carbon adsorption units is 

used as the HAP control device. 

The commenter estimates that the cost 

effectiveness of the proposed 

amendments to the tank vapor pressure 

thresholds is actually $48,000 per ton of 

HAP controlled, which the commenter 

claims is an unnecessary cost to achieve 

minor emission reductions. 

Response: Our analysis presented the 

best quantification of the emission 

reductions and costs of the proposed 

amendments to the tank provisions 

based on the information available at 

the time. We have revised some of the 

assumptions used in the analysis to 

address concerns raised by the 

commenter and to include additional 

information that the commenter has 

provided. Details of this analysis are 

presented in the memo, Revised 

Technology Review for the Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations Tanks, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

We agree with the commenter that 

OSWRO tanks likely do not contain 100- 

percent HAP, and have revised the 

analysis to include a mix of tank 

constituents that comprises 60-percent 

HAP, as suggested by the commenter. 

We have moved the location of the 

model facility from Houston to a 

location near the center of the 

continental United States, which has 

temperatures more representative of the 

national average. We have also 

increased the conservation vent 

pressure setting from the default value 

of 0.03 psi to 0.5 psi, as suggested by the 

commenter. We did not revise the 

average waste throughput used in the 

analysis. The commenter did not 

provide data to support the claim that 

the average waste throughput is actually 

20,000,000 gallons per facility, and the 

EPA’s estimate of 35,000,000 gallons per 

facility is supported by data obtained 

through the 2013 CAA section 114 

questionnaire for the one OSWRO 

facility with tanks in the size and vapor 

pressure range affected by the proposed 

standards. 

In addition, while some facilities may 

have control devices with adequate 

capacity to control emissions from the 

additional tanks that would become 

subject to Level 2 control requirements 

as a result of the proposed amendments, 

it may be possible that some facilities do 

not have the required excess capacity. 

Therefore, we have revised the analysis 

to add the conservative assumption that 

each facility would need to install a 

carbon adsorber to comply with the 

proposed amendments. The revised 

analysis includes the cost of a carbon 

adsorber canister system, including 

installation and other associated capital 

costs, as well as annual costs for the 

operation of the device (e.g., cost of 

carbon). We have also revised the 

analysis to include costs for flame 

arrestors, as suggested by the 

commenter. We have revised the 

number of tanks in the analysis from 21 

to 14 to account for seven tanks that are 

known to already be controlled based on 

information collected through the CAA 

section 114 questionnaire. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

the cost of nitrogen blanketing systems 

should be included in the analysis. 

Nitrogen blankets are not required by 

the OSWRO NESHAP for use with a 

control device, and we do not believe 

that nitrogen blankets are necessary for 

the operation of control devices, 

including a carbon adsorption system, 

as suggested by the commenter. Further, 

nitrogen blanketing systems can be used 

on tanks that are not controlled by a 

control device, and may already be in 

place for the tanks that would be 

affected by the revised standard. We 

also disagree with the commenter that 

we have not considered capital costs 

related to engineering installation and 

regulatory and safety costs. We 

explicitly include installation costs of 

equipment, and we follow the 

procedure of the EPA Control Cost 

Manual for including indirect costs. 

Considering the revisions to emission 

controls and costs identified above, we 

have determined that the capital costs 

for the proposed amendments to the 

tank provisions are approximately 

$139,000, and the total annualized costs 

are estimated to be approximately 

$192,000. The estimated HAP emissions 

reduction is approximately 26 tpy, and 

the cost effectiveness is approximately 

$7,000 per ton of HAP reduced. While 

the revised analysis resulted in lower 

emission reductions at a higher cost 

than the estimates developed prior to 

proposal, we still find the amendments 

to the tank control provisions to be cost 

effective, and are, therefore, finalizing 

the amendments as proposed. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions for the technology review? 

Based on our revised analysis for 

tanks, the costs of Option 1 are 

reasonable, given the level of HAP 

emissions reduction that would be 

achieved with this control option. 

Therefore, as a result of this revised 

technology review pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(6), we have determined, 

as we did at proposal, that it is 

appropriate to revise the OSWRO 

NESHAP to require Level 2 controls for 

tanks with capacities greater than or 

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

the vapor pressure of the stored material 

is 13 kPa or greater. 

Considering our revised analysis for 

equipment leaks, we have determined 

the costs of Option 2, which includes all 

of the requirements of Option 1, are 

reasonable, given the level of HAP 

emissions reduction that would be 

achieved with this control option. We 

note that, while we did not include the 

higher connector monitoring costs 

analyzed in response to commenter 

suggestions in this determination, the 

inclusion of these costs would not 

change our conclusion that the costs of 

Option 2 are reasonable, given the level 

of HAP emissions reduction that would 

be achieved with this control option. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14259 

Therefore, as a result of this revised 

technology review pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(6), we have determined, 

as we did at proposal, that it is 

appropriate to revise the OSWRO 

NESHAP to require existing and new 

affected sources to comply with 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart H rather than 40 CFR 

part 61, subpart V, including the subpart 

H requirements for connectors in gas/

vapor service and in light liquid service. 

As noted in section IV.A.4 of the 

preamble, we are promulgating these 

revisions concurrently under section 

112(f)(2) of the CAA to provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. Furthermore, for the reasons 

discussed above and in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, we have determined 

that it is not necessary pursuant to CAA 

section 112(d)(6) to revise the OSWRO 

NESHAP to require additional HAP 

emission controls for process vents or 

any other equipment or processes at 

OSWRO facilities. 

C. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

Provisions for the OSWRO Source 

Category 

1. What SSM provisions did we propose 

for the OSWRO source category? 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

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

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

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

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

We have eliminated the SSM 

exemption in this rule. Consistent with 

Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA proposed 

standards in this rule that apply at all 

times. We have also revised Table 2 (the 

General Provisions applicability table) 

in several respects as is explained in 

more detail below. For example, we 

have eliminated the incorporation of the 

General Provisions’ requirement that the 

source develop an SSM plan. We have 

also eliminated and revised certain 

recordkeeping and reporting that is 

related to the SSM exemption as 

described in detail in the proposed rule 

and summarized again here. 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA took into account startup 

and shutdown periods and, for the 

reasons explained below, did not 

propose alternate standards for those 

periods. Information on periods of 

startup and shutdown received from the 

facilities through CAA section 114 

questionnaire responses indicated that 

emissions during these periods are the 

same as during normal operations. The 

facilities do not process waste unless 

and until their control devices are 

operating to fully control emissions. 

Therefore, we determined that separate 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown are not necessary. 

Periods of startup, normal operations 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) 

(Definition of malfunction). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 112 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during 

periods of malfunction to be factored 

into development of CAA section 112 

standards. Under CAA section 112, 

emission standards for new sources 

must be no less stringent than the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled 

similar source and for existing sources 

generally must be no less stringent than 

the average emission limitation 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 

percent of sources in the category. There 

is nothing in CAA section 112 that 

directs the EPA to consider 

malfunctions in determining the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 

sources when setting emission 

standards. As the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit has recognized, the phrase 

‘‘average emissions limitation achieved 

by the best performing 12 percent of’’ 

sources ‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

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

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

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

accounts for variability in setting 

emission standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the EPA to consider 

malfunctions as part of that analysis. A 

malfunction should not be treated in the 

same manner as the type of variation in 

performance that occurs during routine 

operations of a source. A malfunction is 

a failure of the source to perform in a 

‘‘normal or usual manner’’ and no 

statutory language compels the EPA to 

consider such events in setting CAA 

section 112 standards. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

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

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

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’ ’’). See also 

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

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

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

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

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as 

might happen if, for example, the bags 

in a baghouse catch fire) and the 

emission unit is a steady state type unit 

that would take days to shut down, the 

source would go from 99-percent 

control to zero control until the control 

device was repaired. The source’s 

emissions during the malfunction 

would be 100 times higher than during 

normal operations. As such, the 

emissions over a 4-day malfunction 

period would exceed the annual 

emissions of the source during normal 

operations. As this example illustrates, 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are not reflective of 

(and significantly less stringent than) 

levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. 

It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 

112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14260 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable 

and was not instead caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless operation. 

40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action, and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of 

the CAA and, in particular, section 112 

is reasonable and encourages practices 

that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. 

To address the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacatur of portions of the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing 

the emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), we proposed to revise 

and add certain provisions to the 

OSWRO rule. As described in detail 

below, we proposed to revise the 

General Provisions Applicability Table 

(Table 2) to change several references 

related to requirements that apply 

during periods of SSM. We also 

proposed to add the following 

provisions to the OSWRO rule: (1) The 

general duty to minimize emissions at 

all times; (2) the requirement for sources 

to comply with the emission limits in 

the rule at all times, with clarification 

for what constitutes a deviation; (3) 

performance testing conditions 

requirements; (4) excused monitoring 

excursions provisions; and (5) 

malfunction recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

i. General Duty 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by adding rows 

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

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

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

column 2 for the 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

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

general duty to minimize emissions. 

Some of the language in that section is 

no longer necessary or appropriate in 

light of the elimination of the SSM 

exemption. We proposed instead to add 

general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 

63.683(e) that reflects the general duty 

to minimize emissions while 

eliminating the reference to periods 

covered by an SSM exemption. The 

current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

characterizes what the general duty 

entails during periods of SSM. With the 

elimination of the SSM exemption, 

there is no need to differentiate between 

normal operations, startup and 

shutdown, and malfunction events in 

describing the general duty. Therefore, 

the language the EPA proposed for 40 

CFR 63.683(e) does not include that 

language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). 

We also proposed to include a ‘‘no’’ 

in column 2 for the newly added entry 

for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii). Section 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that 

are not necessary with the elimination 

of the SSM exemption or are redundant 

with the general duty requirement being 

added at 63.683(e). 

The provisions of 40 CFR 

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

proposed to keep the ‘‘yes’’ in column 

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

we proposed to include a ‘‘no’’ in the 

second column for that section because 

it is a reserved section in the General 

Provisions. 

We also proposed to clarify in the 

applicability section of 40 CFR 

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

limits of subpart DD apply at all times 

except when the affected source is not 

operating and that the owner or operator 

must not shut down items of equipment 

required or used for compliance with 

the requirements of subpart DD. 

ii. SSM Plan 

We proposed to include a ‘‘no’’ in 

column 2 for the newly added 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(3) entry. Generally, this 

paragraph requires development of an 

SSM plan and specifies SSM 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM plan. 

As noted, the EPA proposed to remove 

the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected 

units will be subject to an emission 

standard during such events. The 

applicability of a standard during such 

events will ensure that sources have 

ample incentive to plan for and achieve 

compliance and thus the SSM plan 

requirements are no longer necessary. 

iii. Compliance With Standards 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

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

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

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

exempts sources from non-opacity 

standards during periods of SSM. As 

discussed above, the Court in Sierra 

Club vacated the exemptions contained 

in this provision and held that the CAA 

requires that some section 112 standards 

apply continuously. Consistent with 

Sierra Club, the EPA proposed to revise 

the standards in this rule to apply at all 

times. 

iv. Performance Testing 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

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

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

63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing 

requirements. The EPA instead 

proposed to add a performance testing 

requirement at 40 CFR 63.694(l). The 

performance testing requirements we 

proposed to add differ from the General 

Provisions performance testing 

provisions in several respects. The 

regulatory text does not include the 

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

restated the SSM exemption and 

language that precluded startup and 

shutdown periods from being 

considered ‘‘representative’’ for 

purposes of performance testing. The 

proposed performance testing 

provisions specified that performance 

tests conducted under this subpart 

should be based on representative 

performance (i.e., performance based on 

normal operating conditions) of the 

affected source. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 

performance tests conducted under this 

subpart should not be conducted during 

malfunctions because conditions during 

malfunctions often are not 

representative of normal operating 

conditions. The EPA proposed to add 

language that requires the owner or 

operator to record the process 

information that is necessary to 

document operating conditions during 

the test and include in such record an 

explanation to support that such 

conditions represent normal operation. 

Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner 

or operator make available to the 

Administrator such records ‘‘as may be 

necessary to determine the condition of 

the performance test’’ upon request, but 

does not specifically require the 

information to be recorded. The 

regulatory text the EPA proposed to add 

to this provision builds on that 

requirement and makes explicit the 

requirement to record the information. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14261 

v. Monitoring 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

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

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

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

general duty and SSM plan 

requirements in those subparagraphs are 

not necessary in light of other 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require 

good air pollution control practices (40 

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

requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). 

vi. Recordkeeping 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by 

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

‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes 

the recordkeeping requirements during 

startup and shutdown. These recording 

provisions are no longer necessary 

because the EPA proposed that 

recordkeeping and reporting applicable 

to normal operations will apply to 

startup and shutdown. In the absence of 

special provisions applicable to startup 

and shutdown, such as a startup and 

shutdown plan, there is no reason to 

retain additional recordkeeping for 

startup and shutdown periods. 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

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

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

‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes 

the recordkeeping requirements during 

a malfunction. The EPA proposed to 

add such requirements to 40 CFR 

63.696(h). The regulatory text we 

proposed to add differs from the General 

Provisions it is replacing in that the 

General Provisions require the creation 

and retention of a record of the 

occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of process, air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment. The 

EPA proposed that this requirement 

apply to any failure to meet an 

applicable standard and is requiring that 

the source record the date, time and 

duration of the failure rather than the 

‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA also proposed to 

add to 40 CFR 63.696(h) a requirement 

that sources keep records that include a 

list of the affected source or equipment 

and actions taken to minimize 

emissions, an estimate of the quantity of 

each regulated pollutant emitted over 

the standard for which the source failed 

to meet the standard, and a description 

of the method used to estimate the 

emissions. Examples of such methods 

would include product-loss 

calculations, mass balance calculations, 

measurements when available, or 

engineering judgment based on known 

process parameters. The EPA proposed 

to require that sources keep records of 

this information to ensure that there is 

adequate information to allow the EPA 

to determine the severity of any failure 

to meet a standard, and to provide data 

that may document how the source met 

the general duty to minimize emissions 

when the source has failed to meet an 

applicable standard. 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

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

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

‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision 

requires sources to record actions taken 

during SSM events when actions were 

inconsistent with their SSM plan. The 

requirement is no longer appropriate 

because SSM plans will no longer be 

required. The requirement previously 

applicable under 40 CFR 

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

minimize emissions and record 

corrective actions is now applicable by 

reference to 40 CFR 63.696(h). 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

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

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

‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision 

requires sources to record actions taken 

during SSM events to show that actions 

taken were consistent with their SSM 

plan. The requirement is no longer 

appropriate because SSM plans will no 

longer be required. 

vii. Reporting 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

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

consolidating it with the entry for 

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

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

describes the reporting requirements for 

SSM. To replace the General Provisions 

reporting requirements, the EPA 

proposed to add reporting requirements 

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

language differs from the General 

Provisions requirement in that it 

eliminates periodic SSM reports as a 

stand-alone report. We proposed 

language that requires sources that fail 

to meet an applicable standard at any 

time to report the information 

concerning such events in the 

semiannual summary report already 

required under this rule. We proposed 

that the report must contain the number, 

date, time, duration and the cause of 

such events (including unknown cause, 

if applicable), a list of the affected 

source or equipment, an estimate of the 

quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over any emission limit and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions. 

Examples of such methods would 

include product-loss calculations, mass 

balance calculations, measurements 

when available or engineering judgment 

based on known process parameters. 

The EPA proposed this requirement to 

ensure that there is adequate 

information to determine compliance, to 

allow the EPA to determine the severity 

of the failure to meet an applicable 

standard, and to provide data that may 

document how the source met the 

general duty to minimize emissions 

during a failure to meet an applicable 

standard. 

We will no longer require owners or 

operators to determine whether actions 

taken to correct a malfunction are 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans would no longer be required. The 

proposed amendments, therefore, 

eliminated the cross reference to 40 CFR 

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

description of the previously required 

SSM report format and submittal 

schedule from this section. These 

specifications are no longer necessary 

because the events will be reported in 

otherwise required reports with similar 

format and submittal requirements. 

We proposed to revise the General 

Provisions applicability table (Table 2) 

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

consolidating it with the entry for 

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

column 2 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 

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

report for startups, shutdown and 

malfunctions when a source failed to 

meet an applicable standard but did not 

follow the SSM plan. We will no longer 

require owners and operators to report 

when actions taken during a startup, 

shutdown or malfunction were not 

consistent with an SSM plan, because 

plans would no longer be required. 

2. How did the SSM provisions change 

for the OSWRO source category? 

We have not changed any aspect of 

the SSM provisions since the proposal. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the SSM provisions, and what are 

our responses? 

Comments were received regarding 

the proposed revisions to remove the 

SSM exemptions for the OSWRO source 

category. Some commenters suggested 

that the rule should provide a six-month 

compliance period for the SSM 

provisions, that the rule requirements, 

which were based on steady-state 

conditions, should not apply during 

periods of malfunction, and that the 

EPA should establish work practice 

standards for malfunctions. One 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14262 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

8As discussed in sections III.A, III.B, IV.A and 

IV.B of this preamble, we are removing the option 

from subpart DD to comply with 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart V for equipment leaks and are requiring 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The 

compliance date for existing sources is 1 year from 

the effective date of the final amendments, and new 

sources must comply immediately upon the 

effective date of the final amendments, or upon 

startup, whichever is later. 

commenter generally supported the 

revised provisions for the emission 

standards in the OSWRO NESHAP to 

apply at all times but suggested that 

more stringent monitoring, 

recordkeeping, reporting and 

notification requirements are needed for 

malfunctions. The commenters did not 

provide new information or a basis for 

EPA to change the proposed provisions 

and did not provide sufficient 

information to show that facilities 

cannot comply with the MACT 

standards at all times, including periods 

of startup, shutdown and malfunction. 

The comments and our specific 

responses to those comments can be 

found in the Comment Summary and 

Response document available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0360). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions for the SSM provisions? 

For the reasons provided above, 

provided in the preamble for the 

proposed rule and provided in the 

comment summary and response 

document available in the docket, we 

have removed the SSM exemption from 

the OSWRO NESHAP; eliminated or 

revised certain recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

eliminated SSM exemption; and 

removed or modified inappropriate, 

unnecessary or redundant language in 

the absence of the SSM exemption. We 

are, therefore, finalizing our proposed 

determination that facilities comply 

with the standards at all times and no 

additional standards are needed to 

address emissions during startup or 

shutdown periods. 

D. Other Changes Made to the OSWRO 

NESHAP 

1. What other changes did we propose 

for the OSWRO NESHAP? 

i. Electronic Reporting 

As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, to increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and data 

accessibility, the EPA proposed to 

require owners and operators of 

OSWRO facilities to submit electronic 

copies of certain required performance 

test reports. 

Data will be collected by direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer using EPA-provided software. 

This EPA-provided software is an 

electronic performance test report tool 

called the ERT. The ERT will generate 

an electronic report package which will 

be submitted to the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX). A 

description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found at http://

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

and CEDRI can be accessed through the 

CDX Web site (http://www.epa.gov/cdx). 

The requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA will not create any additional 

performance testing and will apply only 

to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and 

test methods supported by the ERT is 

available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 

believes, through this approach, 

industry will save time in the 

performance test submittal process. 

Additionally, this rulemaking benefits 

industry by reducing recordkeeping 

costs as the performance test reports 

that are submitted to the EPA using 

CEDRI will no longer be required to be 

kept in hard copy. 

State, local and tribal agencies may 

benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of performance test data 

that will become available to the public 

through WebFIRE. Having such data 

publicly available enhances 

transparency and accountability. For a 

more thorough discussion of electronic 

reporting of performance tests using 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer and using EPA-provided 

software, see the discussion in the 

preamble to the proposal. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data will save industry, state, local, 

tribal agencies and the EPA significant 

time, money and effort while improving 

the quality of emission inventories and 

air quality regulations and providing 

greater transparency to the public. 

ii. Routine Maintenance 

The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 

63.693(b)(3)(i) allows a facility to bypass 

control devices for up to 240 hours per 

year to perform planned routine 

maintenance of the closed-vent system 

or control device in situations when the 

routine maintenance cannot be 

performed during periods that the 

control device is shut down. 

The routine maintenance provision 

was originally established in the HON 

(see 40 CFR 63.119(e)(3)–(4); 57 FR 

62710, December 31, 1992 (proposed); 

59 FR 19402, April 22, 1994 (final)) for 

facilities that elected to use a closed 

vent system and control device to 

comply with the emission limitation 

requirements for tanks. We included the 

routine maintenance provision in the 

HON for tanks routing emissions to 

control devices because the estimated 

HAP emissions to degas the tank would 

be greater than the emissions that would 

result if the tank emitted directly to the 

atmosphere for a short period of time 

during routine maintenance of the 

control device. 

We intended for the OSWRO 

NESHAP to track the HON maintenance 

provisions, and, therefore, those 

provisions should have been limited to 

tanks. We did not identify a basis for 

applying the routine maintenance 

provisions in the OSWRO NESHAP to 

emission points other than tanks, and, 

therefore, proposed to limit the 

provision to tanks routing emissions to 

a control device, consistent with the 

rationale provided in the HON. 

iii. Open-Ended Valves and Lines 

The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 

63.691(b) requires an owner or operator 

to control emissions from equipment 

leaks according to the requirements of 

either 40 CFR part 61, subpart V or 40 

CFR part 63, subpart H.8 For OELs, both 

subpart V in 40 CFR 61.242–6(a) and 

subpart H in 40 CFR 63.167(a) require 

that the open end be equipped with a 

cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 

that shall ‘‘seal the open end.’’ However, 

‘‘seal’’ is not defined in either subpart, 

leading to uncertainty for the owner or 

operator as to whether compliance is 

being achieved. Inspections under the 

EPA’s Air Toxics LDAR initiative have 

provided evidence that while certain 

OELs may be equipped with a cap, blind 

flange, plug or second valve, they are 

not operating in a ‘‘sealed’’ manner as 

the EPA interprets that term. 

In response to this uncertainty, we 

proposed to amend 40 CFR 63.691(b) to 

clarify what ‘‘seal the open end’’ means 

for OELs. The proposed clarification 

explains that, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 40 

CFR 61.242–6(a)(2) of subpart V or 40 

CFR 63.167(a)(2) of subpart H, as 

applicable, OELs are ‘‘sealed’’ by the 

cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 

when instrument monitoring of the 

OELs conducted according to Method 

21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 

indicates no readings of 500 ppm or 

greater. 

In addition, 40 CFR 63.167(d) of 

subpart H and 40 CFR 61.242–6(d) of 

subpart V exempt OELs that are in an 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14263 

emergency shutdown system, and 

which are designed to open 

automatically, from the requirements to 

be equipped with a cap, blind flange, 

plug or second valve that seals the open 

end. We proposed that these OELs be 

equipped with either a flow indicator or 

a seal or locking device. We also 

proposed recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for these OELs. 

iv. Safety Devices, Pressure Tanks, 

Bypasses and PRDs 

To ensure the OSWRO MACT 

standards are consistent with the Sierra 

Club decision, we proposed to remove 

the SSM exemption from the rule. In 

addition, in order for our treatment of 

malfunction-caused releases to the 

atmosphere to conform with the 

reasoning of the Court’s ruling, we 

proposed to add a provision that 

releases of HAP listed in Table 1 of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart DD directly to the 

atmosphere from PRDs and closure 

devices on pressure tanks in off-site 

material service are prohibited. We also 

proposed to prohibit bypasses that 

divert a process vent or closed vent 

system stream to the atmosphere such 

that it does not first pass through an 

emission control device, except to 

perform planned routine maintenance of 

the closed-vent system or emission 

control device for tanks, as discussed in 

section IV.D.3 of this preamble. We 

further proposed to require owners or 

operators to keep records and report any 

bypass and the amount of HAP released 

to the atmosphere with the next 

periodic report. In addition, to add 

clarity to these provisions, we proposed 

to add definitions for ‘‘bypass,’’ 

‘‘pressure release,’’ ‘‘pressure relief 

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

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

liquid service’’ and ‘‘in liquid service’’ 

to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD. We also 

proposed to remove the definition of 

‘‘safety device’’ and the provisions 

related to safety devices from 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart DD, which would 

overlap with and be redundant of parts 

of the proposed definition of ‘‘pressure 

relief device or valve’’ and the 

provisions related to these devices. 

To ensure compliance with these 

provisions, we also proposed that 

facilities subject to the OSWRO 

NESHAP monitor PRDs in off-site 

material service that release to the 

atmosphere by using a device or system 

that is capable of identifying and 

recording the time and duration of each 

pressure release and notifying operators 

immediately that a pressure release is 

occurring. Owners or operators would 

be required to keep records and report 

any pressure release and the amount of 

organic HAP released to the atmosphere 

with the next periodic report. As with 

the prohibition, this proposed 

monitoring requirement would not 

apply to PRDs for which HAP releases 

are captured and routed to a drain 

system, process or control device. 

For purposes of estimating the costs of 

the proposed requirement to monitor 

HAP releases to the atmosphere from 

PRDs, we assumed that operators would 

install electronic indicators on each 

PRD in off-site material service that 

vents to the atmosphere (rather than to 

a control device, process or drain 

system) to identify and record the time 

and duration of each pressure release. 

However, the proposed requirements 

allowed owners or operators to use a 

range of methods to satisfy these 

requirements, including the use of a 

parametric monitoring system (that may 

already be in use at facilities) on the 

process system or piping that is 

sufficient to notify operators 

immediately that a release is occurring, 

as well as recording the time and 

duration of the pressure release. Based 

on our conservative cost assumptions 

that the most expensive approach would 

be used, the nationwide capital cost of 

installing these monitors was estimated 

to be $1.75 million, and the total 

annualized cost of installing and 

operating these monitors is $250,000 per 

year for the OSWRO source category. 

v. Performance Test Method 

Clarifications and Alternative Methods 

The OSWRO NESHAP at 40 CFR 

63.694 specifies test methods and 

procedures to be used in determining 

compliance with the requirements of 

subpart DD. We proposed several minor 

changes to these provisions to correct 

errors and to provide consistency, 

clarification and flexibility. These 

proposed changes included: 

• Requiring that test runs last ‘‘at 

least 1 hour,’’ rather than stating that 

tests last ‘‘1 hour’’ in § 63.694(f)(1) and 

(i)(1); 

• Specifying 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; 

• Specifying 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, which is the point most likely 

to provide a representative sample of 

the gas stream; 

• Clarifying in § 63.694(j)(3) that 

results from direct measurement must 

be used as the maximum HAP vapor 

pressure for off-site material in a tank if 

the Administrator and the owner or 

operator disagree on a determination of 

the maximum HAP vapor pressure for 

an off-site material stream using 

knowledge; 

• Correcting a citation in 

§ 63.694(k)(3) to the appropriate section 

of EPA Method 21 for instrument 

response factors; 

• Allowing the use of either EPA 

Method 25A or Method 18 in 

§ 63.694(l)(3) for determining 

compliance with the control device 

percent reduction requirement and in 

§ 63.694(l)(4) for determining 

compliance with the enclosed 

combustion device concentration limit 

and clarifying that Method 25A must be 

used when measuring total organic 

compounds, while Method 18 must be 

used for measuring the total HAP 

compounds included in Table 1 to the 

OSWRO NESHAP; 

• Including the use of EPA Method 

3A as an alternative to EPA Method 3B 

in § 63.694(l)(4)(iii)(A) for determining 

the oxygen concentration to use in 

oxygen correction equations; and 

• Including the use of EPA Methods 

2F and 2G as options for flow rate 

measurement in § 63.694(l)(2) and 

(m)(3), which are newer velocity 

measurement methods that were 

published after the original OSWRO 

rule. 

vi. Other Clarifications and Corrections 

We proposed several miscellaneous 

minor changes to improve the clarity of 

the OSWRO NESHAP requirements. 

These proposed changes included: 

• Updating the list of combustion 

devices in § 63.684(b)(5) that may be 

used to destroy the HAP contained in an 

off-site material stream. This revision 

would include incinerators, boilers or 

industrial furnaces for which the owner 

or operator complies with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

EEE, which had not been promulgated 

when the OSWRO MACT standards 

were developed. We also proposed 

conforming changes to the boiler and 

process heater control device 

requirements to clarify that combustion 

units complying with the requirements 

of subpart EEE may be used for the 

purposes of compliance with the 

OSWRO NESHAP. 

• To clarify the requirements for 

tanks of all sizes and tank content vapor 

pressures, we proposed to revise the 

tank control level tables to include tanks 

less than 75 m3 in capacity with a vapor 

pressure less than 76.6 kPa along with 

the requirements for tanks of other sizes 

and vapor pressures, and we proposed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14264 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to remove the requirements for these 

tanks from the text of § 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. 

• Revising the clerical errors to insert 

ppm values in the requirements where 

they were omitted. These revisions 

included clarifying in § 63.683(c)(1)(ii) 

that the average volatile organic HAP 

(VOHAP) concentration of the off-site 

material must be less than 500 parts per 

million by weight (ppmw) at the pointof-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 20 500 parts per million 

by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis 

corrected to 3-percent oxygen. 

• 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. 

2. How did the provisions regarding 

these other proposed changes to the 

OSWRO NESHAP change since 

proposal? 

We have not made any changes to the 

proposed provisions for electronic 

reporting, routine maintenance, OELs, 

the proposed performance test method 

clarifications and alternative methods or 

the other proposed clarifications and 

corrections. 

For PRDs, in the PRD monitoring 

requirements at 40 CFR 63.691(c)(3)(i), 

we are including examples of 

parametric monitoring systems, in 

addition to the direct monitoring device 

examples listed at proposal. We are also 

clarifying that tank conservation vents 

are not PRDs in 40 CFR 

63.685(c)(2)(iii)(B), and we are adding 

fuel gas systems to the list of equipment 

a PRD may be routed to in 40 CFR 

63.691(c)(4) to be exempt from the PRD 

monitoring requirements and pressure 

release prohibition. In addition to these 

revisions, we are making the following 

revisions, clarifications and corrections 

in the final rule: 

• Revisions 

Æ We are revising the language in 40 

CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v) to indicate that 

facilities complying with the wastewater 

provisions under any other part 63 

regulation, not just the HON, are not 

required to also comply with the 

OSWRO NESHAP provisions for that 

waste. 

Æ We are revising the requirements 

for boilers and process heaters and also 

for incinerators in 40 CFR 

63.693(f)(2)(iii) and 63.693(g)(2)(i)(C) to 

exclude such equipment that has been 

issued a final or interim status RCRA 

permit from the OSWRO NESHAP 

performance test requirements, since the 

performance tests required under RCRA 

to obtain a permit satisfy the 

performance test requirements of the 

OSWRO NESHAP. 

Æ We are revising three additional 

references to the Part 63 General 

Provisions in Table 2 to correct errors 

where the entries in Table 2 conflict 

with the regulatory text in subpart DD 

regarding notification of performance 

tests. The specific changes were to 

revise the entries for 63.7(b), 63.7(c) and 

63.9(e) from a ‘‘no’’ to a ‘‘yes’’ in 

column 2 of Table 2. 

• Clarifications 

Æ We are revising the definitions of 

‘‘in gas/vapor service’’ and ‘‘in light 

liquid service’’ in 40 CFR 63.681 to 

clarify our intent that equipment in offsite material service that ‘‘contains or 

contacts’’ a gas or vapor is ‘‘in gas/vapor 

service.’’ For consistency, we are also 

revising the definition of ‘‘in light liquid 

service’’ to include equipment that 

‘‘contains or contacts’’ liquid. 

Æ To improve clarity we are revising 

the wording of the proposed tank 

provisions in 40 CFR 63.685(g)(2) to 

remove a repeated phrase. 

Æ We have rephrased the proposed 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.694(l) to 

more simply state that performance tests 

must be conducted under representative 

performance (i.e., performance based on 

normal operating conditions). 

Æ We have added language in 40 CFR 

63.691(b)(2)(v) to clarify which 

requirements apply to PRDs in liquid 

service and to clarify when the PRD 

provisions of 40 CFR 63.691(c) apply 

rather than the PRD provisions of 40 

CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part 

61, subpart V. 

• Corrections 

Æ We are revising 40 CFR 

63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii) and 

63.680(e)(2) to reference 63.691(b)(2) 

rather than 63.691(b) to indicate that 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart H is required after a specified 

date. Consistent with our intention 

discussed in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, this correction will allow 

compliance with 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart V only until the date at which 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart H is required. 

Æ We are including the correct 

VOHAP concentration of 500 ppmw in 

40 CFR 63.683(c)(1)(ii). 

Æ We are correcting an erroneous 

reference to 40 CFR part 67 in 40 CFR 

63.685(c)(2)(iii)(B) to properly reference 

40 CFR part 63. 

Æ We are adding a reference in the 

semiannual reporting requirements of 

40 CFR 63.697(b)(4) to 40 CFR 63.683(f), 

which includes additional deviations 

that must be reported. 

Æ We are correcting three entries in 

the General Provisions Applicability 

table 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the other changes to the OSWRO 

NESHAP, and what are our responses? 

Several comments were received 

regarding the proposed revisions to the 

ERT, OELs, PRDs and other provisions 

for the OSWRO source category. The 

following is a summary of several of 

these comments and our response to 

those comments. Other comments 

received and our responses to those 

comments can be found in the Comment 

Summary and Response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0360). 

i. Electronic Reporting 

Comment: One commenter notes that 

requiring electronic reporting to the 

EPA does not increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal for the 

regulated community because state 

agencies also want the reports submitted 

to them in their own standard format. 

The commenter requests that the EPA 

work with air agencies to provide a onestop location for submittal of air 

emissions testing results. 

Response: The EPA continues to work 

with air agencies as well as stack testing 

companies (who typically prepare test 

reports) to develop the ERT. 

E-Enterprise is an EPA-state initiative to 

improve environmental performance 

and enhance services to the regulated 

community, environmental agencies 

and the public. We currently have active 

E-Enterprise projects related to 

electronic reporting that involve several 

states, and we are actively seeking input 

from all states willing to participate in 

such projects with EPA. The current 

ERT was designed to accept data and 

information that is typically collected 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14265 

9As discussed in sections III.A, III.B, IV.A and 

IV.B of this preamble, we are removing the option 

from subpart DD to comply with 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart V for equipment leaks and are requiring 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart H. The 

compliance date for existing sources is 1 year from 

the effective date of the final amendments, and new 

sources must comply immediately upon the 

effective date of the final amendments, or upon 

startup, whichever is later. 

during a performance test. Some air 

agencies have begun accepting the ERT 

as their reporting mechanism, and with 

experience, we believe acceptance by 

other air agencies will increase. CEDRI, 

the portal through which this data is 

submitted to CDX, includes the ability 

for states to interact with submitted ERT 

files directly, immediately after 

electronic submission. During the first 

phase in the development of CEDRI, we 

initiated a multi-disciplinary, crossfunctional Integrated Project Team (IPT) 

consisting of EPA personnel from 

various offices and representatives from 

air agencies. The objectives of the 

CEDRI IPT were to gain insight and 

ideas regarding the data flow process 

within the CEDRI. States have the 

ability to access files in CEDRI as soon 

as they are submitted and can review 

these documents from anywhere that 

has Internet access. While in some 

instances air agencies may still want a 

hard copy of a test report, the ERT can 

generate a printed test report or export 

the report to a word processor for 

reformatting. This report can be 

generated by an air agency with an ERT 

they have opened, or generated by a 

regulated entity and submitted to the air 

agency as an emissions test report. 

The EPA believes that electronic 

reporting is a more efficient way to 

collect test data and has set up a 

retrieval system such that air agencies 

can access files that have been 

submitted using the ERT. As more air 

agencies adopt electronic reporting, we 

believe that the need for paper reports 

will diminish. The EPA is also 

developing a web-based ERT and has 

plans to release an extensible markup 

language (XML) schema that could be 

used by third parties to develop 

customized reporting software that 

meets the EPA’s reporting requirements. 

The EPA expects these additional 

reporting options will provide a more 

robust and user friendly reporting 

process in the future. 

ii. Open-Ended Valves and Lines 

Comment: One commenter states that 

the OEL provisions are ‘‘equipment 

standards,’’ and compliance is 

determined by whether a cap, blind 

flange, plug or second valve is 

physically installed, and the term 

‘‘sealed’’ historically has meant one of 

these devices is present. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter. The EPA’s intent has 

always been that caps, blind flanges, 

plugs or second valves that are installed 

on OELs provide a seal, i.e., no 

detectable emissions. This is further 

supported by examples of compliance 

audits conducted by the EPA’s Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

(OECA) and EPA Regional enforcement 

personnel in which companies were 

cited for OELs not being sealed. We 

have placed these audits in the docket 

for this action. 

Comment: Two commenters believe 

the EPA must show that imposing a new 

emissions limit for OELs is justified 

according to the criteria of CAA section 

112(d)(6), including the technical 

feasibility, potential emission 

reductions and cost effectiveness. The 

commenters state that the EPA failed to 

provide new data or rationale showing 

that the definition of ‘‘seal’’ is needed 

for compliance assurance or to relieve 

regulatory uncertainty, relying only on 

enforcement inspections referenced in 

the 2007 40 CFR part 61, subpart VV 

rulemaking in which monitoring OELs 

was determined to not be cost effective 

and was not the best demonstrated 

technology (BDT). Another commenter 

states that the EPA did not provide any 

data specific to the OSWRO source 

category for OELs, and the data that 

were provided did not include the 

concentration detected, whether the 

measurements were for HAP or VOCs, 

or what standardization chemicals were 

used. One commenter states that the 

existence of leaks from OELs is low and 

notes that while the EPA did not request 

information to support monitoring of 

OELs, the commenter referred to a 

monitoring study its member performed 

for OELs showing that less than 1 

percent of OELs were leaking at rates of 

500 ppm or greater. Another commenter 

states that the EPA’s proposed 

definition for a ‘‘seal’’ is actually a new 

loophole that would exempt leaks from 

OELs below 500 ppm from the 

standards. The commenter contends this 

definition is another type of exemption 

similar to the SSM exemption the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit found 

unlawful, and the EPA should not 

finalize the definition as proposed. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters that we are imposing a new 

emissions limit for OELs. As discussed 

in the preamble for the proposed rule 

and summarized above, the existing 

OSWRO NESHAP already requires the 

open end of OELs to be equipped with 

a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 

that shall ‘‘seal the open end.’’ In 

response to compliance uncertainty for 

owners and operators, we are amending 

40 CFR 63.691(b) to clarify that, for the 

purpose of complying with the 

requirements of subpart H or subpart V, 

as applicable,9 OELs are ‘‘sealed’’ by the 

cap, blind flange, plug or second valve 

when instrument monitoring of the OEL 

conducted according to Method 21 of 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no 

readings of 500 ppm or greater. This is 

consistent with how we have 

interpreted the term ‘‘seal’’ during 

inspections and, contrary to the 

commenters’ assertions, is not a new 

requirement. As demonstrated by the 

data provided in the docket and the 

commenter’s data showing that about 1 

percent of all OELs are leaking, OELs 

are not uniformly operating in a 

‘‘sealed’’ manner by keeping emissions 

below the 500 ppm threshold. The 

commenters have not identified a reason 

to conclude that the OEL data provided 

in the docket are not representative of 

the OSWRO source category. With this 

clarification, the EPA is removing any 

ambiguity regarding what constitutes a 

‘‘sealed’’ OEL. 

The EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter that clarifying the meaning 

of ‘‘seal’’ creates a new loophole for 

OELs. As discussed in the preamble to 

the proposed rule and elsewhere in this 

document, we are clarifying an existing 

requirement that OELs be sealed. 

iii. PRDs 

Comment: Several commenters state 

or suggest that PRDs are safety devices, 

and these requirements will ask plant 

operators to choose between safety and 

committing a violation. Two of these 

commenters claim that this position is 

in direct contrast to the General Duty 

provisions, which state that, ‘‘at all 

times, the owner or operator must 

operate and maintain any affected 

source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions . . .’’ Two other 

commenters state that the proposed rule 

would require that PRD emissions be 

vented to a control device, which could 

reduce the effectiveness of PRD by not 

allowing over-pressure from the tank or 

process unit to vent quickly enough to 

prevent damage. One commenter asserts 

that an OSHA Process Safety 

Management Review would indicate 

that venting a PRD to a control device 

would create an unacceptable risk. 

Further, one commenter argues that the 

requirements will assign the same level 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14266 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of importance to minor releases as to 

significant releases that require 

immediate attention, which will divert 

resources from critical safety tasks. 

One commenter states that the 

proposed PRD monitoring requirements 

will predetermine the imposition of 

systems that safety experts may deem 

unnecessary, and the placement of such 

systems, including monitoring, should 

rather be determined during a process 

hazards analysis, which is specific to 

each situation and is implemented for 

the explicit purpose of protecting life 

and property. Another commenter also 

argues that process safety professionals 

should make risk-based decisions, and 

asserts that the proposed requirements 

do not recognize the variations that exist 

between different types of systems and 

that choices must be made for each 

individual system considering site 

conditions. The commenter asserts that 

the management requirements for PRDs 

should have a wide variety of options 

depending on the character of the 

discharge. The commenter states that 

the industry’s success in preventing 

accidents has lead the EPA to wrongly 

assume that it is easy to anticipate and 

prevent all circumstances that may 

cause an over-pressurization event. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenters that we are forcing plant 

operators to choose between safety and 

committing a violation. We recognize 

that industry has stated that they believe 

releases from PRDs sometimes occur in 

order to protect systems from failures 

that could endanger worker safety and 

the systems that the PRDs are designed 

to protect. The PRD requirements were 

established with the recognition that 

emission releases to the atmosphere 

from these devices occur only in the 

event of unplanned and unpredictable 

events. When PRD releases are due to 

malfunctions, the EPA would determine 

an appropriate response based on, 

among other things, the good faith 

efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions, including preventative and 

corrective actions, as well as root cause 

analyses to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. This approach is consistent 

with the General Duty provisions and is 

designed to minimize emissions while 

recognizing that these events may be 

unavoidable even in a well-designed 

and maintained system. 

We disagree with the comment that 

minor releases will divert attention and 

resources away from critical safety 

tasks. These releases are associated with 

malfunction events that would require 

immediate corrective action and have 

the potential to emit large quantities of 

HAP. In addition, while the owner or 

operator must follow the PRD 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for each release to the 

atmosphere, these tasks can be 

completed after the release has occurred 

and should not interfere with any 

actions needed to ensure process and 

system safety. Further, we note that the 

rule does not require PRDs to be vented 

to control devices, as suggested by a 

commenter; however, a facility owner or 

operator may choose to vent PRDs to 

control devices. We also note that the 

commenters did not provide data or 

information in support of their 

speculation that venting a PRD to a 

control device would reduce the 

effectiveness of the PRD or that a safety 

hazard would be created. 

Regarding the comments that the PRD 

monitoring requirements will dictate the 

types of systems used at facilities, we 

note that, as discussed elsewhere in this 

preamble, the requirements for PRD 

monitoring provide a wide latitude in 

the type of monitoring system used, 

which may be chosen by the facility 

owner or operator, providing that the 

basic requirements for the system are 

met. 

Comment: Several commenters state 

that the EPA added the PRD 

requirements without regard to the CAA 

section 112 MACT development process 

and without providing the legal 

justification, adequate record basis or 

technical justification. Two of these 

commenters add that they do not 

believe that the EPA has a legal 

obligation nor the discretion to 

promulgate the proposed PRD 

provisions because the PRD monitoring 

and reporting requirements were not 

derived from the technology reviews, in 

response to any residual risks detected, 

or the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit’s 

invalidation of the SSM provisions in 

the 40 CFR part 63 General Provisions. 

Two commenters suggest that these 

revisions should be evaluated as part of 

the technology review, and the EPA 

should analyze the technical feasibility, 

potential emissions reductions and cost 

effectiveness of the revisions. 

Several commenters argue that the 

EPA provided no data to support the 

claim that a large number of releases 

occur and may emit large quantities of 

HAP, or to support the contention that 

releases are not being identified. One 

commenter asserts that PRD releases are 

rare, and that the EPA’s data from PRD 

episodes at California South Coast 

refineries, which resulted in large 

emissions, does not apply to chemical 

operations. Another commenter notes 

that at its facility, PRD releases are 

infrequent events that last for 1 or 2 

seconds and states that the proposed 

PRD provisions are not warranted. One 

commenter states that the industry 

already quantifies and reports releases 

through the use of pressure monitoring 

and other types of process controls that 

are also implemented to maintain stable 

operation. The commenter asserts that 

the EPA is establishing a numeric 

standard of zero that is based on the 

premise that most relief devices do not 

release, which fails to acknowledge the 

differences between systems. 

Response: Under CAA section 

112(d)(2), the EPA must promulgate 

technology-based standards that reflect 

the maximum degree of emission 

reductions of HAP achievable (after 

considering cost, energy requirements, 

and non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts), and such 

standards must contain compliance 

assurance provisions to make sure that 

they are practicably enforceable. 

Nothing in the CAA or its legislative 

history suggests that the EPA is 

prohibited from reviewing and revising 

MACT standards and their compliance 

assurance provisions, except as part of 

the CAA section 112(d)(6) or CAA 

section 112(f) reviews or an action taken 

in response to a ruling by a Court. The 

amendments being finalized for PRD 

releases do not impose new emission 

standards for which a MACT analysis is 

required by the CAA. Instead, they 

prohibit releases to the atmosphere from 

PRDs in off-site material service that are 

not appropriate for exemption from 

emission standards following the 2008 

Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, and impose 

additional monitoring requirements to 

address potential releases. 

In light of, and consistent with, the 

Sierra Club v. EPA ruling, the EPA is 

eliminating the SSM exemption in the 

OSWRO MACT standards and requiring 

that the standards apply at all times, 

including during periods of SSM. In 

addition, in order for our treatment of 

malfunction-caused pressure releases to 

the atmosphere to conform with the 

reasoning of the Court’s ruling, the final 

rule adds a provision stating that 

releases of HAP listed in Table 1 of 

subpart DD directly to the atmosphere 

from PRDs in off-site material service 

are prohibited. To prohibit these 

malfunction-caused releases, it is not 

necessary for us to set an emission 

standard that is based on a MACT floor 

or beyond-the-floor analysis; indeed, the 

EPA has consistently explained that we 

are not required to take malfunctions 

into account in setting standards or to 

devise standards that apply specifically 

to malfunction-caused emissions, such 

as PRD releases that cause HAP 

emissions only during malfunctions. 

The final rule requires that sources 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14267 

10The commenter stated that ‘‘DuPont experience 

is that PRD releases are rare; DuPont has provided 

data through ACC to EPA.’’ ACC’s comments 

referred to a study submitted with its comments for 

another rulemaking. We located and reviewed this 

study, available at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0435–0041, in which the data provided by 

DuPont is summarized with other data supplied by 

ACC member companies. Both the data provided by 

ACC and the SCAQMD showed just over 1 percent 

of the PRDs had a release. The data provided by 

ACC showed over 20 percent of PRD releases were 

over 500 pounds and the SCAQMD data showed 

that approximately 38 percent of the PRD releases 

were over 500 pounds. 

monitor PRDs using a system that is 

capable of detecting and recording the 

time and duration of each pressure 

release, and the final rule provides 

owners and operators flexibility to 

either install a monitor on the PRD or 

to use equipment and operations they 

already have in place if they are 

sufficient to detect and indicate 

pressure releases to the atmosphere. The 

rule also establishes requirements that 

these release indicators be capable of 

immediately notifying operators that a 

release is occurring, so that HAP 

emissions from these releases can be 

mitigated as soon as possible. 

Additionally, the final rule requires 

reporting of PRD releases to the 

atmosphere to ensure that these releases 

will be reported nationally. 

Contrary to some commenters’ 

assertions that the EPA did not provide 

data to support the claim that a large 

number of PRD releases occur and may 

emit large quantities of HAP, a report by 

the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) 

containing such data was referenced 

and made available with the proposed 

rule in the memorandum, Cost Impacts 

of Pressure Relief Device Monitoring for 

the Off-site Waste and Recovery 

Operations Source Category, available 

in the docket for this action. The 

referenced report shows that releases 

from PRDs occur randomly and the 

emissions can only be approximated, 

but that large quantities of emissions 

may be released. Based on the SCAQMD 

analysis of refinery PRD reports of PRD 

releases from nine facilities in its 

district, there were eight PRD releases 

from 2003 to 2006 that were estimated 

to release greater than 2,000 lbs of 

emissions to the atmosphere, and eight 

PRD releases from 2003 to 2006 that 

were estimated to release between 500 

and 2,000 lbs of emissions to the 

atmosphere. The SCAQMD analysis 

focuses on VOC emissions (which 

would include organic HAP emissions) 

from refineries and marine terminals, 

and information provided by the 

commenter also suggests the SCAQMD 

analysis results are similar to results 

from another analysis for PRDs at 

chemical production facilities.10

Additionally, the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality Emission Event 

Reporting Database is populated with 

Emission Event Reports from both the 

refinery and chemical sectors where the 

reason for the report was due to a PRD 

release. This database also shows that 

PRD releases do occur and that the 

quantity of emissions varies and can be 

large. While there may be differences in 

PRD systems and emissions, we 

continue to believe the requirements 

proposed and being finalized for the 

OSWRO NESHAP in this action are 

necessary to address the otherwise 

unregulated HAP emissions releases 

from PRDs. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggest certain types of PRDs should be 

excluded from the PRD requirements 

because they have a low potential to 

emit large quantities of HAP. These 

commenters specifically state that PRDs 

in liquid service should be excluded 

from these requirements. For PRDs with 

little potential for loss to the 

atmosphere, the commenters suggest 

that the EPA set a reporting threshold 

value equal to the reportable quantity 

(RQ) values in Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-To-Know Act 

(EPCRA) and/or Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). One commenter asserts that 

the PRD provisions should exclude 

PRDs in less than 5-percent VOHAP 

service. The commenter also suggests 

that the OSWRO MACT should refer to 

Table 9 of subpart G (VOHAPs) instead 

of Table 1 of subpart DD, should 

exclude ethylene glycol from Table 1 of 

subpart DD, or should exclude heavy 

liquids from the definition of a PRD. 

This commenter states that the 

exclusion for PRDs discharged to a drain 

system that meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 63.689 is not useful, and states 

that the EPA provides no cost 

justification or assessment of potential 

emission reductions of this alternative 

requirement. The commenter asserts 

that hard-piping discharge to a closed 

sewer system is neither feasible nor safe 

in many situations, and suggests that the 

EPA require only that liquids be sent for 

on-site or off-site treatment, which 

would be consistent with the Chemical 

Manufacturing Area Source standard (40 

CFR part 63, subpart VVVVVV). This 

commenter and another commenter 

state that, to be consistent with the 

HON, PRDs that are routed to a fuel gas 

system should be exempted in 40 CFR 

63.691(c)(4). 

Response: We generally do not agree 

with the commenters’ suggestions to 

add an exclusion from the PRD 

requirements for PRDs that emit smaller 

amounts of HAP. Regarding PRDs in 

liquid service, equipment is in liquid 

service when it contains or contacts offsite material that is liquid at operating 

conditions, and for processes that are 

under pressure, the liquid may escape 

as a gas or vapor when released to the 

atmosphere. For these reasons, we 

continue to believe PRDs in liquid 

service, as well as those in gas/vapor 

service, should be subject to the PRD 

requirements. We note that the OSWRO 

NESHAP provides that only PRDs that 

contain or contact off-site material 

having a total HAP concentration equal 

to or greater than 10 percent by weight 

and that are intended to operate for 300 

hours or more during a calendar year in 

off-site material service are subject to 

these requirements (see 40 CFR 

63.680(c)(3)). We also disagree with the 

suggestion that the OSWRO MACT refer 

to Table 9 of subpart G rather than Table 

1 of subpart DD for HAPs regulated by 

the PRD provisions. All of the 

provisions of the OSWRO NESHAP 

apply to the chemicals listed in Table 1 

of subpart DD, and we do not find that 

an exception should be made for PRDs 

to exclude any chemicals with relatively 

lower volatility from these 

requirements. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

the provisions that exclude PRDs that 

are routed to a drain system meeting the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.689 from the 

PRD release and monitoring 

requirements is an alternate 

requirement. This provision 

acknowledges that such equipment 

would not have uncontrolled HAP 

emission releases directly to the 

atmosphere, and therefore the PRD 

release management and monitoring 

provisions should not apply, but it does 

not require that any equipment be 

routed to such a drain system. We also 

note that the chemical manufacturing 

area source standard does not have 

pressure release management or 

monitoring requirements, and the 

standards in that rule are not applicable 

to the OSWRO NESHAP. The EPA 

agrees with commenters’ suggestion to 

exclude PRDs that release to a fuel gas 

system from the PRD monitoring 

provisions, and we have revised the 

final rule to reflect this change. 

Comment: One commenter requests 

that the EPA clarify the meaning of 

PRDs in light liquid versus gas/vapor 

service. The commenter notes that most 

facilities subject to the OSWRO MACT 

operate fixed roof storage tanks that 

must be operated with a void space at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14268 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the top that consists of vapors from the 

tank and may also include a nitrogen 

blanket. The commenter asserts that the 

determination of the service type should 

be based on the contents of the tank (i.e., 

liquid) and not the location where the 

PRD is installed, which will always be 

at the top of the tank in contact with 

vapors in the void space. The 

commenter asserts that if these types of 

tanks are considered to be in gas/vapor 

service, then there can be no PRDs on 

fixed roof tanks that operate in liquid 

service. 

Response: The OSWRO NESHAP 

directs facility owners/operators to 

comply with the equipment leak 

requirements of the HON, which 

contains different requirements for 

various components depending upon 

the type of fluid (whether gas or liquid) 

that flows through (e.g., contains or 

contacts) the components. The basis for 

these different requirements is data 

collected from petroleum refineries, 

which indicate that emission rates of 

equipment leak sources decrease as the 

vapor pressure (volatility) of the process 

fluid decreases. For the HON, three 

classes of volatility were established 

based on the petroleum refinery data 

and the potential for emissions through 

equipment leaks; these include gas/

vapor service, light-liquid service and 

heavy-liquid service. The proposed 

OSWRO definition stated that in gas/

vapor service means that a piece of 

equipment in off-site material service 

contains a gas or vapor at operating 

conditions. To clarify our intent and 

avoid any confusion as to whether PRDs 

with a flow of gas or vapor through the 

device are ‘‘in gas/vapor service,’’ we 

are revising the definition to state that 

in gas/vapor service means that a piece 

of equipment in off-site material service 

contains or contacts a gas or vapor at 

operating conditions. With this revision, 

it should be clear that a PRD in off-site 

material service on the roof of a tank 

containing liquid, but which only 

contacts gas/vapor itself and does not 

contact liquid, would be in gas/vapor 

service. For consistency, we also are 

revising the definition of ‘‘in light liquid 

service’’ to include equipment that 

contains or contacts liquid. 

Comment: One commenter states that 

the EPA revised the Tank Level 1 

control requirements in 40 CFR 

63.685(c)(2)(i) and (iii)(B) to preclude 

routine venting of PRD by excluding 40 

CFR 63.902(c)(2) and (3); however, the 

commenter notes that this revision 

would also preclude the operation of 

conservation vents on Level 1 tanks. 

The commenter suggests that the EPA 

remove the exclusion or amend the 

provision to allow for the operation of 

conservation vents. 

Response: We agree that conservation 

vents should be allowed to operate on 

Level 1 tanks, and, while we do not 

believe these would meet the definition 

of a PRD, we have revised the text of the 

final rule at 40 CFR 

63.684(c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) to clarify that the 

use of these devices is permitted. 

iv. Other Comments 

Comment: One commenter states that 

the EPA should provide an exemption 

in 40 CFR 63.693(b)(9) to the 

performance testing or design 

evaluation requirements for combustion 

devices if a unit has been issued a final 

or interim status RCRA permit, since 

performance tests are required to obtain 

such a permit. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the combustion units 

required to obtain a RCRA permit would 

have conducted performance tests under 

those provisions which satisfy the 

performance test requirements of the 

OSWRO NESHAP and that separate or 

additional performance testing would 

not be necessary. We have therefore 

added a provision to the final rule that 

excludes combustion devices that have 

been issued a RCRA permit from the 

OSWRO NESHAP performance test 

requirements. 

Comment: One commenter states that 

the OSWRO provisions should more 

clearly indicate that facilities subject to 

onsite wastewater provisions under 

other CAA MACT regulations should 

not also be required to comply with the 

OSWRO NESHAP. The commenter 

references the applicability provisions 

that exclude certain types of waste 

subject to other MACT rules in 40 CFR 

63.680(b)(2)(v), and states that the 

exclusion is limited to SOCMI. The 

commenter suggests removing 

paragraphs 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v)(A) 

and (B) to broaden the exclusion to 

wastewater sources subject to any other 

subpart in 40 CFR part 63. 

Response: The EPA agrees with the 

commenter that the exclusion of certain 

types of waste in 40 CFR 63.680(b)(2)(v) 

should not be limited to SOCMI and has 

revised the regulatory text to exempt 

waste that is transferred from a facility 

at which management of the waste has 

complied with the air emission control 

standards for process wastewater 

specified by another subpart in 40 CFR 

part 63. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions regarding these other changes 

to the OSWRO NESHAP? 

For the reasons provided above and in 

the preamble for the proposed rule, we 

are finalizing the proposed provisions 

regarding electronic reporting; routine 

maintenance; OELs; safety devices, 

pressure tanks, bypasses and PRDs; 

performance test method clarifications 

and alternative methods; and other 

clarifications and corrections. 

For the reasons provided above, we 

are making the revisions, clarifications 

and corrections noted in section IV.D.2 

in the final rule. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We estimate that there are 56 major 

source OSWRO facilities. Based on 

available permit information, seven 

facilities are known to be exempt from 

most of the rule requirements due to the 

low HAP content of the off-site waste 

they receive or because they comply 

instead with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF, 

as allowed by the OSWRO NESHAP, 

and they are not expected to be affected 

by the final rule revisions. These 

facilities are only required to document 

that the total annual quantity of the 

HAP contained in the off-site material 

received at the plant site is less than 1 

megagram per year, and they are not 

subject to any other emissions limits or 

monitoring, reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. We are not aware of any 

new OSWRO facilities that are expected 

to be constructed in the foreseeable 

future. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

For equipment leaks, we are 

eliminating the option of complying 

with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, and 

requiring facilities in the OSWRO 

source category to comply with 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart H, including connector 

monitoring. Our revised estimate of the 

HAP emission reduction for this change 

is approximately 185 tpy. 

For tanks, we are finalizing 

requirements for tanks of certain sizes 

and containing materials above certain 

vapor pressures to use Level 2 controls. 

Our revised estimate of the HAP 

emission reduction for this change is 

approximately 26 tpy. 

We do not anticipate any HAP 

emission reduction from our 

clarification of the rule provision ‘‘seal 

the open end’’ (in the context of OELs), 

clarification of the scope of the routine 

maintenance provisions, or requirement 

to electronically report the results of 

emissions testing. 

For the revisions to the MACT 

standards regarding SSM, including 

monitoring of PRDs in off-site material 

service, we were not able to quantify the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14269 

11EPA. June 1996. 

12Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. May 2014. Available at http://

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/

documents/1995_childrens_health_policy_

statement.pdf. 

possible emission reductions, so none 

are included in our assessment of air 

quality impacts. 

Therefore, the estimated total HAP 

emission reductions for the final 

standards for the OSWRO source 

category are estimated to be 211 tpy. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

For equipment leaks, we are 

eliminating the option of complying 

with 40 CFR part 61, subpart V, and 

requiring facilities in the OSWRO 

source category to comply with 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart H (including connector 

monitoring). We estimate the 

nationwide capital costs to be $2.1 

million and the annualized costs to be 

$664,000. 

For tanks, we are requiring tanks of 

certain sizes and containing materials 

above certain vapor pressures to use 

Level 2 controls. We estimate the 

nationwide capital costs to be $139,000 

and the annualized costs to be $192,000. 

We do not anticipate any quantifiable 

capital or annualized costs for our 

definition of ‘‘seal’’ (in the context of 

OELs), clarification of the scope of the 

routine maintenance provisions and 

requirement to electronically report the 

results of emissions testing. 

For the requirement to install and 

operate monitors on PRDs, we estimate 

the nationwide capital costs to be $1.9 

million and the annualized costs to be 

$270,000. Therefore, the total capital 

costs for the final amendments for the 

OSWRO source category are 

approximately $4.1 million and the total 

annualized costs are approximately $1.1 

million. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

Both the magnitude of control costs 

needed to comply with a regulation and 

the distribution of these costs among 

affected facilities can have a role in 

determining how the market will change 

in response to that regulation. Total 

annualized costs for the final 

amendments are estimated to be about 

$1.1 million. The average annualized 

cost per facility is estimated to be about 

$23,000. Without detailed industry data, 

it is not possible to conduct a complete 

quantitative analysis of economic 

impacts. However, prior analyses 

suggest the impacts of these final 

amendments will be minimal. The 

Economic Impact Analysis for the final 

OSWRO NESHAP 11 found that demand 

for off-site waste services was highly 

inelastic. This means that suppliers are 

predominantly able to pass along cost 

increases to consumers through higher 

prices with little, if any, decrease in the 

quantity of service demanded. While we 

do not have specific information on 

prices charged or the quantity of 

services provided, company revenues 

are a function of both these factors. The 

cost-to-sales ratio is less than 1 quarter 

of 1 percent for all of the 27 firms 

included in this analysis, suggesting any 

increase in price will be minimal. 

E. What are the benefits? 

We have estimated that this action 

will achieve HAP emissions reduction 

of 211 tpy. The final standards will 

result in significant reductions in the 

actual and MACT-allowable emissions 

of HAP and will reduce the actual and 

potential cancer risks and non-cancer 

health effects due to emissions of HAP 

from this source category, as discussed 

in the proposal preamble (79 FR 37869– 

37870). We have not quantified the 

monetary benefits associated with these 

reductions; however, these avoided 

emissions will result in improvements 

in air quality and reduced negative 

health effects associate with exposure to 

air pollution of these emissions. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

The EPA is making environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying 

and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United 

States. The EPA has established policies 

regarding the integration of 

environmental justice into the agency’s 

rulemaking efforts, including 

recommendations for the consideration 

and conduct of analyses to evaluate 

potential environmental justice 

concerns during the development of a 

rule. 

Following these recommendations, to 

gain a better understanding of the 

source category and near source 

populations, the EPA conducted a 

proximity analysis for OSWRO facilities 

prior to proposal to identify any 

overrepresentation of minority, low 

income or indigenous populations. This 

analysis gives an indication of the 

prevalence of sub-populations that may 

be exposed to air pollution from the 

sources. We have revised this analysis 

to include four additional OSWRO 

facilities that the EPA learned about 

after proposal. 

The EPA has determined that this 

final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low income or indigenous 

populations. Additionally, the final 

changes to the NESHAP increase the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations by reducing 

emissions from equipment leaks and 

tanks and do not cause any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority, low income or indigenous 

populations. Further details concerning 

this analysis are presented in the 

memorandum titled, Updated 

Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations RTR, a 

copy of which is available in the docket 

for this action. 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

As part of the health and risk 

assessments, as well as the proximity 

analysis conducted for this action, risks 

to infants and children were assessed. 

These analyses are documented in the 

Residual Risk Assessment for the OffSite Waste and Recovery Operations 

Source Category in Support of the 

February 2015 Risk and Technology 

Review Final Rule and the Updated 

Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations RTR 

documents and are available in the 

docket for this action. 

The results of the proximity analysis 

show that the average percentage of 

children 17 years and younger in close 

proximity to OSWRO is similar to the 

percentage of the national population in 

this age group. The difference in the 

absolute number of percentage points of 

the population 17 years old and younger 

from the national average indicates a 7- 

percent over-representation near 

OSWRO facilities. Consistent with the 

EPA’s Policy on Evaluating Health Risks 

to Children, we conducted inhalation 

and multipathway risk assessments for 

the OSWRO source category considering 

risk to infants and children.12 Children 

are exposed to chemicals emitted to the 

atmosphere via two primary routes: 

Either directly via inhalation, or 

indirectly via ingestion or dermal 

contact with various media that have 

been contaminated with the emitted 

chemicals. The EPA considers the 

possibility that children might be more 

sensitive than adults to toxic chemicals, 

including chemical carcinogens. 

For our inhalation risk assessment, 

several carcinogens emitted by facilities 

in this source category have a mutagenic 

mode of action. For these compounds, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14270 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

13Supplemental Guidance for Assessing 

Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to 

Carcinogens. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

EPA/630/R–03/003F. March 2005. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/

childrens_supplement_final.pdf. 

we applied the age-dependent 

adjustment factors (ADAF) described in 

the EPA’s Supplemental Guidance for 

Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life 

Exposure to Carcinogens.13 This 

adjustment has the effect of increasing 

the estimated lifetime risks for these 

pollutants by a factor of 1.6. For one 

group of these chemicals with a 

mutagenic mode of action, POM, only a 

small fraction of the total emissions 

were reported as individual compounds. 

The EPA expresses carcinogenic 

potency of POM relative to the 

carcinogenic potency of benzo[a]pyrene, 

based on evidence that carcinogenic 

POM have the same mutagenic mode of 

action as does benzo[a]pyrene. The 

EPA’s Science Policy Council 

recommends applying the ADAF to all 

carcinogenic compounds for which risk 

estimates are based on potency relative 

to benzo[a]pyrene. Accordingly, we 

have applied the ADAF to the 

benzo[a]pyrene-equivalent mass portion 

of all POM mixtures. 

For our multipathway screening 

assessment (i.e., ingestion), we assessed 

risks for adults and various age groups 

of children. Childrens’ exposures are 

expected to differ from exposures of 

adults due to differences in body 

weights, ingestion rates, dietary 

preferences and other factors. It is 

important, therefore, to evaluate the 

contribution of exposures during 

childhood to total lifetime risk using 

appropriate exposure factor values, 

applying ADAF as appropriate. The EPA 

developed a health protective exposure 

scenario whereby the receptor, at 

various lifestages, receives ingestion 

exposure via both the farm food chain 

and the fish ingestion pathways. The 

analysis revealed that fish ingestion is 

the dominant exposure pathway across 

all age groups for several pollutants, 

including POM. For POM, the farmfood-chain also is a major route of 

exposure, with beef and dairy 

contributing significantly to the lifetime 

average daily dose. Preliminary 

calculations of estimated dermal 

exposure and risk from these pollutants 

showed that the dermal exposure route 

is not a significant risk pathway relative 

to ingestion exposures. 

Based on the analyses described 

above, the EPA has determined that the 

changes to this rule, which will reduce 

emissions of HAP by over 200 tpy, will 

lead to reduced risk to children and 

infants. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this rule have been submitted for 

approval to the OMB under the PRA. 

The Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document that the EPA prepared 

has been assigned EPA ICR number 

1717.11. You can find a copy of the ICR 

in the docket for this rule, and it is 

briefly summarized here. The 

information collection requirements are 

not enforceable until OMB approves 

them. 

The information requirements in this 

rulemaking are based on the 

notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), which are mandatory for all 

operators subject to national emission 

standards. These notifications, reports 

and records are essential in determining 

compliance, and are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted 

to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

OSWRO facilities that store, treat, 

recycle, reprocess, or dispose of wastes 

containing organic chemical 

compounds. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414). 

Estimated number of respondents: 49. 

Frequency of response: Semiannual. 

Total estimated burden: 49,118 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $4.1 million (per 

year), includes $1.2 million annualized 

capital or operation & maintenance 

costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are businesses that can be 

classified as small firms using the SBA 

size standards for their respective 

industries. The agency has determined 

that of the 27 firms that own the 49 

facilities in the OSWRO source category, 

four firms, or 15 percent, can be 

classified as small firms. Based on the 

sales test screening methodology, all 

four firms will experience minimal 

impact, or a cost-to-sales ratio of 1 

percent or less. Details of this analysis 

are presented in the memo, Economic 

Impact Analysis for Risk and 

Technology Review: Off-site Waste and 

Recovery Operations Source Category, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments, or 

on the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. There are no OSWRO 

facilities that are owned or operated by 

tribal governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14271 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in the: 

Residual Risk Assessment for the OffSite Waste and Recovery Operations 

Source Category in Support of the 

February 2015 Risk and Technology 

Review Final Rule document, which is 

available in the docket for this action, 

and are discussed in section V.G of this 

preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This action involves technical 

standards. The EPA has decided to add 

EPA Methods 2F and 2G to the list of 

methods allowed to determine process 

vent stream gas volumetric flow rate. No 

applicable voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) were identified for 

these methods. In addition, the EPA is 

finalizing provisions to allow EPA 

Method 3A as an alternative to EPA 

Method 3B for determining the oxygen 

concentration to use in oxygen 

correction equations. While the EPA 

identified several candidate VCS for this 

method (ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10–1981 

Part 10, ASME B133.9–1994 (2001), ISO 

10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, 

ASTM D5835–95 (2013), ASTM D6522– 

00 (2011), and CAN/CSA Z223.2–M86 

(1999)) as being potentially applicable, 

the agency decided not to use them. The 

use of these VCS would not be practical 

due to lack of equivalency, 

documentation, validation data and 

other important technical and policy 

considerations. The EPA also is 

finalizing requirements to use EPA 

Method 25A to determine compliance 

with the control device percent 

reduction requirement, if the owner or 

operator chooses to measure total 

organic content. While the EPA 

identified two candidate VCS (ISO 

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

being potentially applicable, we are not 

including either standard in this final 

rule. The use of these VCS would not be 

practical due to the limited 

measurement ranges of these methods. 

(For more detail, see the document 

titled, Voluntary Consensus Standard 

Results for NESHAP: Off-Site Waste and 

Recovery Operations 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart DD in the docket for this final 

rule.) The EPA solicited comments on 

VCS and invited the public to identify 

potentially-applicable VCS, but no 

comments were received regarding this 

aspect of the rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations because it increases the 

level of protection provided to human 

health or the environment. The results 

of this evaluation are contained in the 

memorandum titled, Updated 

Environmental Justice Review: Off-Site 

Waste and Recovery Operations RTR, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action, and are discussed in section V.F 

of this preamble. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 26, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is amending title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) as follows: 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart DD—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FROM OFF-SITE WASTE 

AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS 

■ 2. Section 63.680 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(v) 

introductory text and (e)(1) and (2); and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (g). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 63.680 Applicability and designation of 

affected sources. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) Waste that is transferred from a 

chemical manufacturing plant or other 

facility for which the owner or operator 

of the facility from which the waste is 

transferred has complied with the 

provisions of the air emission control 

standards for process wastewater 

specified by another subpart of this part. 

This exemption does not apply to a 

source which complies with another 

subpart of this part by transferring its 

wastewater off-site for control. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * (1) Existing sources. The 

owner or operator of an affected source 

that commenced construction or 

reconstruction before October 13, 1994, 

must achieve compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart on or before 

the date specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i), 

(ii), or (iii) of this section as applicable 

to the affected source. 

(i) For an affected source that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction before October 13, 1994 

and receives off-site material for the first 

time before February 1, 2000, the owner 

or operator of this affected source must 

achieve compliance with the provisions 

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

63.691(b)(2), and 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) 

on or before February 1, 2000 unless an 

extension has been granted by the 

Administrator as provided in § 63.6(i). 

These existing affected sources shall be 

in compliance with the tank 

requirements of § 63.685(b)(1)(ii) 2 years 

after the publication date of the final 

amendments on March 18, 2015, the 

equipment leak requirements of 

§ 63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the 

publication date of the final 

amendments on March 18, 2015, and 

the pressure relief device monitoring 

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

3 years after the publication date of the 

final amendments on March 18, 2015. 

(ii) For an affected source that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction before October 13, 1994, 

but receives off-site material for the first 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14272 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

time on or after February 1, 2000, but 

before March 18, 2015, the owner or 

operator of the affected source must 

achieve compliance with the provisions 

of this subpart (except 

§§ 63.685(b)(1)(ii), 63.691(b)(2), and 

63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) upon the first 

date that the affected source begins to 

manage off-site material. These existing 

affected sources shall be in compliance 

with the tank requirements of 

§ 63.685(b)(1)(ii) 2 years after the 

publication date of the final 

amendments on March 18, 2015, the 

equipment leak requirements of 

§ 63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the 

publication date of the final 

amendments on March 18, 2015, and 

the pressure relief device monitoring 

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

3 years after the publication date of the 

final amendments on March 18, 2015. 

(iii) For an affected source that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction before October 13, 1994, 

but receives off-site material for the first 

time on or after March 18, 2015, the 

owner or operator of the affected source 

must achieve compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart (except 

§§ 63.685 (b)(1)(ii), 63.691(b)(2), and 

63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) upon the first 

date that the affected source begins to 

manage off-site material. These existing 

affected sources shall be in compliance 

with the tank requirements of 

§ 63.685(b)(1)(ii) 2 years after the 

publication date of the final 

amendments on March 18, 2015, the 

equipment leak requirements of 

§ 63.691(b)(2) 1 year after the 

publication date of the final 

amendments on March 18, 2015, and 

the pressure relief device monitoring 

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

3 years after the publication date of the 

final amendments on March 18, 2015. 

(2) New sources. The owner or 

operator of an affected source for which 

construction or reconstruction 

commences on or after October 13, 

1994, must achieve compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart (except 

§§ 63.685(b)(2), 63.691(b)(2), and 

63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii)) on or before July 

1, 1996, or upon initial startup of 

operations, whichever date is later as 

provided in 40 CFR 63.6(b). New 

affected sources that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after 

October 13, 1994, but on or before July 

2, 2014, shall be in compliance with the 

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

years after the publication date of the 

final amendments, the equipment leak 

requirements of § 63.691(b)(2) 1 year 

after the publication date of the final 

amendments, and the pressure relief 

device monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) 3 years after the 

effective date of the final amendments. 

New affected sources that commence 

construction or reconstruction after July 

2, 2014, shall be in compliance with the 

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

equipment leak requirements of 

§ 63.691(b)(2), and the pressure relief 

device monitoring requirements of 

§ 63.691(c)(3)(i) and (ii) upon initial 

startup or by the effective date of the 

final amendments, whichever is later. 

* * * * * 

(g) Applicability of this subpart. (1) 

The emission limitations set forth in 

this subpart and the emission 

limitations referred to in this subpart 

shall apply at all times except during 

periods of non-operation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. 

(2) The owner or operator shall not 

shut down items of equipment that are 

required or utilized for compliance with 

this subpart during times when 

emissions are being routed to such items 

of equipment, if the shutdown would 

contravene requirements of this subpart 

applicable to such items of equipment. 

■ 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’’. 

The additions and revisions 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 or contacts a gas or 

vapor at operating conditions. 

In heavy liquid service means that a 

piece of equipment in off-site material 

service is not in gas/vapor service or in 

light liquid service. 

In light liquid service means that a 

piece of equipment in off-site material 

service contains or contacts a liquid that 

meets the following conditions: 

(1) The vapor pressure of one or more 

of the organic compounds is greater 

than 0.3 kilopascals at 20 °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 offsite 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). 

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; 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 amended by: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14273 

■ a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii); and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (e) and (f). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 63.683 Standards: General. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) The owner or operator determines 

before placing off-site material in the 

process equipment associated with the 

process vent that the average VOHAP 

concentration of the off-site material is 

less than 500 ppmw at the point-ofdelivery. * * * 

* * * * * 

(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), 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, does 

not meet the operating limit specified in 

§ 63.693. 

(4) When an affected source 

discharges directly into the atmosphere 

from any of the sources specified in 

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

section. 

(i) A pressure relief device, as defined 

in § 63.681. 

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

(5) Any instance in which the affected 

source subject to this subpart, or an 

owner or operator of such a source, fails 

to meet any term or condition specified 

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

section. 

(i) Any term or condition that is 

adopted to implement an applicable 

requirement in this subpart. 

(ii) Any term or condition relating to 

compliance with this subpart that is 

included in the operating permit for an 

affected source to obtain such a permit. 

(6) Any failure to collect required 

data, except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments). 

■ 5. Section 63.684 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(5) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(5)(v); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (h). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 63.684 Standards: Off-site material 

treatment. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Incineration. The treatment 

process must destroy the HAP contained 

in the off-site material stream using one 

of the combustion devices specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (v) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(v) An incinerator, boiler, or 

industrial furnace for which the owner 

or operator has submitted a Notification 

of Compliance under §§ 63.1207(j) and 

63.1210(d) and complies with the 

requirements of subpart EEE of this part 

at all times (including times when nonhazardous 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 (2); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(4); 

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

and (iii)(B), (g)(2), (h)(3), (i) introductory 

text; and 

■ d. Removing paragraph (i)(3) and 

redesignating paragraph (i)(4) as 

paragraph (i)(3). 

The revisions 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), 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, the 

owner or operator shall determine 

whether the tank is required to use 

either Tank Level 1 controls or Tank 

Level 2 controls as specified for the tank 

by Table 3 of this subpart based on the 

off-site material maximum HAP vapor 

pressure and the tank’s design capacity. 

The owner or operator shall control air 

emissions from a tank required by Table 

3 to use Tank Level 1 controls in 

accordance with the requirements of 

paragraph (c) of this section. The owner 

or operator shall control air emissions 

from a tank required by Table 3 to use 

Tank Level 2 controls in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

(ii) For a tank that is part of an 

existing affected source but the tank is 

not used for a waste stabilization 

process as defined in § 63.681, the 

owner or operator shall determine 

whether the tank is required to use 

either Tank Level 1 controls or Tank 

Level 2 controls as specified for the tank 

by Table 4 of this subpart based on the 

off-site material maximum HAP vapor 

pressure and the tank’s design capacity. 

The owner or operator shall control air 

emissions from a tank required by Table 

4 to use Tank Level 1 controls in 

accordance with the requirements of 

paragraph (c) of this section. The owner 

or operator shall control air emissions 

from a tank required by Table 4 to use 

Tank Level 2 controls in accordance 

with the requirements of paragraph (d) 

of this section. 

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

affected source but the tank is not used 

for a waste stabilization process as 

defined in § 63.681, the owner or 

operator shall determine whether the 

tank is required to use either Tank Level 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14274 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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). Thereafter, the 

owner or operator shall perform a new 

determination whenever changes to the 

off-site material managed in the tank 

could potentially cause the maximum 

HAP vapor pressure to increase to a 

level that is equal to or greater than the 

maximum HAP vapor pressure limit for 

the tank design capacity category 

specified in Table 3, Table 4, or Table 

5 of this subpart, as applicable to the 

tank. 

(2) * * * 

(i) The owner or operator controls air 

emissions from the tank in accordance 

with the provisions specified in subpart 

OO of this part—National Emission 

Standards for Tanks—Level 1, except 

that § 63.902(c)(2) and (3) shall not 

apply for the purposes of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) At all other times, air emissions 

from the tank must be controlled in 

accordance with the provisions 

specified in subpart OO of this part— 

National Emission Standards for 

Tanks—Level 1, with the exceptions 

specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(B)(1) 

and (2) of this section. 

(1) Where § 63.902(c)(2) provides an 

exception for a spring-loaded pressurevacuum relief valve, conservation vent, 

or similar type of pressure relief device 

which vents to the atmosphere, only a 

conservation vent shall be eligible for 

the exception for the purposes of this 

subpart. 

(2) Section 63.902(c)(3) shall not 

apply for the purposes of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) Whenever an off-site material is in 

the tank, the fixed roof shall be installed 

with each closure device secured in the 

closed position and the vapor headspace 

underneath the fixed roof vented to the 

control device except that venting to the 

control device is not required, and 

opening of closure devices or removal of 

the fixed roof is allowed at the following 

times: 

(i) To provide access to the tank for 

performing routine inspection, 

maintenance, or other activities needed 

for normal operations. Examples of such 

activities include those times when a 

worker needs to open a port to sample 

liquid in the tank, or when a worker 

needs to open a hatch to maintain or 

repair equipment. Following completion 

of the activity, the owner or operator 

shall promptly secure the closure device 

in the closed position or reinstall the 

cover, as applicable, to the tank. 

(ii) To remove accumulated sludge or 

other residues from the bottom of the 

tank. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(3) Whenever an off-site material is in 

the tank, the tank shall be operated as 

a closed system that does not vent to the 

atmosphere except at those times when 

purging of inerts from the tank is 

required and the purge stream is routed 

to a closed-vent system and control 

device designed and operated in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 63.693. 

(i) The owner or operator who elects 

to control air emissions by using an 

enclosure vented through a closed-vent 

system to an enclosed combustion 

control device shall meet the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(i)(1) through (3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 

subpart VV of this part—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 subpart VV of 

this part—National Emission Standards 

for Oil-Water Separators and OrganicWater 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 subpart VV of 

this part—National Emission Standards 

for Oil-Water Separators and OrganicWater 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 subpart QQ of 

this part—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 subpart QQ of 

this part—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), (ii), and 

(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 subpart PP of this part—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 this part— 

National Emission Standards for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14275 

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 subpart PP of this part—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). 

The revision and addition 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), 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 subpart H of this part— 

National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

Equipment Leaks, with the differences 

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

of this section for the purposes of this 

subpart. 

(iii) On or after March 18, 2015, for 

the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 61.242–6(a)(2) 

or the requirements of § 63.167(a)(2), the 

open end is sealed when instrument 

monitoring of the open-ended valve or 

line conducted according to Method 21 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates 

no readings of 500 ppm or greater. 

(iv) On or after March 18, 2015, for 

the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 61.242–6(d) or 

the requirements of § 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 61.242–6(a), 

(b), and (c) or § 63.167(a), (b), and (c) 

must comply with the requirements in 

§ 63.693(c)(2). 

(2) The owner or operator controls the 

HAP emitted from equipment leaks in 

accordance with §§ 63.161 through 

63.183 in subpart H of this part— 

National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Equipment Leaks, with the differences 

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

of this section for the purposes of this 

subpart. 

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

light liquid service, as defined in 

§ 63.681, that is part of an affected 

source under this subpart, an 

instrument reading that defines a leak is 

500 ppm or greater as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A. 

(ii) For each pump in light liquid 

service, as defined in § 63.681, that is 

part of an affected source under this 

subpart, an instrument reading that 

defines a leak is 1,000 ppm or greater as 

detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A. Repair is not required 

unless an instrument reading of 2,000 

ppm or greater is detected. 

(iii) On or after March 18, 2015, for 

the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of § 63.167(a)(2), the open 

end is sealed when instrument 

monitoring of the open-ended valve or 

line conducted according to Method 21 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates 

no readings of 500 ppm or greater. 

(iv) On or after March 18, 2015, for 

the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of § 63.167(d), open-ended 

valves or lines in an emergency 

shutdown system which are designed to 

open automatically in the event of a 

process upset and that are exempt from 

the requirements in § 63.167(a), (b), and 

(c) must comply with the requirements 

in § 63.693(c)(2). 

(v) For the purposes of this subpart, 

the pressure relief device requirements 

of § 63.691(c) of this subpart rather than 

those of § 63.165 or of 40 CFR 61.242– 

4, as applicable, shall apply. The 

pressure relief device requirements of 

§ 63.691(c)(3) and (4) apply in addition 

to the requirements of § 63.169 or of 40 

CFR 61.242–8, as applicable, for 

pressure relief devices in liquid service. 

(c) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. Except as provided in 

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

owner or operator must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

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

pressure relief devices in off-site 

material service. 

(1) Operating requirements. Except 

during a pressure release event, operate 

each pressure relief device in gas/vapor 

service with an instrument reading of 

less than 500 ppm above background as 

detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A. 

(2) Pressure release requirements. For 

pressure relief devices in gas/vapor 

service, the owner or operator must 

comply with either paragraph (c)(2)(i) or 

(ii) of this section following a pressure 

release, as applicable. 

(i) If the pressure relief device does 

not consist of or include a rupture disk, 

the pressure relief device shall be 

returned to a condition indicated by an 

instrument reading of less than 500 ppm 

above background, as detected by 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A, no later than 5 calendar days after the 

pressure release device returns to offsite material service following a 

pressure release, except as provided in 

§ 63.171. 

(ii) If the pressure relief device 

consists of or includes a rupture disk, 

except as provided in § 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14276 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

material for the first time, as established 

in § 63.680(e)(1)(i) through (iii), the 

owner or operator must comply with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section for all 

pressure relief devices in off-site 

material service. 

(i) The owner or operator must equip 

each pressure relief device in off-site 

material service with a device(s) or use 

a monitoring system. The device or 

monitoring system may be either 

specific to the pressure release device 

itself or may be associated with the 

process system or piping, sufficient to 

indicate a pressure release to the 

atmosphere. Examples of these types of 

devices or monitoring systems include, 

but are not limited to, a rupture disk 

indicator, magnetic sensor, motion 

detector on the pressure relief valve 

stem, flow monitor, pressure monitor, or 

parametric monitoring system. The 

devices or monitoring systems must be 

capable of meeting the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) 

through (C) of this section. 

(A) Identifying the pressure release; 

(B) Recording the time and duration 

of each pressure release; and 

(C) Notifying operators immediately 

that a pressure release is occurring. 

(ii) If any pressure relief device in 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, fuel gas system, process or 

control device. If a pressure relief device 

in off-site material service is designed 

and operated to route all pressure 

releases through a closed vent system to 

a drain system, fuel gas system, process 

or control device, paragraphs (c)(1), (2), 

and (3) of this section do not apply. The 

fuel gas system or closed vent system 

and the process or control device (if 

applicable) must meet the requirements 

of § 63.693. The drain system (if 

applicable) must meet the requirements 

of § 63.689. 

■ 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), 

(f)(1)(ii)(B), and (f)(2) introductory text; 

■ d. Adding paragraph (f)(2)(iii); 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(v) and 

(g)(2)(i); and 

■ f. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(i)(C). 

The revisions and additions 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), the control device must be 

operating except as provided for in 

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

section. 

(i) The control device may only be 

bypassed for the purpose of performing 

planned routine maintenance of the 

closed-vent system or control device in 

situations when the routine 

maintenance cannot be performed 

during periods that tank emissions are 

vented to the control device. 

(ii) On an annual basis, the total time 

that the closed-vent system or control 

device is bypassed to perform routine 

maintenance shall not exceed 240 hours 

per each calendar year. 

* * * * * 

(8) In the case when an owner or 

operator chooses to use a design 

analysis to demonstrate compliance of a 

control device with the applicable 

performance requirements specified in 

this section as provided for in 

paragraphs (d) through (g) of this 

section, the Administrator may require 

that the design analysis be revised or 

amended by the owner or operator to 

correct any deficiencies identified by 

the Administrator. If the owner or 

operator and the Administrator do not 

agree on the acceptability of using the 

design analysis (including any changes 

required by the Administrator) to 

demonstrate that the control device 

achieves the applicable performance 

requirements, then the disagreement 

must be resolved using the results of a 

performance test conducted by the 

owner or operator in accordance with 

the requirements of § 63.694(l). The 

Administrator may choose to have an 

authorized representative observe the 

performance test conducted by the 

owner or operator. Should the results of 

this performance test not agree with the 

determination of control device 

performance based on the design 

analysis, then the results of the 

performance test will be used to 

establish compliance with this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) A closed-vent system that is 

designed to operate at a pressure below 

atmospheric pressure. The system shall 

be equipped with at least one pressure 

gauge or other pressure measurement 

device that can be read from a readily 

accessible location to verify that 

negative pressure is being maintained in 

the closed-vent system when the control 

device is operating. 

(2) In situations when the closed-vent 

system includes bypass devices that 

could be used to divert a vent stream 

from the closed-vent system to the 

atmosphere at a point upstream of the 

control device inlet, each bypass device 

must be equipped with either a flow 

indicator as specified in paragraph 

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

locking device as specified in paragraph 

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

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

this section: 

* * * * * 

(iii) Equipment needed for safety 

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

emergency shutdown systems, and 

pressure relief devices subject to the 

requirements of § 63.691(c) are not 

subject to the requirements of 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) To achieve a total incinerator 

outlet concentration for the TOC, less 

methane and ethane, of less than or 

equal to 20 ppmv on a dry basis 

corrected to 3 percent oxygen. 

(ii) * * * 

(B) To achieve a total incinerator 

outlet concentration for the HAP, listed 

in Table 1 of this subpart, of less than 

or equal to 20 ppmv on a dry basis 

corrected to 3 percent oxygen. 

* * * * * 

(2) The owner or operator must 

demonstrate that the vapor incinerator 

achieves the performance requirements 

in paragraph (f)(1) of this section by 

conducting either a performance test as 

specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this 

section or a design analysis as specified 

in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section, 

except as provided for in paragraph 

(f)(2)(iii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(iii) An owner or operator is not 

required to conduct a performance test 

or design analysis if the incinerator has 

been issued a final permit under 40 CFR 

part 270 and complies with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 264, 

subpart O, or has certified compliance 

with the interim status requirements of 

40 CFR part 265, subpart O. 

(g) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14277 

(1) * * * 

(v) Introduce the vent stream to a 

boiler or process heater for which the 

owner or operator either has been issued 

a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 

and complies with the requirements of 

40 CFR part 266, subpart H; or has 

certified compliance with the interim 

status requirements of 40 CFR part 266, 

subpart H; or has submitted a 

Notification of Compliance under 

§§ 63.1207(j) and 63.1210(d) and 

complies with the requirements of 

subpart EEE of this part at all times 

(including times when non-hazardous 

waste is being burned). 

(2) * * * 

(i) If an owner or operator chooses to 

comply with the performance 

specifications in either paragraph 

(g)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, the 

owner or operator must demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

performance specifications by 

conducting either a performance test as 

specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) of this 

section or a design analysis as specified 

in paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B) of this section, 

except as provided for in paragraph 

(g)(2)(i)(C) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(C) An owner or operator is not 

required to conduct a performance test 

or design analysis if the boiler or 

process heater has been issued a final 

permit under 40 CFR part 270 and 

complies with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 266, subpart H; or has certified 

compliance with the interim status 

requirements of 40 CFR part 266, 

subpart H. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 63.694 is amended by 

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

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

(l)(2), (l)(3) introductory text, (l)(3)(i), 

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

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

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

§ 63.694 Testing methods and procedures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) In the event that the 

Administrator and the owner or 

operator disagree on a determination of 

the average VOHAP concentration for an 

off-site material stream using 

knowledge, then the results from a 

determination of VOHAP concentration 

using direct measurement as specified 

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

be used to establish compliance with 

the applicable requirements of this 

subpart. The Administrator may 

perform or require that the owner or 

operator perform this determination 

using direct measurement. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) The actual HAP mass removal rate 

(MR) shall be determined based on 

results for a minimum of three 

consecutive runs. The sampling time for 

each run shall be at least 1 hour. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) The actual HAP mass removal rate 

(MRbio) shall be determined based on 

results for a minimum of three 

consecutive runs. The sampling time for 

each run shall be at least 1 hour. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(3) Use of knowledge to determine the 

maximum HAP vapor pressure of the 

off-site material. Documentation shall 

be prepared and recorded that presents 

the information used as the basis for the 

owner’s or operator’s knowledge that 

the maximum HAP vapor pressure of 

the off-site material is less than the 

maximum vapor pressure limit listed in 

Table 3, Table 4, or Table 5 of this 

subpart for the applicable tank design 

capacity category. Examples of 

information that may be used include: 

the off-site material is generated by a 

process for which at other locations it 

previously has been determined by 

direct measurement that the off-site 

material maximum HAP vapor pressure 

is less than the maximum vapor 

pressure limit for the appropriate tank 

design capacity category. In the event 

that the Administrator and the owner or 

operator disagree on a determination of 

the maximum HAP vapor pressure for 

an off-site material stream using 

knowledge, then the results from a 

determination of HAP vapor pressure 

using direct measurement as specified 

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

be used to establish compliance with 

the applicable requirements of this 

subpart. The Administrator may 

perform or require that the owner or 

operator perform this determination 

using direct measurement. 

(k) * * * 

(3) The detection instrument shall 

meet the performance criteria of Method 

21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 

except the instrument response factor 

criteria in section 8.1.1 of Method 21 

shall be for the weighted average 

composition of the organic constituents 

in the material placed in the unit at the 

time of monitoring, not for each 

individual organic constituent. 

* * * * * 

(l) Control device performance test 

procedures. Performance tests shall be 

based on representative performance 

(i.e., performance based on normal 

operating conditions) and shall exclude 

periods of startup and shutdown unless 

specified by the Administrator. The 

owner or operator may not conduct 

performance tests during periods of 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

must record the process information 

that is necessary to document operating 

conditions during the test and include 

in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

normal operation. Upon request, the 

owner or operator shall make available 

to the Administrator such records as 

may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. 

* * * * * 

(2) The gas volumetric flow rate shall 

be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, 

or 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A, as appropriate. 

(3) To determine compliance with the 

control device percent reduction 

requirement, the owner or operator shall 

use Method 18 of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A to measure the HAP in 

Table 1 of this subpart or Method 25A 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to 

measure TOC. Method 18 may be used 

to measure methane and ethane, and the 

measured concentration may be 

subtracted from the Method 25A 

measurement. Alternatively, any other 

method or data that has been validated 

according to the applicable procedures 

in Method 301 in appendix A of this 

part may be used. The following 

procedures shall be used to calculate 

percent reduction efficiency: 

(i) A minimum of three sample runs 

must be performed. The minimum 

sampling time for each run shall be 1 

hour. For Method 18, either an 

integrated sample or a minimum of four 

grab samples shall be taken. If grab 

sampling is used, then the samples shall 

be taken at approximately equal 

intervals in time such as 15 minute 

intervals during the run. 

(ii) * * * 

(B) When the TOC mass rate is 

calculated, the average concentration 

reading (minus methane and ethane) 

measured by Method 25A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A shall be used in the 

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

section. 

* * * * * 

(4) To determine compliance with the 

enclosed combustion device total HAP 

concentration limit of this subpart, the 

owner or operator shall use Method 18 

of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to 

measure the total HAP in Table 1 of this 

subpart or Method 25A of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A to measure TOC. 

Method 18 may be used to measure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14278 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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) 

introductory text and (e)(4) and (5); and 

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

The revisions and addition 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, 63.684(e), 

63.693(d)(3), (e)(3), (f)(3), (g)(3), and 

(h)(3), and paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section and perform the inspection and 

monitoring procedures specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(5)(i) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions 

and required monitoring system quality 

assurance or quality control activities 

(including, as applicable, calibration 

checks and required zero and span 

adjustments), the owner or operator 

must operate the continuous monitoring 

system at all times the affected source 

is operating. A monitoring system 

malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, 

not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

The owner or operator is required to 

complete monitoring system repairs in 

response to monitoring system 

malfunctions and to return the 

monitoring system to operation as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

(ii) The owner or operator may not 

use data recorded during monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating levels. The owner or operator 

must use all the data collected during 

all other required data collection 

periods in assessing the operation of the 

control device and associated control 

system. The owner or operator must 

report any periods for which the 

monitoring system failed to collect 

required data. 

* * * * * 

(e) Control device monitoring 

requirements. For each control device 

required under § 63.693 to be monitored 

in accordance with the provisions of 

this paragraph (e), the owner or operator 

must ensure that each control device 

operates properly by monitoring the 

control device in accordance with the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

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

* * * * * 

(4) A deviation for a given control 

device is determined to have occurred 

when the monitoring data or lack of 

monitoring data result in any one of the 

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

through (iii) of this section being met. 

When multiple operating parameters are 

monitored for the same control device 

and during the same operating day more 

than one of these operating parameters 

meets a deviation criterion specified in 

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

section, then a single deviation is 

determined to have occurred for the 

control device for that operating day. 

(i) A deviation occurs when the daily 

average value of a monitored operating 

parameter is less than the minimum 

operating parameter limit (or, if 

applicable, greater than the maximum 

operating parameter limit) established 

for the operating parameter in 

accordance with the requirements of 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section. 

(ii) A deviation occurs when the 

period of control device operation is 4 

hours or greater in an operating day and 

the monitoring data are insufficient to 

constitute a valid hour of data for at 

least 75 percent of the operating hours. 

Monitoring data are insufficient to 

constitute a valid hour of data if 

measured values are unavailable for any 

of the 15-minute periods within the 

hour. 

(iii) A deviation occurs when the 

period of control device operation is 

less than 4 hours in an operating day 

and more than 1 of the hours during the 

period does not constitute a valid hour 

of data due to insufficient monitoring 

data. Monitoring data are insufficient to 

constitute a valid hour of data if 

measured values are unavailable for any 

of the 15-minute periods within the 

hour. 

(5) For each deviation, except when 

the deviation occurs during periods of 

non-operation of the unit or the process 

that is vented to the control device 

(resulting in cessation of HAP emissions 

to which the monitoring applies), the 

owner or operator shall be deemed to 

have failed to have applied control in a 

manner that achieves the required 

operating parameter limits. Failure to 

achieve the required operating 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER18MR15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14279 

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) 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). 

(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). 

(3) A list of identification numbers for 

pressure relief devices equipped with 

rupture disks, subject to the provisions 

in § 63.691(c)(2)(ii). 

(4) The dates and results of the 

Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A, monitoring following a pressure 

release for each pressure relief device 

subject to the provisions in 

§ 63.691(c)(2)(i). The results of each 

monitoring event shall include: 

(i) The measured background level. 

(ii) The maximum instrument reading 

measured at each pressure relief device. 

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

§ 63.691(c)(3), keep records of each 

pressure release to the atmosphere, 

including the following information: 

(i) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

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

pressure release. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart 

emitted during the pressure release and 

the calculations used for determining 

this quantity. 

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(v) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(j) (1) For pressure tank closure 

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

keep records of each release to the 

atmosphere, including the information 

specified in paragraphs (j)(3) though (7) 

of this section. 

(2) For each closed vent system that 

includes bypass devices that could 

divert a stream away from the control 

device and into the atmosphere, as 

specified in § 63.693(c)(2), and each 

open-ended valve or line in an 

emergency shutdown system which is 

designed to open automatically in the 

event of a process upset, as specified in 

§ 63.167(d) or 40 CFR 61.242–6(d), keep 

records of each release to the 

atmosphere, including the information 

specified in paragraphs (j)(3) though (9) 

of this section. 

(3) The source, nature, and cause of 

the release. 

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

release. 

(5) An estimate of the quantity of HAP 

listed in Table 1 of this subpart emitted 

during the release and the calculations 

used for determining this quantity. 

(6) The actions taken to prevent this 

release. 

(7) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such release. 

(8) Hourly records of whether the 

bypass flow indicator specified under 

§ 63.693(c)(2) was operating and 

whether a diversion was detected at any 

time during the hour, as well as records 

of the times of all periods when the vent 

stream is diverted from the control 

device or the flow indicator is not 

operating. 

(9) Where a seal mechanism is used 

to comply with § 63.693(c)(2), hourly 

records of flow are not required. In such 

cases, the owner or operator shall record 

that the monthly visual inspection of 

the seals or closure mechanism has been 

done, and shall record the duration of 

all periods when the seal mechanism is 

broken, the bypass line valve position 

has changed, or the key for a lock-andkey 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; 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) 

and (a)(3); 

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

and 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (b)(5) and (6). 

The revisions and additions 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), the owner 

or operator must submit the information 

listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section in the notification of compliance 

status required under § 63.9(h) 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) (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) 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14280 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT, including information 

claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

flash drive, or other commonly used 

electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic media must be clearly marked 

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

CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group 

Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD 

C404–02, 4930 Old Page Road, Durham, 

NC 27703. The same ERT file with the 

CBI omitted must be submitted to the 

EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described 

earlier in this paragraph (a)(3)(i). 

(ii) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, the owner or operator must 

submit the results of the performance 

test to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in 40 CFR 

60.4. 

(b) * * * 

(3) Reports of malfunctions. If a 

source fails to meet an applicable 

standard, report such events in the 

Periodic Report. Report the number of 

failures to meet an applicable standard. 

For each instance, report the date, time 

and duration of each failure. For each 

failure the report must include a list of 

the affected sources or equipment, an 

estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over any emission 

limit, and a description of the method 

used to estimate the emissions. 

(4) A summary report specified in 

§ 63.10(e)(3) shall be submitted on a 

semiannual basis (i.e., once every 6- 

month period). The summary report 

must include a description of all 

deviations as defined in §§ 63.683(f) and 

63.695(e) that have occurred during the 

6-month reporting period. For each 

deviation caused when the daily average 

value of a monitored operating 

parameter is less than the minimum 

operating parameter limit (or, if 

applicable, greater than the maximum 

operating parameter limit), the report 

must include the daily average values of 

the monitored parameter, the applicable 

operating parameter limit, and the date 

and duration of the period that the 

deviation occurred. For each deviation 

caused by lack of monitoring data, the 

report must include the date and 

duration of period when the monitoring 

data were not collected and the reason 

why the data were not collected. 

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

§ 63.691(c), Periodic Reports must 

include the information specified in 

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

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

§ 63.691(c), report the results of all 

monitoring conducted within the 

reporting period. 

(ii) For pressure relief devices in gas/ 

vapor service subject to § 63.691(c)(2)(i), 

report any instrument reading of 500 

ppm above background or greater, if 

detected more than 5 days after the 

pressure release. 

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

§ 63.691(c)(3), report each pressure 

release to the atmosphere, including the 

following information: 

(A) The source, nature, and cause of 

the pressure release. 

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

pressure release. 

(C) An estimate of the quantity of 

HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart 

emitted during the pressure release and 

the method used for determining this 

quantity. 

(D) The actions taken to prevent this 

pressure release. 

(E) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such pressure releases. 

(6) Pressure tank closure device or 

bypass deviation report. The owner or 

operator must submit to the 

Administrator the information specified 

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

when any of the conditions in 

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

section are met. 

(i) Any pressure tank closure device, 

as specified in § 63.685(h)(2), has 

released to the atmosphere. 

(ii) Any closed vent system that 

includes bypass devices that could 

divert a vent a stream away from the 

control device and into the atmosphere, 

as specified in § 63.693(c)(2), has 

released directly to the atmosphere. 

(iii) Any open-ended valve or line in 

an emergency shutdown system which 

is designed to open automatically in the 

event of a process upset, as specified in 

§ 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: 

■ 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)– 

63.4(a)(3); 

■ d. Adding entries 63.4(a)(1)–63.4(a)(2) 

and 63.4(a)(3); 

■ e. Revising entries 63.4(a)(5), 

63.5(a)(1), 63.5(b)(5), 63.6(b)(3), and 

63.6(b)(4); 

■ f. Removing entry 63.6(e); 

■ g. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 

63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii), 63.6(e)(2), 

and 63.6(e)(3); 

■ h. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1); 

■ i. Adding entry 63.7(a)(4); 

■ j. Revising entries 63.7(b), 63.7(c), 

63.7(e)(1), 63.7(f), 63.8(c)(1)(iii), 63.9(e), 

63.9(g), 63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii), 

63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 

63.10(b)(2)(v); 

■ k. Removing entry 63.10(c); 

■ l. Adding entries 63.10(c)(1)–(6), 

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

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

63.10(d)(5)(ii); 

■ n. Adding entry 63.10(d)(5); 

■ o. Removing entry 63.10(e); 

■ p. Adding entries 63.10(e)(1)– 

63.10(e)(2), 63.10(e)(3), and 63.10(e)(4); 

and 

■ q. Adding entry 63.16. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14281 

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

PROVISIONS TO SUBPART DD 

Subpart A 

reference 

Applies to 

Subpart DD Explanation 

*******

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

*******

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

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

*******

63.4(a)(1)–63.4(a)(2) ................. Yes 

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

*******

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

*******

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

*******

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

*******

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

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

*******

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

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

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

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

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

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

*******

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

63.7(b) ....................................... Yes 

63.7(c) ....................................... Yes 

*******

63.7(e)(1) ................................... No See § 63.694(l). 

*******

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

*******

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
14282 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

*******

63.9(e) ....................................... Yes 

*******

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

*******

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

63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............................. No See § 63.696(h) for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source 

or equipment, and an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the 

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

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

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

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

*******

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

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

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

*******

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

63.10(e)(1)–63.10(e)(2) ............. No 

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

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

*******

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

* * * * * ■ 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) 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 14283 

■ 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) 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. 

■ 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) 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. 2015–05463 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2