Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0022-0116
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-10-04T04:00Z

Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
RESPONSES
TO
COMMENTS
RESPONSES
TO
COMMENTS
ON
THE
OCTOBER
4,
2005
NOTICE
OF
PROPOSED
RULEMAKING
ON
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORTING
EXEMPTIONS
FOR
CERTAIN
AIR
RELEASES
OF
NOx
(
NO
AND
NO2)

Office
of
Emergency
Management
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
September
1,
2006
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
ii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
..........................................................................................................
1
Statutory
Authority......................................................................................................
1
Background
of
this
Rulemaking
..................................................................................
2
Comments
Received....................................................................................................
3
Organization
of
the
Comment
Response
Document
.....................................................
3
Commenter
Background
Information
..........................................................................
8
INDEX
OF
ISSUES
ON
THE
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORTING
EXEMPTION
FOR
CERTAIN
AIR
RELEASES
OF
NOx
(
NO
and
NO2)....................................................
19
I.
SUPPORT
FOR
PROPOSED
REPORTING
EXEMPTION.......................................
25
II.
SUPPORT
FOR
ALTERNATIVE
 
EXPANDING
CONTINUOUS
RELEASE
REPORTING
IN
ADDITION
TO
PROPOSED
EXEMPTION.....................................
39
A.
Simplify
Continuous
Release
Initial
Release
Notification
.....................................
40
B.
Simplify
and
Clarify
Continuous
Release
Reporting
Requirements
.......................
44
C.
Clarify
Continuous
Release
Reporting
Requirements
............................................
47
III.
OPPOSITION
FOR
ALTERNATIVE
 
EXPANDING
CONTINUOUS
RELEASE
REPORTING................................................................................................................
49
A.
Should
Not
be
Used
In­
Lieu
of
Proposed
Exemption
............................................
50
B.
Does
not
Afford
Practical
Relief
...........................................................................
55
IV.
SUPPORT
FOR
ALTERNATIVE
 
INCREASE
LEVEL
OF
THE
EXEMPTION.
57
A.
Support
a
Number
Larger
than
1,000
Pounds........................................................
58
B.
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
........................
64
V.
REQUESTS
FOR
BROADER
EXEMPTIONS
TO
INCLUDE
ACCIDENTS
AND
MALFUNCTIONS
.......................................................................................................
76
A.
Accidents
and
Malfunctions..................................................................................
78
B.
Also
Include
in
Exemptions
­
Start­
ups,
Shut­
downs,
and
Up­
Sets........................
99
C.
Clarify
that
Flares
are
Control
Devices
­
Not
Considered
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
...........................................................................................................
103
VI.
REQUESTS
FOR
BROADER
EXEMPTIONS
TO
INCLUDE
COMBUSTION
AND
NON­
COMBUSTION
PROCESSES
..........................................................................
108
VII.
INTERPRETATION
OF
CERCLA
PROVISIONS..............................................
115
A.
Legal
Authority
to
Include
NO
and
NO2
Resulting
from
Chemical
Reaction.......
116
B.
Legal
Emissions
of
NOx
are
"
Federally
Permitted".............................................
127
C.
Proposed
Exemption
only
Applies
to
Emissions
not
Considered
Federally
Permitted
................................................................................................................................
128
D.
Provide
a
Definition
of
"
Excess
Emissions"
for
Reporting
NOx
.........................
130
E.
Provide
Guidance
on
Calculating
When
Releases
from
Minor
Sources
Exceed
a
Reporting
Threshold................................................................................................
131
F.
Apply
Exemption
to
Both
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
Reporting
...............................
134
G.
Clarify
that
NOx
represents
NO
and
NO2
Interchangeably..................................
136
VIII.
ISSUES
RELATED
TO
RULEMAKING
PROCEDURE...................................
137
IX.
REQUEST
TO
RAISE
RQ....................................................................................
139
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
1
INTRODUCTION
Statutory
Authority
The
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(
CERCLA),
42
U.
S.
C.
9601
et
seq.,
as
amended
by
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
of
1986,
gives
the
Federal
government
broad
authority
to
respond
to
releases
or
threats
of
releases
of
hazardous
substances
from
vessels
and
facilities.
The
term
"
hazardous
substance"
is
defined
in
section
101(
14)
of
CERCLA
primarily
by
reference
to
other
Federal
environmental
statutes.
1
Section
102
of
CERCLA
gives
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
authority
to
designate
additional
hazardous
substances.
Currently
there
are
764
CERCLA
hazardous
substances,
2
exclusive
of
Radionuclides,
F­,
K­,
and
Unlisted
Characteristic
Hazardous
Wastes.

Under
CERCLA
section
103(
a),
the
person
in
charge
of
a
vessel
or
facility
from
which
a
CERCLA
hazardous
substance
has
been
released
in
a
quantity
that
equals
or
exceeds
its
reportable
quantity
(
RQ)
must
immediately
notify
the
National
Response
Center
(
NRC)
of
the
release.
A
release
is
reportable
if
an
RQ
or
more
is
released
within
a
24­
hour
period
(
see
40
CFR
302.6).
This
reporting
requirement,
among
other
things,
serves
as
a
trigger
for
informing
the
government
of
a
release
so
that
Federal
personnel
can
evaluate
the
need
for
a
Federal
removal
or
remedial
action
and
undertake
any
necessary
action
in
a
timely
fashion.

On
March
19,
1998,
the
Agency
issued
a
final
rule
(
63
FR
13459)
that
broadened
existing
reporting
exemptions
for
releases
of
naturally
occurring
radionuclides.
The
Agency
relied
on
CERCLA
sections
102(
a),
103,
and
115
(
the
general
rulemaking
authority
under
CERCLA)
as
authority
to
issue
regulations
governing
section
103
reporting
requirements,
as
well
as
administrative
reporting
exemptions.
These
exemptions
were
granted
for
releases
of
hazardous
substances
which
pose
little
or
no
risk
or
to
which
a
Federal
response
is
infeasible
or
inappropriate
(
63
FR
13461).

In
addition
to
the
reporting
requirements
established
pursuant
to
CERCLA
section
103,
section
304
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
of
1986
(
EPCRA),
42
U.
S.
C.
11001
et
seq.,
requires
the
owner
or
operator
of
certain
facilities
to
immediately
report
releases
of
CERCLA
hazardous
substances
or
any
extremely
hazardous
substances3
to
State
and
local
authorities
(
see
40
CFR
355.40).
Any
proposed
1
Other
Federal
environmental
statutes
include:
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
(
§
§
1321(
b)(
2)(
A),
1317(
a)),
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act
(
§
6921),
Clean
Air
Act
(
§
7412),
and
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
§
2606).
2
This
total
includes
P­
and
U­
wastes.
3
Extremely
hazardous
substances
are
those
listed
in
Appendix
A
and
B
of
40
CFR
355.
EPCRA
§
11002(
a)(
2)
required
the
Agency
to
publish
a
list
of
extremely
hazardous
substances
that
is
the
same
list
as
the
list
of
substances
published
in
November
1985
by
EPA
in
Appendix
A
of
the
"
Chemical
Emergency
Preparedness
Program
Interim
Guidance."
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
2
burden
reduction
measure
that
applies
to
CERCLA
section
103
notification
requirements
would
also
apply
to
EPCRA
section
304
notification
requirements.
In
part,
EPCRA's
reporting
requirement
is
designed
to
effectuate
a
statutory
purpose
of
informing
communities
and
the
public
generally
about
releases
from
nearby
facilities.
Notification
is
to
be
given
to
the
community
emergency
coordinator
for
each
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committee
(
LEPC)
for
any
area
likely
to
be
affected
by
the
release,
and
the
State
Emergency
Response
Commission
(
SERC)
of
any
State
likely
to
be
affected
by
the
release.
Through
this
notification,
State
and
local
officials
can
assess
whether
a
response
to
the
release
is
appropriate,
regardless
of
whether
the
Federal
government
intends
to
respond.
EPCRA
section
304
notification
requirements
apply
only
to
releases
that
have
the
potential
for
off­
site
exposure
and
that
are
from
facilities
that
produce,
use,
or
store
a
"
hazardous
chemical,"
as
defined
by
regulations
promulgated
under
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Act
of
1970
(
29
CFR
1910.1200(
c))
and
by
section
311
of
EPCRA.

Background
of
this
Rulemaking
On
December
21,
1999,
EPA
published
interim
guidance
on
the
federally
permitted
release
exemption
to
section
103
of
CERCLA
and
section
304
of
EPCRA
(
64
FR
71614).
The
interim
guidance
discussed
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
federally
permitted
release
exemption
as
it
applies
to
some
air
emissions
and
solicited
public
comment.
The
public
comment
period
closed
after
several
extensions
on
April
10,
2000.
The
Agency
received
many
comments
on
the
interim
guidance,
including
specific
questions
regarding
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
federally
permitted
release
exemption
as
it
applies
to
NOx
releases.
4
NOx
releases
to
air
are
somewhat
unique
in
that,
in
most
cases,
federally
enforceable
permits
(
including
State
issued
through
delegated
programs)
are
not
issued
to
facilities
that
release
NOx
below
a
certain
threshold.
NOx
emissions
from
these
sources
are
minimal
and
may
not
pose
a
hazard
to
health
or
the
environment.
In
its
final
Guidance
on
the
CERCLA
Section
101(
10)(
H)
Federally
Permitted
Release
Definition
for
Certain
Air
Emissions
(
67
FR
18899,
April
17,
2002),
EPA
responded
to
the
concern
that
many
small
facilities
do
not
have
federally
enforceable
permits
by
stating
in
that
Federal
Register
notice
that
it
recognized,
"
that
certain
uncontrolled
air
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxide
(
NO)
and
nitrogen
dioxide
(
NO2)
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
ten
pound
RQ
may
rarely
require
a
government
response."
(
67
FR
18904).
When
the
Agency
published
that
final
Guidance,
it
also
extended
and
expanded
an
on­
going
enforcement
discretion
(
Appendix
B
to
that
Notice)
policy5
with
regard
to
owners,
operators
or
persons
in
charge
of
facilities
or
vessels
for
failure
to
report
air
releases
of
NO
and
NO2
that
would
otherwise
trigger
a
reporting
obligation
under
CERCLA
section
4
Some
of
those
comment
letters
received
are
available
in
the
Docket
(
SFUND­
2003­
0022)
for
this
rule.
All
comments
are
available
in
the
Docket
for
the
Interim
Guidance
(
EG­
G­
1999­
029).
5
The
enforcement
discretion
policy
was
initially
announced
in
a
memorandum
to
EPA
Regional
Counsels
and
Division
Directors
for
EPCRA
§
304/
CERCLA
§
103
from
Steven
A.
Herman,
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance,
dated
February
15,
2000.
A
copy
of
the
Federal
Register
notice
and
Memoranda
from
the
AA
OECA
to
Regional
Counsels
is
included
in
the
Docket
(
SFUND­
2003­
0022)
to
this
rule
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
3
103
and
EPCRA
section
304,
unless
such
releases
are
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction.
(
67
FR
18904).

Comments
Received
EPA
received
27
comment
letters
on
or
before
December
5,
2005,
the
end
of
the
public
comment
period
for
the
October
4,
2005
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM).
Several
of
the
comment
letters
were
sent
to
the
Agency
by
more
than
one
delivery
(
i.
e.,
email,
fax,
US
Mail).
Therefore,
it
may
appear
(
www.
regulations.
gov
,
EPA­
HQSFUND
2003­
0022)
that
there
were
more
than
27
comment
letters
submitted.
For
example,
one
commenter
(
American
Electric
Power)
submitted
a
letter
via
the
Online
Submittal
and
via
U.
S.
Mail.
Both
submissions
received
their
own
Docket
identifier,
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0097,
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0097.1
(
email
and
submission),
and
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0112.

Of
the
27
comment
letters,
14
were
received
from
trade
organizations,
5
from
power
corporations,
5
from
chemical
companies,
2
from
organizations
representing
chemical
companies,
and
1
from
a
not­
for­
profit
organization.

Organization
of
the
Comment
Response
Document
Upon
receipt
and
examination
of
the
comment
letters,
the
Agency
determined
that
the
topics
addressed
by
the
commenters
could
be
divided
into
9
main
issues.
Five
(
5)
of
these
issues
are
further
broken
down
into
specific
subtopics.
A
complete
list
of
all
issues
and
subtopics
appears
in
the
Table
of
Contents
to
this
document.

Commenter
numbers
assigned
to
each
comment
letter
reflect
the
chronological
order
in
which
the
letters
were
received
and
subsequently
incorporated
into
the
Superfund
Docket.
The
first
part
of
each
commenter
number,
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022,
represents
the
Docket
Number
for
the
October
4,
2005,
NPRM.
The
last
two
numbers
(
e.
g.,
0085,
0093.1,
00101.1)
indicate
the
order
in
which
letters
were
received
and
assigned
a
number
by
the
Superfund
Docket.
Some
commenters
submitted
their
comments
in
two
parts,
cover
letter
and
attachment.
The
attachment(
s)
received
a
".
1"
or
".
2"
identifier
as
appropriate.
Some
commenters
submitted
their
comments
in
multiple
forms
(
i.
e.,
hard
copy,
electronic
copy)
and
thus
received
more
than
one
docket
number.

Two
indices
immediately
follow
this
introduction.
The
first
index
is
organized
by
commenter
name,
allowing
each
commenter
to
quickly
locate
the
section(
s)
in
which
their
comments
appear
and
the
response
number(
s)
assigned
to
each
comment.
The
second
index
is
organized
by
issue
(
including
subtopics,
where
applicable),
identifying
the
names
of
each
commenter
that
submitted
comments
on
a
particular
issue.

Comments
are
not
summarized;
rather,
the
Agency
has
made
every
effort
to
extract
and
reproduce
comments
from
the
original
comment
letters
submitted
on
the
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
4
October
4,
2005,
NPRM.
Commenter
Background
Information,
beginning
on
page
7
of
this
document
was
extracted
from
the
original
comment
letters.
However,
footnotes
to
the
comment
letter
or
attachment
were
not
included
in
this
document.

Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
5
INDEX
OF
COMMENTERS
ON
THE
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORTING
EXEMPTION
FOR
CERTAIN
AIR
RELEASES
OF
NOx
(
NO
and
NO2)

Commenter
Name
Commenter
Abbreviation
(
Commenter
Type)
Public
Docket
Number/
Comment
Letter
Section/
Response
Number
American
Chemistry
Council
ACC
(
OC)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0082
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0082.1
IV.
B/
8
V.
A/
2
V.
C/
22
American
Electric
Power
AEP
(
CP)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0097
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0097.1
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0112
III.
A/
2
IV.
A/
1
V.
B/
19
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
AF&
PA
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0101
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0101.1
II.
A/
1
IV.
A/
3
V.
A/
13
VIII/
1
American
Gas
Association
AGA
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0107
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0107.1
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0107.2
I/
9
III.
A/
3
IV.
B/
14
VII.
B/
2
American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute
AISI
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0095
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0095.1
IV.
B/
10
V.
A/
10
VI/
3
American
Petroleum
Institute
API
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0113
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0113.1
I/
10
III.
B/
4
IV.
B/
15
V.
A/
1
V.
C/
25
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
CIBO
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0099
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0099.1
II.
B/
6
IV.
C/
17
V.
A/
12
VII.
C/
3
Dayton
Power
and
Light
DP&
L
(
CP)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0093
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
I/
1
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
6
Commenter
Name
Commenter
Abbreviation
(
Commenter
Type)
Public
Docket
Number/
Comment
Letter
Section/
Response
Number
0022­
0093.1
Dominion
Dominion
(
CP)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0102
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0102.1
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0110
IV.
B/
12
IX/
3
Dow
Chemical
Company
Dow
(
C)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0091
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0091.1
IV.
B/
7
V.
B/
18
V.
C/
24
Eastman
Chemical
Company
Eastman
(
C)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0081
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0081.1
IV.
B/
6
V.
A/
6
V.
C/
21
Fertilizer
Institute,
The
TFI
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0094
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0094.1
I/
3
V.
A/
9
VI/
1
Huntsman
Polymers
Huntsman
(
C)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0088
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0088.1
V.
A/
7
Invista
INVISTA
(
C)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0109
II.
A/
4
V.
B/
20
VI/
2
VII.
E/
6
IX/
4
Koch
Mineral
Services,
LLC
KMS
(
OC)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0090
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0090.1
II.
A/
3
V.
A/
16
V.
B/
17
VII.
E/
5
VII.
F/
7
IX/
1
MeadWestvaco
MeadWestvaco
(
C)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0098
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0098.1
II.
B/
2
V.
A/
11
VII.
G/
8
National
Council
for
NCASI
(
ONP)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
IV.
A/
5
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
7
Commenter
Name
Commenter
Abbreviation
(
Commenter
Type)
Public
Docket
Number/
Comment
Letter
Section/
Response
Number
Air
and
Stream
Improvement,
Inc.
0022­
0083
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0083.1
V.
A/
3
National
Environmental
Development
Association's
Clean
Air
Project
NEDA/
CAP
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0087
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0087.1
I/
5
I/
6
II.
A/
5
V.
A/
5
VII.
D/
4
National
Lime
Association
NLA
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0108
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0108.1
IV.
A/
4
National
Mining
Association
NMA
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0096
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0096.1
I/
2
IV.
B/
11
IX/
2
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
NPRA
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0086
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0086.1
IV.
B/
9
V.
A/
4
V.
C/
23
National
Stone,
Sand
&
Gravel
Association
NSSGA
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0085
VII.
A/
1
Northeast
Utilities
Service
Company
NUSCO
(
CP)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0084
II.
C/
7
IV.
C/
16
Oglethorpe
Power
Corporation
OglethorpePower
(
CP)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0103
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0103.1
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0105
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0105.1
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0111
I/
7
IV.
C/
18
V.
A/
15
Portland
Cement
Association
PCA
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0092
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0092.1
IV.
A/
2
Synthetic
Organic
SOCMA
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
I/
4
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
8
Commenter
Name
Commenter
Abbreviation
(
Commenter
Type)
Public
Docket
Number/
Comment
Letter
Section/
Response
Number
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
0022­
0089
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0089.1
III.
A/
1
V.
A/
8
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
UARG
(
OT)
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0104
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0104.1
I/
8
IV.
B/
13
V.
A/
14
C
=
Chemical
or
Manufacturing
Corporation;
CP
=
Power
Company;
OC
=
Organization
representing
chemical
companies;
ONP
=
Organization,
not­
for­
profit;
OT
=
Trade
Organization
Commenter
Background
Information
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC)
The
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC)
represents
the
leading
companies
engaged
in
the
business
of
chemistry.
Our
members
have
combustion
sources
located
at
their
facilities
nationwide
and
are
therefore
directly
impacted
by
EPA's
proposed
administrative
exemption
from
certain
notification
requirements
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(
CERCLA)
and
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(
EPCRA)
or
Title
III
of
the
Superfund
Amendments.

ACC
supports
EPA's
decision
to
propose
an
exemption
for
NOx
releases
resulting
from
combustion
activities.
Further,
we
agree
that
current
regulations
requiring
immediate
notifications
of
non­
federally
permitted
NOx
releases
exceeding
the
reportable
quantity
(
RQ)
of
10
pounds
overburdens
the
CERCLA
&
EPCRA
notification
systems
and
is
a
waste
of
resources,
as
neither
federal,
state,
or
local
agencies
are
likely
to
respond
to
small
releases.
Finally,
the
Agency's
proposal
exemplifies
the
Government's
ability
to
better
focus
its
resources
while
not
jeopardizing
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
ACC
offers
the
below
comments
on
this
proposed
rulemaking.
We
also
endorse
the
American
Petroleum
Institute's
(
API)
comments
on
this
issue.

American
Electric
Power
(
AEP)
AEP
Texas
North
Company,
AEP
Texas
Central
Company,
Appalachian
Power
Company,
Columbus
Southern
Power
Company,
Indiana
Michigan
Power
Company,
Kentucky
Power
Company,
Ohio
Power
Company,
Public
Service
Company
of
Oklahoma,
and
Southwestern
Electric
Power
Company,
the
operating
companies
of
the
American
Electric
Power
system
(
collectively
referred
to
herein
as
"
AEP"),
appreciate
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
9
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
EPA's
proposed
rulemaking
that
would
provide
an
administrative
exemption
from
certain
notification
requirements
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980,
as
amended
(
CERCLA)
and
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act,
also
known
as
Title
III
of
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
(
EPCRA).
AEP
believes
that
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
would
relieve
significant
burdens
currently
imposed
on
small
sources
of
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxides
that
pose
no
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
and
could
eliminate
an
administrative
burden
for
the
National
Response
Center,
the
State
Emergency
Planning
Commissions,
and
the
Local
Emergency
Planning
Commissions,
allowing
them
to
focus
their
limited
resources
on
releases
that
need
to
be
evaluated
to
determine
whether
and
when
additional
response
actions
are
necessary.
AEP
believes
that
an
important
additional
exception
should
be
analyzed
by
EPA,
to
see
if
it
could
provide
additional
relief,
without
diminishing
the
quantity
or
quality
of
information
available
to
the
responsible
agencies
and
the
public.

American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA)
The
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
("
AF&
PA")
is
the
national
trade
association
of
the
forest,
paper
and
wood
products
industry.
AF&
PA
represents
more
than
200
companies
and
related
associations
that
engage
in
or
represent
the
manufacture
of
pulp,
paper,
paperboard
and
wood
products.
The
forest
products
industry
accounts
for
approximately
seven
percent
of
total
U.
S.
manufacturing
output,
employs
1.1
million
people,
and
ranks
among
the
top
ten
manufacturing
employers
in
42
states.
AF&
PA
member
companies
own
and
operate
hundreds
of
facilities
covered
by
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
permits,
or
other
regulatory
requirements,
which
release
NOx
to
the
atmosphere.
AF&
PA
and
its
members
have,
therefore,
a
direct
interest
in
this
rulemaking.

Although
we
support
the
proposed
administrative
exemption,
we
believe
it
should
be
extended
to
cover
additional
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
releases
to
air,
as
we
detail
in
subsequent
sections
of
this
submittal.

EPA
has
proposed
to
exempt
nitrogen
oxide
and
nitrogen
dioxide
("
NOx")
releases
from
combustion
activities
from
CERCLA/
EPCRA
reporting
requirements
if
those
activities
release
less
than
1,000
pounds
of
either
material
per
24
hours
and
are
not
the
result
of
accidents
or
malfunctions.
EPA
bases
this
proposal
on
several
grounds.
First,
EPA
notes
that
it
received
numerous
public
comments
on
previous
Federal
Register
notices
that
the
existing
ten­
pound
reporting
threshold
results
in
numerous
notifications
about
releases
of
very
small
amounts
of
NOx.
EPA
observes
that,
for
such
small­
quantity
releases,
no
Agency
response
is
either
necessary
or
feasible.
Responding
to
such
releases,
EPA
concluded,
would
overburden
the
CERCLA/
EPCRA
notification
system
and
consume
limited
government
resources
that
are
better
used
to
address
more
serious
releases.
AF&
PA
agrees
with
this
analysis.
We
do
not,
however,
agree
with
the
1000­
pound
limit
on
the
exemption
or
the
exclusion
of
accidental
or
malfunction­
based
releases
from
the
exemption.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
10
American
Gas
Association
(
AGA)
AGA
represents
195
local
energy
utility
companies
that
deliver
natural
gas
to
more
than
56
million
homes,
businesses
and
industries
throughout
the
United
States.
AGA
member
companies
account
for
roughly
83
percent
of
all
natural
gas
delivered
by
local
natural
gas
distribution
companies
in
the
U.
S.
AGA
is
an
advocate
for
local
natural
gas
utility
companies
and
provides
a
broad
range
of
programs
and
services
for
member
natural
gas
pipelines,
marketers,
gatherers,
international
gas
companies
and
industry
associates.
Natural
gas
meets
one­
fourth
of
the
United
States'
energy
needs.

American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute
(
AISI)
AISI
is
the
principal
trade
association
for
the
North
American
steel
industry
and
represents
companies
accounting
for
about
70%
of
the
U.
S.
steelmaking
capacity.
All
iron
and
steelmaking
companies
operate
facilities
that
emit
nitrogen
oxides
("
NOx")
from
combustion
operations
and
therefore
have
a
direct
interest
in
any
proposed
regulations
regarding
NOx
reporting
requirements.
AISI
supports
government
emergency
response
activities
and
the
community's
right
to
be
informed
of
chemical
releases,
and
AISI
members
strive
to
minimize
waste
and
releases.

AISI
members
strongly
support
the
exemption
of
combustion
releases
of
nitrogen
oxide
("
NO")
and
nitrogen
dioxide
("
NO2")
from
notification
requirements
under
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
("
EPCRA")
and
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
("
CERCLA"
or
"
Superfund").
However,
while
the
proposed
exemption
for
releases
of
less
than
1,000
pounds
of
NOx
per
24­
hour
period
for
combustion­
related
emissions
not
related
to
accidents
or
malfunctions
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
it
falls
short
of
providing
meaningful
burden
reduction,
and
we
urge
EPA
to
expand
the
NOx
reporting
exemption.

American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)
API
is
the
primary
trade
association
of
America's
oil
and
natural
gas
industry,
and
represents
more
than
400
member
companies
involved
in
all
aspects
of
the
industry.
Many
API
members
file
reports
of
releases
of
oil
and
hazardous
substances,
and
nonhazardous
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxides,
and
thus
have
a
direct
interest
in
any
actions
pertaining
to
these
reporting
requirements.
API
supports
government
emergency
response
activities
and
the
community's
right
to
know
about
chemical
releases,
and
our
members
actively
work
to
minimize
waste
and
releases.

API
strongly
supports
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
combustion
releases
of
NOx.
Such
an
exemption
is
warranted
because
these
releases
have
proven
to
require
no
government
response.
Reports
of
these
releases
burden
the
regulated
community
and
receiving
officials,
for
no
purpose.
Further,
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
could
provide
significant
burden
reduction
to
industry
and
the
government
if
properly
crafted,
without
any
negative
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
11
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
(
CIBO)
CIBO
is
a
national
trade
association
of
industrial
boiler
owners,
architectengineers
related
equipment
manufacturers,
and
universities
representing
20
major
industrial
sectors.
CIBO
was
formed
in
1978
to
promote
the
exchange
of
information
between
industry
and
government
relating
to
energy
and
environmental
policies,
laws,
and
regulations
affecting
industrial
boilers.
CIBO
membership
represents
industries
as
diverse
as
chemical,
paper,
cogeneration,
steel,
automotive,
refining,
brewing,
combustion
engineering,
and
food
products.
CIBO
members
also
include
operators
of
boiler
facilities
at
several
major
universities.

On
environment
issues,
CIBO
works
closely
with
the
EPA,
the
United
States
Department
of
Energy,
state
regulatory
authorities
and
other
governmental
bodies
to
effectuate
common­
sense
environmental
regulation.
We
maintain
that
environmental
regulatory
programs
should
provide
industry
with
enough
flexibility
to
effectively 
and
without
penalty 
modernize
our
aging
energy
infrastructure,
since
modernization
holds
the
key
to
cost­
effective
environmental
protection.

Dayton
Power
and
Light
(
DPL)
The
Dayton
Power
and
Light
Company
("
DP&
L")
and
its
affiliate
DPL
Energy,
LLC
(
hereafter
collectively
referred
to
as
"
DPL")
hereby
incorporate
by
reference
any
comments
submitted
by
the
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
("
UARG").
DPL
is
a
member
of
this
organization.

DPL
Inc.
is
a
diversified,
regional
energy
company.
DPL
Inc.'
s
principal
subsidiaries
include
The
Dayton
Power
and
Light
Company
(
DP&
L)
and
DPL
Energy.
DP&
L
provides
electric
services
to
over
500,000
retail
customers
in
West
Central
Ohio.
DPL
Energy
markets
over
4,600
megawatts
of
generation
capacity
throughout
the
eastern
United
States.
DPL
operates
three
coal­
fired
electric
generating
stations
and
numerous
gas­
fired
combustion
turbines.

DPL
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
proposed
administrative
exemption
from
certain
EPCRA/
CERCLA
notifications.
In
addition
to
the
comments
of
UARG,
DPL
has
concerns
which
we
will
address
in
these
comments.

Dominion
Dominion
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
above­
referenced
proposed
rule.
As
a
fully
integrated
gas
and
electric
utility,
Dominion
has
operations
that
will
be
affected
by
the
proposed
rule
for
Administrative
Reporting
Exemption
for
Certain
Releases
of
NOx
under
the
regulations
implementing
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA,
"
Superfund").
Dominion
is
a
member
of
the
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)
and
the
American
Gas
Association
(
AGA)
and
it
supports
the
comments
these
groups
submit.

Dow
Chemical
Company
(
DOW)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
12
The
Dow
Chemical
Company
(
Dow)
recognizes
and
supports
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
through
the
reporting
of
events
that
may
have
a
negative
impact
and/
or
require
response
to
mitigate
possible
effect.
Dow
is
also
supportive
of
EPA's
philosophy
to
reduce
the
burden
associated
with
regulatory
requirements
that
do
not
enhance
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
In
fact,
this
burden
only
serves
to
dilute
the
efforts
of
resources
that
would
be
better
applied
in
beneficial
endeavors.

EPA
proposes
to
create
an
administrative
exemption
for
continuous
releases
of
NOx
from
combustion
activities
of
less
than
1000
pounds.
Dow
compliments
EPA
on
this
effective
resource
allocation
effort.
Dow,
however,
believes
that
this
effort
can
be
enhanced
by,
1)
Expanding
the
administrative
exemption
to
include
upsets
and
malfunctions
of
combustion
devices,
2)
Raising
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
level
to
5000
pounds,
and
3)
Expanding
the
administrative
exemption
to
include
properly
operating
safety
devices,
such
as
flares.

It
should
also
be
noted
that
exempting
these
releases
from
reporting
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980,
as
amended,
and
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act,
also
known
as
Title
III
of
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
does
not
relieve
a
source
from
reporting
as
required
by
other
programs
such
as
Title
V,
annual
emission
inventory
reporting,
and
state
or
regional
specific
reporting.

Dow
recommends
that
these
refinements
be
incorporated
into
the
current
exemption
rule
to
maximize
the
benefits
gained
from
effective
resource
allocation.

Eastman
Chemical
Company
(
Eastman)
Eastman
is
a
major
global
manufacturer
of
chemicals,
plastics
and
fibers.
Many
of
our
U.
S.­
based
facilities
have
combustion
units
that
release
NOx.

It
is
commendable
that
EPA
is
looking
for
opportunities
to
reduce
burden
on
both
industry
and
the
government,
by
providing
an
exemption
from
filing
reports
that
result
in
no
action
on
the
Agency's
part
or
that
of
local
or
state
officials.
We
support
such
an
exemption.
Eastman
suggests
a
final
rule
on
this
exemption
should
be
expanded
and
implemented
as
follows.

The
Fertilizer
Institute
(
TFI)
TFI
represents
the
nation's
fertilizer
industry.
Producers,
manufacturers,
distributors,
retailers,
trading
firms,
equipment
manufacturers,
barge/
vessel
operators,
railroads,
and
trucking
companies
which
comprise
its
membership
are
served
by
a
fulltime
Washington,
D.
C.
staff
in
various
legislative,
educational
and
technical
areas
as
well
as
with
information
and
public
relations
programs.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
13
Several
TFI
members
own
and/
or
operate
nitric
acid
plants
that
generate
NO
and
NO2
emissions
(
collectively
referred
to
as
NOx)
that
may
be
subject
to
the
reporting
requirements
set
forth
in
section
103
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(
CERCLA)
and
section
304
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
of
1986
(
EPCRA).
In
addition,
several
TFI
members
operate
small
combustion
sources,
which
may
under
certain
circumstances
approach
or
exceed
the
reportable
quantity
(
RQ).
As
such,
TFI
and
its
members
have
a
substantive
interest
in
EPA's
rulemaking.

Huntsman
Polymers
(
Huntsman)
The
proposed
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
of
October
4,
2005
does
little
to
address
the
burden
associated
with
reporting
NOx
releases
in
the
range
from
10
lbs/
24
hours
to
1000
lbs/
24
hours
which
are
the
result
of
combustion
activities.
The
proposal
states
that
the
impacts
associated
with
NOx
releases
in
the
10
to
1000
lbs/
24
hour
range
are
not
likely
to
result
in
a
federal
response
to
such
releases,
other
than
those
from
accident
or
malfunction.
What
the
proposal
does
not
address
is
whether
a
federal
response
is
likely
from
combustion
based
release
of
NOx
in
the
10­
1000
lbs/
24
hour
ranges
which
is
due
to
an
accident
or
malfunction
AND
has
no
other
basis
for
reporting.

Invista
INVISTA
operates
nylon
and
polyester
fiber,
polymer
and
resin
manufacturing
and
spinning
plants
in
seven
US
states
(
DE,
GA,
NC,
SC,
TN,
TX,
and
VA).
Many
of
these
sites/
facilities
operate
combustion
equipment
and
sources
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
CERCLA
hazardous
substances,
including
nitrogen
oxides
(
NO
and
NO2).
These
sources
are
at
times
subject
to
reporting
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA)
and
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(
EPCRA).

INVISTA
generally
supports
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
of
releases
of
NOx
of
less
than
1000
pounds
per
24
hour
period
that
result
from
combustion
activities
and
appreciates
EPA's
efforts
to
implement
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
more
efficiently
by
reducing
unnecessary
reporting.
As
EPA
states,
releases
below
this
level
have
not
necessitated
a
federal
response
nor
has
reporting
of
them
furthered
the
protection
of
human
health
or
the
environment.
Moreover,
because
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
regulates
NOx
at
levels
substantially
higher
than
the
current
CERCLA
Reportable
Quantity
(
RQ)
of
10
pounds,
an
exemption
is
appropriate.
While
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
would
allow
facilities
and
response
agencies
to
forgo
submittal
and
review
of
individual
release
reports
for
emissions
less
than
1000
pounds
per
24
hour
period,
it
does
not
change
permitting
requirements
or
quantification
and
reporting
of
these
releases
under
other
regulatory
programs
such
as
EPCRA
Form
R
reporting,
air
emission
inventory
reporting,
Title
V
deviation
reporting,
and
other
similar
state
programs
approved
under
State
Implementation
Plans
(
SIP).
Finally,
this
proposal
would
reduce
an
unnecessary
burden
on
the
part
of
the
regulated
community,
as
well
as
on
EPA
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
14
and
emergency
planners
and
responders,
and
would
allow
resources
to
be
focused
on
releases
that
do
require
a
federal
response.

The
proposed
rule
requests
comments
on
whether
the
exemption
should
apply
only
to
CERCLA
reporting,
or
should
apply
to
both
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
reporting.
INVISTA
believes
that
the
exemption
should
apply
to
both
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
reporting.
Otherwise,
unnecessary
burdens
placed
on
the
regulated
community
and
emergency
planners
and
responders
would
continue
without
any
benefit
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

However,
the
proposed
rule
does
not
go
far
enough
in
reducing
the
reporting
burden.
In
INVISTA's
opinion,
the
exemption
should
be
extended
to
NOx
releases
from
non­
combustion
sources
and
to
accident/
malfunction
events.
Our
comments
in
support
of
such
exemption
are
given
below,
along
with
suggestions
on
improvements
to
continuous
release
reporting
(
CRR)
requirements
and
support
for
raising
the
overall
NOx
RQ.

Koch
Mineral
Services,
LLC
(
KMS)
KMS
represents
numerous
Koch
companies
in
about
15
states.
Many
of
these
sites/
facilities
operate
combustion
equipment
and
sources
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA)
hazardous
substances,
including
nitrogen
oxides
(
NO
and
NO2).
These
sources
are
at
times
subject
to
reporting
under
CERCLA
and
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(
EPCRA).

MeadWestvaco
MeadWestvaco
appreciates
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
to
CERCLA/
EPCRA
for
NOx
releases.
MeadWestvaco
generally
supports
the
proposed
exemption,
but
believes
it
should
be
extended
to
cover
a
broader
range
of
releases.
We
also
suggest
certain
clarifications
to
the
reporting
requirements.

National
Council
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement,
Inc.(
NCASI)
NCASI
is
a
non­
profit
environmental
technical
studies
organization
funded
by
the
forest
products
industry.
We
conduct
investigations
and
provide
technical
information
to
our
member
companies
to
assist
them
in
meeting
their
environmental
obligations.
We
have
carried
out
numerous
studies
over
the
last
30
years
on
NOx
emissions
from
a
variety
of
combustion
sources
found
at
manufacturing
facilities
operated
by
the
forest
products
industry.

National
Environmental
Development
Association's
Clean
Air
Project
(
NEDA/
CAP)
NEDA/
CAP,
a
coalition
of
manufacturing
companies
that
operate
facilities
across
the
country,
 .
NEDA/
CAP
was
a
party
in
the
judicial
challenge
to
EPA's
Dec.
21,
1999
federally
permitted
release
policy,
which
was
resolved
by
EPA's
publication
of
its
2002
Federally
Permitted
Release
Guidance,
67
Fed.
Reg.
18899
(
Apr.
17,
2002),
and
the
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
15
Agency's
agreement
that
it
would
undertake
the
instant
rulemaking.
All
of
NEDA/
CAP's
members
operate
combustion
sources,
and
thus
our
members
are
directly
affected
by
EPA's
interpretation,
guidance,
and
the
proposed
rule
with
regard
to
notification
and
reporting
releases
of
NOx.
Although
many
of
the
combustion
sources
operated
by
NEDA/
CAP's
members
are
subject
to
operating
permits
with
NOx
emissions
limits,
some
may
have
equipment
grandfathered
from
controls
or
units
not
specifically
identified
or
without
NOx
control
limits
stated
in
their
federal
operating
(
i.
e.,
Title
V)
permits.

NEDA/
CAP
supports
the
proposed
administrative
exemption.
Our
members
submit,
however,
that
the
administrative
exemption
becomes
overly
complicated
and
of
limited
utility
for
industrial,
as
well
as
other
small
institutional
and
business
entities,
if
EPA
engrafts
a
causation
or
intent
element
in
the
definition
that
will
require
the
owner/
operator
to
decide
whether
the
NOx
results
from
normal
or
abnormal
combustion.
So
long
as
the
NOx
release
does
not
exceed
1,000
lbs/
day
(
or
other
threshold
EPA
determines
is
reasonable),
the
emissions
should
be
treated
as
a
"
continuous
release."
It
seems
important
to
underscore
that
the
legal
basis
for
the
"
administrative
exemption"
from
notification
and
reporting
is
that
the
emissions
are
predictable
and
stable
in
quantity
and
rate.
In
contrast,
EPA
is
not
taking
the
position
as
a
basis
for
the
proposed
action
that
emissions
from
upset
emissions
are
"
federally
permitted."

So
long
as
NOx
emission
results
from
combustion,
it
should
not
be
necessary
to
determine
the
type
of
combustion
equipment
or
how
the
equipment
is
operating
so
long
as
emissions
can
be
quantified
and
remain
under
1,000
pounds
of
NOx
a
day.
The
emissions
from
combustion
will
have
the
same
dispersive
effect
in
the
environment
and
EPA
has
made
a
factual
determination
based
on
25
years
of
experience
that
no
CERCLA
response
is
necessary
for
such
a
quantity
of
emissions.

National
Lime
Association
(
NLA)
NLA
is
the
trade
association
for
manufacturers
of
high
calcium
quicklime,
dolomitic
quicklime,
and
hydrated
lime,
collectively
referred
to
as
"
lime."
In
2004,
88
commercial
and
captive
lime
plants
manufactured
20
million
metric
tons
of
lime
in
the
U.
S.
There
are
26
commercial
lime
companies
in
the
United
States.
Eleven
are
small
businesses.

The
National
Lime
Association
(
NLA)
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
EPA's
proposed
rule
to
create
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
combustionrelated
NOx
emissions
(
except
those
from
an
accident
or
malfunction).
NLA
believes
the
exemption
should
apply
to
all
combustion
sources.
By
contrast,
the
Agency's
preferred
option
of
limiting
the
exemption
to
sources
emitting
less
than
1,000
pounds/
day
of
NOx
is
unduly
burdensome
because
information
on
combustion
releases
is
already
readily
available
to
emergency
planning
officials
and
the
public
through
other
reporting
programs.

National
Mining
Association
(
NMA)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
16
NMA
is
the
industry
association
representing
the
producers
of
most
of
the
nation's
coal,
metals,
and
industrial
and
agricultural
minerals;
the
manufacturers
of
mining
and
mineral
processing
machinery,
equipment
and
supplies;
and
the
engineering
and
consulting
firms,
financial
institutions
and
other
firms
serving
the
coal
and
hardrock
mining
industry.

Many
NMA
member
companies
employ
internal
combustion
engines
that
release
NOx;
NMA
mining
company
members
utilize
planned,
routine
and
permitted
blasting
operations
that
could
result
in
the
release
of
NOx.
These
releases
fall
within
the
conditions
EPA
has
proposed
for
a
reporting
exemption.
For
these
reasons
NMA
supports
the
approach
taken
by
the
agency
in
the
October
4
proposed
rule.

NMA
also
supports
and
commends
to
the
agency's
attention
the
comments
submitted
on
this
proposed
rule
by
the
National
Stone,
Sand
&
Gravel
Association.

National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
(
NPRA)
NPRA,
the
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association,
is
a
national
trade
association
representing
more
than
450
companies,
including
virtually
all
US
refiners
and
petrochemical
manufacturers.
Our
members
supply
consumers
with
a
wide
variety
of
products
and
services
that
are
used
daily
in
homes
and
businesses.
These
products
include
gasoline,
diesel
fuel,
home­
heating
oil,
jet
fuel,
asphalt
products,
and
the
chemicals
that
serve
as
"
building
blocks"
in
making
plastics,
clothing,
medicine
and
computers.
Our
members
have
combustion
sources
located
at
their
facilities
and
are,
therefore,
directly
affected
by
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
from
reporting
requirements
for
certain
releases
of
NOx.

NPRA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
exempt
certain
NOx
releases
resulting
from
combustion
devices.
However,
we
believe
that
EPA's
effort
can
be
significantly
enhanced
by
expanding
the
exemption
to
include
upsets
and
malfunctions
and
safety
devices
such
as
flares,
and
by
raising
the
exemption
threshold
to
5000
pounds.

National
Stone,
Sand
&
Gravel
Association
(
NSSGA)
NSSGA
is
the
national
trade
organization
representing
the
many
and
varied
interests
of
the
crushed
stone,
sand,
and
gravel
mining
industry.
NSSGA's
membership
represent
over
90%
of
the
annual
production
of
crushed
stone
in
the
United
Sates
and
over
75%
of
the
annual
production
of
sand
and
gravel.

NSSGA
does
not
oppose
the
exemptions
for
nitric
oxide
(
NO)
and
nitrogen
dioxide
(
NO2)
proposed
in
302.6(
e)(
l)
and
(
e)(
2).
These
exemptions
clearly
minimize
the
administrative
burdens
associated
with
reports
for
which
agency
response
is
neither
appropriate
nor
feasible.
However,
these
exemptions
do
not
solve
the
fundamental
issue
concerning
the
legal
authority
for
including
pollutant
emissions
that
result
from
chemical
reactions
and/
or
combustion
processes
in
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
response
programs.
These
programs
are
intended
to
address
only
materials
released
to
the
environment
as
bulk
chemicals
during
accidents
or
equipment
malfunctions.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
17
The
listing
of
NO
and
NO2
as
CERCLA­
EPCRA
hazardous
compounds
and
the
selection
of
RQ
values
for
these
compounds
is
reasonable
with
respect
to
the
release
of
these
chemicals
only
as
compressed
or
liquefied
gases
during
shipment
and
storage.
The
application
of
CERCLA­
EPCRA
reporting
requirements
to
NOx
air
emissions
is
technically
inappropriate.

NSSGA
recommends
that
EPA
simply
add
a
clarifying
note
to
Table
302.4
indicating
that
that
these
designations
and
the
associated
RQ
values
apply
to
the
release
of
NO
and
NO2
during
shipment
and/
or
storage
of
bulk
chemicals
and
not
to
NOx
air
emissions.
This
approach
is
entirely
consistent
with
previous
EPA
rulemakings.

Northeast
Utilities
Service
Company
(
NUSCO)
Northeast
Utilities
Service
Company
(
NUSCO),
on
behalf
of
itself,
The
Connecticut
Light
and
Power
Company,
Northeast
Generation
Services
Company,
Public
Service
Company
of
New
Hampshire,
Western
Massachusetts
Electric
Company,
and
Yankee
Gas
Services
Company,
hereby
submits
comments
on
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
for
emergency
release
reporting
of
combustion­
related
nitric
oxide
(
NO)
and
nitrogen
dioxide
(
NO2),
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA.

NUSCO
strongly
supports
and
appreciates
the
proposal
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
to
exempt
combustion­
related
releases
of
NO
and
NO2
from
emergency
release
reporting.
This
provides
greater
regulatory
certainty
than
the
EPA's
present
stated
reliance
on
its
exercise
of
enforcement
discretion.
It
also
eliminates
a
potentially
huge
burden
on
the
regulated
community
and
federal
regulatory
agencies
of
dealing
with
reports
of
vast
numbers
of
routine
and
insignificant
releases.
However,
NUSCO
has
two
concerns
with
the
proposal,
and
offers
specific
comments,
as
outlined
below.

Oglethorpe
Power
Corporation
(
OglethorpePower)
On
October
4,
2005,
EPA
proposed
an
administrative
exemption
from
reporting
releases
of
nitrogen
oxide
("
NO")
and
nitrogen
dioxide
("
NO2")
(
collectively
hereafter
referred
to
as
"
NOx").
These
comments
are
submitted
on
behalf
of
Oglethorpe
Power
Corporation
("
Oglethorpe
Power"
or
the
"
Corporation").
Oglethorpe
Power
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
proposed
rule,
which
would
create
an
exemption
from
reporting
certain
releases
of
NOx
from
the
types
of
combustion
sources
it
operates
and/
or
owns.
Therefore,
this
rulemaking
directly
and
substantially
affects
the
interests
of
Oglethorpe
Power.
Its
comments
to
EPA's
proposal
follow.

Portland
Cement
Association
(
PCA)
PCA
strongly
supports
the
proposed
alternative
to
exempt
all
releases
of
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
from
combustion
sources
that
are
not
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
18
The
Portland
Cement
Association
is
a
trade
association
representing
cement
companies
in
the
United
States
and
Canada.
PCA's
U.
S.
membership
consists
of
45
companies
operating
106
plants
in
35
states
and
distribution
centers
in
all
50
states
servicing
nearly
every
Congressional
district.
PCA
members
account
for
more
than
95
percent
of
cement­
making
capacity
in
the
United
States
and
100
percent
in
Canada.

Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA)
The
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
("
SOCMA")
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
submit
these
comments
on
EPA's
proposed
administrative
exemption
from
certain
notification
requirements
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
and
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right 
to­
Know
Act
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
October
4,
2005.
Numerous
SOCMA
members
are
affected
by
the
NOx
reporting
requirements,
are
interested
in
seeing
certainty
regarding
federally
permitted
releases,
and
are
consequently
interested
in
changes
to
the
reportable
quantities
of
NO
and
NO2.

SOCMA
is
a
trade
association
representing
batch
and
custom
chemical
manufacturers,
a
highly
innovative,
entrepreneurial
and
customer­
driven
sector
of
the
chemical
industry.
More
than
2,000
batch
processing
facilities
produce
50,000
of
the
specialty
and
custom
chemicals
manufactured
in
the
U.
S.
at
a
value
of
about
$
60
billion
annually.
SOCMA
members
are
representative
of
these
facilities,
which
are
typically
small
businesses
with
fewer
than
80
employees
and
less
than
$
100
million
in
annual
sales.

Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)
The
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
("
UARG")'
offers
the
following
comments
on
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
("
EPA"
or
"
Agency")
proposed
Administrative
Reporting
Exemption
for
Certain
Air
Releases
of
NOx
(
NO
and
NO2).
EPA
published
the
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register
on
October
4,
2005,
and
is
seeking
comments
on
an
administrative
exemption
from
certain
notification
requirements
under
§
103
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980,
as
amended,
("
CERCLA"),
42
U.
S.
C.
9601,
et
seq.,
and
§
304
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
("
EPCRA"),
42
U.
S.
C.
11,001,
et
seq.,
also
known
as
Title
III
of
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act.

UARG
supports
extending
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
include
all
releases
of
NOx
from
combustion
sources.
If
EPA
decides
not
to
grant
a
blanket
reporting
exemption,
UARG
supports,
at
a
minimum,
a
1,000­
pound
exemption
limit.
However,
a
5,000­
pound
exemption
limit
would
be
more
realistic
and
practical
than
a
1,000­
pound
limit.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
19
INDEX
OF
ISSUES
ON
THE
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORTING
EXEMPTION
FOR
CERTAIN
AIR
RELEASES
OF
NOx
(
NO
and
NO2)

Section/
Subtopic
Commenters
Public
Docket
Number/
Comment
Letter
I
DP&
L
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0093
I
NMA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0096
I
TFI
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0094
I
SOCMA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0089
I
NEDA/
CAP
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0087
I
NEDA/
CAP
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0087
I
OglethorpePower
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0103
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0105
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0111
I
UARG
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0104
I
AGA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0107
I
API
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0113
II/
Simplify
Continuous
Release
Initial
Release
Notification
AF&
PA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0101
II/
Simplify
Continuous
Release
Initial
Release
Notification
MeadWestvaco
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0098
II/
Simplify
Continuous
Release
Initial
Release
Notification
KMS
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0090
II/
Simplify
Continuous
Release
Initial
Release
Notification
INVISTA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0109
II/
Simplify
Continuous
Release
Initial
Release
Notification
NEDA/
CAP
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0087
II/
Simplify
and
Clarify
Continuous
Release
Reporting
Requirements
CIBO
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0099
II/
Clarify
Continuous
Release
Reporting
Requirements
NUSCO
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0084
III/
Should
Not
be
Used
In­
Lieu
of
Proposed
Exemption
SOCMA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0089
III/
Should
Not
be
Used
In­
Lieu
of
Proposed
AEP
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0097
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0112
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
20
Exemption
III/
Should
Not
be
Used
In­
Lieu
of
Proposed
Exemption
AGA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0107
III/
Does
Not
Afford
Practical
Relief
API
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0113
IV/
Support
a
Number
Larger
than
1,000
Pounds
AEP
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0097
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0112
IV/
Support
a
Number
Larger
than
1,000
Pounds
PCA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0092
IV/
Support
a
Number
Larger
than
1,000
Pounds
AF&
PA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0101
IV/
Support
a
Number
Larger
than
1,000
Pounds
NLA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0108
IV/
Support
a
Number
Larger
than
1,000
Pounds
NCASI
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0083
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
Eastman
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0081
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
Dow
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0091
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
ACC
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0082
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
NPRA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0086
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
AISI
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0095
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
NMA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0096
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
Dominion
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0102
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0110
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
UARG
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0104
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
AGA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0107
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
21
IV/
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
API
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0113
IV/
Raise
or
Eliminate
the
1,000
Pound
Reporting
Threshold
for
all
Combustion­
Related
Releases
NUSCO
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0084
IV/
Raise
or
Eliminate
the
1,000
Pound
Reporting
Threshold
for
all
Combustion­
Related
Releases
CIBO
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0099
IV/
Raise
or
Eliminate
the
1,000
Pound
Reporting
Threshold
for
all
Combustion­
Related
Releases
OglethorpePower
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0103
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0105
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0111
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
API
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0113
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
ACC
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0082
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
NCASI
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0083
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
NPRA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0086
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
NEDA/
CAP
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0087
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
Eastman
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0081
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
Huntsman
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0088
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
SOCMA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0089
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
TFI
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0094
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
AISI
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0095
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
MeadWestvaco
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0098
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
CIBO
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0099
V/
Accidents
and
AF&
PA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0101
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
22
Malfunctions
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
UARG
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0104
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
OglethorpePower
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0103
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0105
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0111
V/
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
KMS
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0090
V/
Also
Include
in
Exemptions
 
Start­
ups,
Shut­
downs,
and
Up­
Sets
KMS
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0090
V/
Also
Include
in
Exemptions
 
Start­
ups,
Shut­
downs,
and
Up­
Sets
Dow
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0091
V/
Also
Include
in
Exemptions
 
Start­
ups,
Shut­
downs,
and
Up­
Sets
AEP
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0097
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0112
V/
Also
Include
in
Exemptions
 
Start­
ups,
Shut­
downs,
and
Up­
Sets
INVISTA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0109
V/
Clarify
that
Flares
are
Control
Devices
 
Not
Considered
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
Eastman
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0081
V/
Clarify
that
Flares
are
Control
Devices
 
Not
Considered
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
ACC
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0082
V/
Clarify
that
Flares
are
Control
Devices
 
Not
Considered
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
NPRA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0086
V/
Clarify
that
Flares
are
Control
Devices
 
Not
Considered
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
Dow
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0091
V/
Clarify
that
Flares
are
Control
Devices
 
Not
Considered
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
API
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0113
VI
TFI
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0094
VI
INVISTA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0109
VI
AISI
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0095
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
23
VII/
Legal
Authority
to
Include
NO
and
NO2
Resulting
from
Chemical
Reaction
NSSGA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0085
VII/
Legal
Emissions
of
NOx
are
"
Federally
Permitted"
AGA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0107
VII/
Proposed
Exemption
only
Applies
to
Emissions
not
Considered
Federally
Permitted
CIBO
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0099
VII/
Provide
a
Definition
of
"
Excess
Emissions"
for
Reporting
NOx
NEDA/
CAP
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0087
VII/
Provide
Guidance
on
Calculating
When
Releases
from
Minor
Sources
Exceed
a
Reporting
Threshold
KMS
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0090
VII/
Provide
Guidance
on
Calculating
When
Releases
from
Minor
Sources
Exceed
a
Reporting
Threshold
INVISTA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0109
VII/
Apply
Exemption
to
Both
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
Reporting
KMS
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0090
VII/
Clarify
that
NOx
represents
NO
and
NO2
Interchangeably
MeadWestvaco
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0098
VIII
AF&
PA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0101
IX
KMS
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0090
IX
NMA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0096
IX
Dominion
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0102
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0110
IX
INVISTA
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0109
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
24
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
25
I.
SUPPORT
FOR
PROPOSED
REPORTING
EXEMPTION
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
26
Commenter
Number:
0093.1
Response
Number:
1
Commenter
Name:
Gary
M.
Bramble,
P.
E.,
Environmental
Management,
Dayton
Power
and
Light
Company
(
DPL)

DPL
is
very
supportive
of
the
direction
of
EPA
proposal.
(
p.
2)

DPL
agrees
that
requiring
reports
of
NO
and
NO2
releases
that
are
a
result
of
combustion
and
are
below
1000
pounds
per
24
hours
serves
no
useful
purpose.
DPL
also
encourages,
for
reasons
stated
below,
that
EPA
extend
this
approach
to
a
blanket
exemption
for
all
releases
of
NO
and
NO2
from
permitted
combustion
sources.
The
science
of
NOx
emissions
is
very
well
understood.
(
p.
2)

EPA
and
state
environmental
agencies
have
understood
for
decades
that
all
combustion
sources
emit
moderate
levels
of
NOx
compounds
including
NO
and
NO2.
AP­
42
contains
well­
developed
emission
factors
for
all
combustion
sources.
EPCRA/
CERCLA
reporting
can
add
nothing
to
the
technical
understanding
that
the
combustion
of
fuel
results
in
some
NO
and
NO2
emissions.
The
monitoring
of
NOx
and
ozone
is
extensive.
(
p.
2)

The
U.
S.
has
a
broad
network
of
NOx
monitors.
Although
there
still
remain
some
ozone
non­
attainment
areas,
the
NAAQS
for
NOx
is
readily
attained
in
Ohio
and
throughout
most
or
all
of
the
U.
S.
EPCRA/
CERCLA
reporting
of
NO
and
NO2
provides
no
beneficial
purpose
relative
to
attaining
the
NAAQS
of
these
compounds.
(
p.
2)

The
regulatory
approach
to
NOx
control
and
reductions
at
the
state
and
Federal
level
is
extensive.
(
p.
2)

Ohio
EPA
and
most
other
states
have
issued
construction
permits
and
operating
permits
for
virtually
all
combustion
sources
greater
than
de
minimus
size.
Annual
Fee
Emission
reports
are
submitted
to
provide
state
agencies
with
data
on
all
NOx
emissions
exceeding
one
ton
per
year.
EDR
reports
are
sent
quarterly
to
the
EPA
from
utilities
providing
hour­
by­
hour
information
from
CEMS
relative
to
NOx
emissions
from
large
utility
combustions
sources.
Ohio
EPA
visits
many
of
these
combustion
sources
annually.
The
current
NOx
SIPs
address
these
pollutants.
The
CAIR
rule
will
further
reduce
these
emissions.
EPCRA/
CERCLA
reporting
of
NO
and
NO2
provides
no
beneficial
purpose
relative
to
understanding
the
quantity
or
level
of
these
emissions.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0096.1
Response
Number:
2
Commenter
Name:
Roderick
T.
Dwyer,
Deputy
General
Counsel,
National
Mining
Association
(
NMA)

A
Reporting
Exemption
Is
Necessary
and
Fully
Justified
(
p.
2)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
27
The
proposed
reporting
exemption
is
intended
to
apply
only
to
NOx
releases
for
which
reporting
would
serve
little
or
no
useful
purpose.
Looking
to
the
purposes
of
CERCLA
§
103
and
EPCRA
§
304,
it
is
quickly
apparent
from
the
statutory
language
and
the
overall
statutory
context
that
these
two
specific
reporting
requirements
are
intended
to
facilitate
governmental
response
to
releases
that
could
pose
threats
to
health
and
the
environment.
CERCLA
§
103
and
EPCRA
§
304
are
not
mere
data­
gathering
provisions;
rather,
they
require
notification
of
releases
so
that
federal,
state,
or
local
authorities
may
evaluate
and
determine
appropriate
responses
to
the
releases.
(
p.
2)

Yet,
where
NOx
emissions
are
routine,
anticipated
and
relatively
low
in
amounts
no
government
response
is
necessary
or
possible.
Indeed,
the
rulemaking
record
amply
demonstrates
that
EPA
regions
have
not
responded
to
these
kinds
of
releases.
In
fact,
there
is
no
indication
in
the
record
that
the
EPA
regions
are
aware
of
a
single
government
response
to
non­
accidental
NOx
releases.
(
p.
2)

As
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
points
out,
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
has
established
a
number
of
control
mechanisms
for
NOx
releases.
NOx
triggers
these
CAA
controls
at
levels
far
greater
than
any
to
which
the
proposed
rule
might
accord
a
reporting
exemption.
The
preamble
declares
that
under
the
current
CERCLA
§
103
and
EPCRA
§
304
NOx
reporting
requirements:
(
p.
2)

The
likelihood
of
a
Federal
response
to
the
release
of
NOx
below
this
level
[
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period]
is
highly
unlikely
and...
these
releases
are
sources
for
which
reporting
may
serve
no
useful
purpose
under
either
CERCLA
or
EPCRA...
Thus,
such
submissions
[
reports]
particularly
those
at
levels
below
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours,
have
not
furthered
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
70
FR
57818
(
emphasis
added)
(
p.
2)

NMA
suggests
that,
far
from
furthering
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
the
requirement
to
report
such
NOx
releases
actually
increases
the
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Federal,
state
or
local
authorities
must
spend
limited
resources
of
time,
money
and
manpower
evaluating
low­
level
releases
for
which
a
governmental
response
is
unnecessary
if
not
impossible.
The
resources
spent
in
making
such
evaluations
would
be
much
better
spent
were
they
to
be
focused
on
NOx
releases
in
much
higher
amounts
resulting
from
accidents
or
malfunctions.
(
p.
2)

The
preamble
offers
examples
of
the
types
of
NOx
releases
that
would
be
exempted
under
the
proposed
rule.
These
examples
include
 
but
are
not
limited
to
 
various
gas
and
coal
boilers,
internal
combustion
engines
as
small
as
18
horsepower,
and
even
bakery
ovens.
All
of
these
pieces
of
equipment
can,
under
normal,
routine
and
anticipated
modes
of
operation,
trigger
current
NOx
reporting
requirements.
On
its
face
it
is
absurd
to
continue
requiring
such
reporting
and
the
agency
is
acting
reasonably
to
move
to
strike
such
requirements.
(
p.
3)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
28
The
proposed
rule's
preamble
and
regulatory
language
make
it
clear
that
the
proposed
rule
applies
to
NOx
releases
from
all
forms
of
combustion,
not
merely
the
specific
examples
cited
in
the
preamble.
The
proposed
regulatory
language
places
no
restrictions
on
the
types
of
combustion
included
in
the
proposed
exemption.
NMA
strongly
supports
the
inclusion
of
all
forms
of
combustion
within
the
proposed
exemption.
(
p.
3)

NMA
suggests,
however,
that
the
final
preamble
language
be
even
more
explicit
in
its
application
of
the
exemption
to
all
forms
of
combustion.
This
could
be
accomplished
by
the
addition
of
one
other
example
in
the
preamble:
NOx
releases
from
anticipated,
routine
blasting
of
the
type
that
occurs
at
mines.
Such
blasting
is
an
essential
part
of
a
mine's
normal
operating
practices.
It
must
be
done
to
allow
access
to
and
recovery
of
the
desired
mineral(
s).
Just
as
a
mine's
operating
permit(
s)
is
unlikely
to
include
NOx
releases
from
internal
combustion
engines,
it
also
is
very
unlikely
that
such
a
state
or
federal
permit
would
include
NOx
releases
from
routine
blasting
practices
at
the
mine
site.
NOx
releases
due
to
blasting
at
mine
sites
are
not
the
kinds
of
releases
that
warrant
government
response
actions.
A
review
of
the
rulemaking
record
failed
to
reveal
a
single
government
response
action
due
to
NOx
releases
due
to
routine,
anticipated
blasting
at
mine
sites.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0094.1
Response
Number:
3
Commenter
Name:
William
C.
Herz,
Director
Scientific
Programs,
The
Fertilizer
Institute
(
TFI)

TFI
Supports
an
Administrative
Reporting
Exemption
for
Air
Releases
of
NOx
of
Less
than
1,000
Pounds.
(
p.
2)

In
the
proposed
NOx
reporting
exemption,
EPA
concludes
that
reporting
NOx
releases
to
air
that
result
in
releases
of
less
than
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
serves
no
useful
purpose
because
a
federal
response
to
the
release
of
NOx
below
this
level
is
"
highly
unlikely."
70
Fed.
Reg.
at
57,818.
TFI
supports
this
conclusion
and
agrees
with
EPA
than
an
adequately
crafted
administrative
exemption
for
the
reporting
of
certain
low­
level
NOx
releases
will
enable
the
government
to
focus
its
resources
on
more
serious
releases.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0089.1
Response
Number:
4
Commenter
Name:
Eric
Clark,
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA)

SOCMA
Supports
EPA's
Proposed
Exemption
of
1,000
lbs/
24
Hours.
(
p.
1)

SOCMA
is
pleased
to
see
that
EPA
is
moving
to
address
this
gap
in
its
current
federally
permitted
release
policy.
SOCMA
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
enact
an
administrative
exemption
which
would
raise
the
reportable
quantity
of
NOx
from
10
lbs
per
24
hours
up
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
29
to
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
during
instances
of
startup
and
shutdown.
EPA
very
astutely
points
out
that
the
current
reportable
quantity
of
10
pounds
per
24
hours
results
in
an
increasing
number
of
reports
to
the
Emergency
Release
Notification
System
that
EPA
does
not
consider
actionable.
If
routine
releases
of
NOx
below
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
are
not
deemed
to
require
Federal
action,
then
there
is
little
need
to
require
the
antecedent
report.
As
we
stated
in
previous
comments,
reducing
regulatory
burden,
where
it
can
be
accomplished
without
causing
additional
harm
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
is
essential
to
SOCMA
members.
In
this
particular
case,
where
reports
below
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
do
not
generate
a
federal
response,
then
the
need
for
reporting
the
release
under
the
current
requirements
is
unnecessary
and
burdensome.
(
p.
1­
2)

Commenter
Number:
0087.1
Response
Number:
5
Commenter
Name:
Leslie
S.
Ritts,
Counsel
to
NEDA/
CAP,
The
National
Environmental
Development
Association's
Clean
Air
Project
(
NEDA/
CAP)

Legal
Basis
for
Administrative
Exemption
(
p.
2)

NEDA/
CAP
believes
that
EPA
can
use
its
authority
under
CERCLA
§
103
to
exempt
NOx
emissions
from
combustion
units
from
CERCLA
notification
and
reporting.
In
particular,
it
is
valuable
to
note
that
in
its
1990
Continuous
Release
rule,
the
agency
explained
that
releases,
even
if
they
are
intermittent,
may
qualify
for
less
frequent
reporting
requirements
if
they
are
"
continuous"
and
"
stable
in
quantity
and
rate."
EPA
defined
"
continuous"
as
a
release
that
occurs
without
interruption
or
one
that
is
routine,
anticipated,
intermittent
and
incidental
to
normal
operations
or
treatment
processes."
55
Fed.
Reg.
30166
(
July
24,
1990).
Examples
included
in
that
notice
were
batch
processes,
loading
and
unloading,
and
decompression
of
pressure
vessels.
Thus,
residential
or
institutional
boilers,
or
even
industrial
emergency
generators
or
small
engines
and
space
heaters,
which
may
be
operated
periodically
or
seasonally,
would
be
authorized
continuous
releases
because
their
emissions
are
stable
and
expected
from
the
combustion
source.
The
Agency
also
stated
that
emissions
could
be
considered
"
stable
in
quantity
and
rate"
so
long
as
the
emissions
were
predictable
in
the
sense
that
the
rate
and
amount
of
pollutants
vary
in
the
same
manner
each
time
the
process
is
operated.
Id.
In
1997
Agency
guidance,
EPA
directed
"
You
may
establish
the
pattern
of
the
release
by
relying
on
past
release
data,
engineering
estimates,
your
knowledge
of
the
facility's
operations
and
release
history,
or
your
best
professional
judgment."
OSWER,
Reporting
Requirements
for
Continuous
Releases
of
Hazardous
Substances:
A
Guide
for
Facilities
on
Compliance,
5
(
EPA
540­
R­
97­
047,
Dec.
1997).
Thus,
to
the
extent
NOx
emissions
are
known
to
occur
from
combustion
sources
during
upset,
they
also
can
be
treated
as
"
predictable
and
stable
in
quantity
and
rate,"
consistent
with
prior
Agency
interpretation.
(
p.
2­
4)

Commenter
Number:
0087.1
Response
Number:
6
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
30
Commenter
Name:
Leslie
S.
Ritts,
Counsel
to
NEDA/
CAP,
The
National
Environmental
Development
Association's
Clean
Air
Project
(
NEDA/
CAP)

1,000
Pound
NOx
Reportable
Quantity
Threshold
(
p.
5)

EPA
has
proposed
an
exemption
for
NOx
emissions
of
up
to
1,000
pounds
per
24­
hours
based
on
the
Agency's
finding
that
such
a
volume
of
NOx
is
neither
a
threat
to
public
health
nor
the
environment
that
warrants
a
response
action.
We
support
these
conclusions.
It
is
a
principle
of
administrative
law
that
an
agency
need
not
identify
a
specific
basis
for
a
number
so
long
as
the
use
of
its
discretion
in
identifying
such
a
threshold
quantity
is
based
on
reasonable
considerations
under
the
statute.
Thus,
while
it
may
be
permissible
for
EPA
to
choose
another
NOx
continuous
release
threshold
under
CERCLA,
its
choice
of
1,000
pounds
of
NOx
is
not
arbitrary
or
capricious
if
it
is
in
the
"
zone
of
reasonableness."
The
courts
have
ruled
with
regard
to
similar
thresholds,
"
We
do
not
demand
certainty
where
there
is
none.
There
may
be
no
strong
reason
for
choosing
[
numerical
standard]
rather
than
a
somewhat
higher
or
lower
number.
If
so,
we
will
uphold
the
Agency's
choice
of
a
numerical
standard
if
it
is
within
a
zone
of
reasonableness."
Small
Refiners
Lead
Phase
Down
Task
Force
v.
EPA
705
F.
2d
506,
at
525
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1983).
(
p.
5)

In
this
notice,
EPA
has
arrayed
valuable
information
about
the
type
and
quantity
of
air
emissions
from
sources
that
should
be
exempt
from
CERCLA
reporting
and
made
a
finding
that
the
justification
for
notifying
and
reporting
National,
State
and
Local
Response
Centers
is
outweighed
by
the
administrative
burden
to
these
authorities
as
well
as
public
and
private
institutions
to
notify
and
file
reports
and
likelihood
that
such
releases
would
ever
require
any
CERCLA
response.
70
Fed.
Reg.
57815­
16.
This
finding
meets
the
standard
for
reasonableness
in
applying
the
law's
notification
and
reporting
requirements.
Again,
it
seems
important
to
emphasize
in
this
regard
that
the
Agency
is
not
proposing
that
such
emissions
are
"
federally
permitted
releases."
Rather,
the
Agency
has
set
forth
a
reasonable
basis
for
exempting
such
emissions
from
CERCLA
notification
and
reporting,
because
the
Agency
has
determined
based
on
two­
and­
a­
half
decades
of
experience
that
such
emissions
rarely,
if
ever,
warrant
local,
state
or
federal
response
actions.
Also,
in
most
instances,
these
emissions
would
still
be
reported
by
sources
and/
or
states
under
Clean
Air
Act
permit
fee
and
state
inventory
reporting,
as
well
as
local,
state
and
federal
notification
reporting
requirements
exist
in
the
event
that
startups,
shutdowns
or
malfunctions
exceed
applicable
local,
state,
and/
or
federal
limits.
(
p.
5­
6)

Commenter
Number:
0103.1,
0105,
0105.1,
0111
Response
Number:
7
Commenter
Name:
Douglas
J.
Fulle,
Director,
Environmental
&
Regulatory
Affairs,
Oglethorpe
Power
Corporation
(
OglethorpePower)

A
10­
Pound
Reporting
Threshold
For
NOx
Is
Unnecessary,
Given
the
Stringent
Regulation
of
NOx
Emissions
From
Power
Plants.
(
p.
4)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
31
NOx
emissions
from
power
plants
are
highly
regulated.
Stringent
NOx
controls
are
increasingly
being
required
of
utility
combustion
sources,
along
with
exacting
monitoring
requirements.
As
EPA
notes,
the
10­
pound
RQ
for
NOx
is
easily
met
by
power
plants
of
any
reasonable
size
in
a
much
briefer
span
than
24
hours.
Stringent
emissions
limits
in
permits
can
be
exceeded
very
quickly.
This
is
especially
true
where
such
facilities
are
subject
to
very
tight
short­
term
limits
for
NOx
and
are
monitoring
NOx
emissions
on
a
continuous
basis,
using,
for
example,
a
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
("
CEMS")
that
meets
the
requirements
of
40
C.
F.
R.
Part
75.
For
example,
consider
a
combined
cycle
combustion
turbine
power
plant
that
has
a
3.0
ppm
limit
for
NOx
with
a
3­
hour
averaging
time.
A
Part
75
CEMS
monitors
NOx
emissions
continuously.
If
a
malfunction
occurs
in
the
selective
catalytic
reduction
system
("
SCR"),
restricting
the
injection
of
ammonia,
for
example,
a
10­
pound
RQ
for
NOx
above
the
short­
term
limit
can
be
exceeded
in
a
very
short
amount
of
time,
given
the
short
averaging
time
for
NOx
hourly
values
and
the
resulting
spike
in
NOx
emissions
occurring
due
to
the
failure
of
the
SCR.
Based
on
the
Corporation's
experience,
such
releases
have
never
approached
the
1,000­
pound
threshold,
yet
they
are
reported
under
the
current
regulatory
scheme,
because
they
exceed
the
10
pound
reporting
ceiling.
Federal
and
state
authorities
are
disinterested
when
such
releases
are
reported,
which
is
no
surprise
given
the
fact
that
response
actions
are
deemed
unnecessary.
Such
reports
serve
no
legitimate
purpose.
(
p.
4­
5)

The
reporting
of
such
releases
wastes
the
valuable
resources
of
utilities
and
regulatory
response
personnel,
with
no
corresponding
benefit
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
In
fact,
there
may
even
be
a
disbenefit.
For
example,
the
notification
to
some
LEPCs
requires
that
a
call
be
placed
to
a
911
operator.
While
this
line
(
and
operator)
is
tied
up,
another
call
regarding
a
legitimate
emergency
may
go
unanswered,
potentially
resulting
in
a
very
real
adverse
effect
on
human
health.
An
exemption
level
of
1,000
pounds
for
all
releases
of
NOx,
including
those
resulting
from
an
accident
or
malfunction,
would
avoid
wasting
such
scarce
resources,
instead
allowing
all
to
focus
on
those
releases
of
legitimate
concern.
(
p.
5)

In
addition
to
the
Clean
Air
Act
programs
that
currently
control
NOx
emissions
listed
in
the
proposal,
we
also
note
that
the
recently­
promulgated
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
("
CAIR")
will
result
in
even
more
control
and
tighter
monitoring
of
NOx
emissions
from
power
plants
in
the
very
near
future.
Although
Georgia
has
not
yet
finalized
its
CAIR
SIP,
there
is
no
doubt
that
the
Corporation's
power
plants
will
be
subject
to
stringent
caps
on
NOx
emissions,
so
as
to
aid
certain
areas
in
downwind
states
in
attaining
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
PM2.5.
(
p.
5)

Given
this,
the
need
for
a
10­
pound
RQ
for
NOx
on
combustion
sources
appears
unnecessary
to
further
any
of
the
statutory
goals
of
CERCLA
or
EPCRA.
The
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
is
not
enhanced.
Response
actions
are
not
taken,
because
they
are
unnecessary.
A
plethora
of
reports
for
such
small
releases
leaves
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
32
regulatory
officials
unable
to
focus
on
releases
of
importance.
Regulatory
and
private
sector
resources
are
wasted
with
no
consequent
benefits
to
the
environment
or
society.
(
p.
5)

Commenter
Number:
0104.1
Response
Number:
8
Commenter
Name:
Lee
B.
Zeugin,
Normal
W.
Fichthorn,
David
G.
Scott
II,
Junton
&
Williams,
LLP,
Counsel
for
the
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)

For
Electric
Generating
Combustion
Sources,
the
10­
Pound
RQ
Is
Unnecessarily
Low
and
Diverts
Limited
Response
Resources
from
Significant
Risks.
(
p.
5)

The
10­
pound
RQ
is
unrealistically
low
for
large
combustion
sources
such
as
power
plants.
EPA's
CAA
regulations,
which
were
developed
to
protect
public
health,
allow
much
higher
quantities
of
NOx
emissions
from
these
sources.
In
fact,
the
largest
utility
units
in
the
United
States,
many
with
stringent
NOx
emission
controls
in
place
to
meet
demanding
CAA
control
regulations,
are
likely
to
emit
hundreds
of
tons
or
more
of
NOx
per
year.
Since
many
of
these
NOx
controls
are
designed
to
meet
regulatory
requirements
that
protect
human
health,
the
current
10
pound
reporting
threshold
represents
but
a
very
small
fraction
of
the
levels
deemed
necessary
to
protect
human
health
from
these
sources'
emissions.
(
p.
5­
6)

Indeed,
the
current
requirement
to
submit
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
reports
for
very
small
NOx
releases
is
contrary
to
the
goal
of
protecting
the
public
health
because
it
diverts
limited
response
and
other
governmental
resources
from
efforts
to
identify
and
respond
to
chemical
releases
that
may
actually
pose
risks
to
public
health.
(
p.
6)
The
Proposed
Reporting
Exemption
Will
Decrease
Unnecessary
Reporting.
(
p.
6)

The
10­
pound
RQ
can
easily
be
exceeded
by
the
normal
operation
of
a
typical
utility
unit
in
any
24­
hour
period.
The
proposed
rule
includes
a
number
of
examples
where
normal
operation
will
result
in
emissions
well
above
the
RQ.
UARG
believes
that
many
coal­
fired
electric
generating
units,
and
some
gas­
fired
electric
generating
units,
are
likely
to
exceed
the
NOx
RQ.
(
p.
6)

Despite
the
fact
that
normal
operation
of
a
power
plant
may
result
in
emissions
that
exceed
the
NOx
RQ,
EPA
states
in
the
proposed
rule
that
no
response
action
has
historically
been
taken
for
reports
below
1,000
pounds
in
24
hours
unless
a
given
release
is
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction.
Thus,
this
proposed
rule
would
simply
codify
existing
policy.
(
p.
6)

EPA
also
notes
that,
even
though
no
action
is
currently
taken
in
response
to
release
notifications
below
1,000
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period,
EPA
estimates
that
the
private
sector
and
the
federal
government
spent
"
3.7
man
months"
to
prepare
and
process
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
33
these
notifications
between
1994
and
2004.
This
is
wasted
time
that
could
be
used
more
productively.
(
p.
7)

If
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
is
implemented,
the
Agency
estimates
an
annual
overall
reporting
cost
reduction
for
industry
of
$
377,155
with
a
corresponding
reduction
in
the
hour
burden
of
6,318
hours.
Further,
the
Agency
estimates
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
respondents
by
1,465.
For
the
reasons
explained
above,
implementation
of
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
will
achieve
these
reporting­
related
cost
savings
with
no
risk
to
public
health.
(
p.
7)

The
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.,
and
its
implementing
regulations
require
federal
agencies
to
review
their
own
programs
to
ensure
that
the
information
they
collect
is
necessary
and
useful.
Under
the
statute,
EPA
must
certify
that
any
collection
of
information
is
necessary
for
the
proper
performance
of
the
functions
of
the
agency,
including
that
the
information
has
practical
utility.
Given
that
the
reports
filed
for
NOx
releases
from
combustion
sources
of
less
than
1,000
pounds
are
essentially
ignored
and
plainly
do
not
require
any
response
action,
it
is
apparent
that
the
current
reporting
requirement
for
these
sources
is
not
necessary
for
the
proper
functioning
of
the
programs
and
does
not
provide
any
information
that
has
practical
utility.
UARG
is
submitting
these
comments
to
OMB
as
well
as
to
EPA
because
the
existing
reporting
requirement
is
inconsistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
Adopting
the
proposed
reporting
exemption
will
decrease
unnecessary
reporting.
(
p.
7­
8)

Commenter
Number:
0107,
0107.1
Response
Number:
9
Commenter
Name:
Pamela
A.
Lacey,
Senior
Managing
Counsel,
American
Gas
Association
(
AGA)

AGA
Supports
the
Proposed
Administrative
Exemption
for
Combustion
(
p.
2)

Although
we
think
these
sources
logically
should
be
covered
by
the
exemption
for
federally
permitted
sources,
we
applaud
EPA's
alternative
proposal
to
exempt
combustion
sources
of
less
than
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
from
the
reporting
requirements.
This
would
effectively
prevent
unnecessary
reporting
for
small
sources
such
as
natural
gas
fired
residential
furnaces,
commercial
bakery
ovens,
and
many
boilers,
engines
and
turbines.
Otherwise,
due
to
the
absurdly
low
reportable
quantity
(
RQ)
threshold
of
10
pounds,
millions
of
these
small
sources
could
otherwise
be
required
to
report
 
and
overwhelm
the
emergency
response
system.
(
p.
2­
3)

It
serves
no
useful
purpose
to
report
NOx
emissions
below
1,000
pounds
from
combustion
sources.
In
the
Federal
Register
notice,
EPA
indicates
that
it
received
over
13,000
NOx
release
notifications
from
1994
through
2004,
most
measuring
between
10
and
1,000
pounds,
and
EPA
is
not
aware
that
any
of
these
notifications
prompted
a
response
action,
unless
the
release
was
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction.
Thus,
over
a
decade
of
experience
demonstrates
that
it
serves
no
useful
purpose
to
report
NOx
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
34
releases
from
combustion
processes
that
are
below
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
and
that
do
not
result
from
accidents
or
malfunctions.
Combustion
is
already
highly
regulated,
and
other
programs
generally
already
have
made
determinations
of
impact
from
NOx
releases.
Emergency
reporting
is
simply
the
wrong
place
to
capture
information
about
releases
from
otherwise
permitted
combustion
sources
that
are
operating
under
normal
conditions.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0113.1
Response
Number:
10
Commenter
Name:
Howard
J.
Feldman,
Director,
Regulatory
Analysis
and
Scientific
Affairs,
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)

API
Supports
an
Administrative
Reporting
Exemption
for
NOx
Releases
(
p.
5)

API
strongly
supports
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
from
notification
requirements
under
section
304
of
EPCRA
and
section
103
of
CERLCA
for
combustion
releases
of
NOx.
As
EPA
stated
in
its
most
recent
Regulatory
Plan,
exempting
combustion
NOx
releases
to
air
from
reporting
requirements
"
would
eliminate
reports
from
facilities
emitting
NOx
where
the
Agency
has
determined
that
the
release
poses
little
or
no
risk
or
to
which
a
Federal
response
is
infeasible
or
inappropriate.
Requiring
reports
of
such
releases
would
serve
little
or
no
useful
purpose
and
would,
instead,
impose
a
significant
burden
on
the
Federal
response
system
and
on
the
persons
responsible
for
notifying
the
Federal
government
of
the
release."
The
reporting
requirements
of
CERCLA
section
103
and
EPRCA
section
304
have
a
single
purpose,
i.
e.,
to
enable
emergency
response
authorities
to
determine
if
a
response
action
is
necessary.
Other
separate
provisions
of
EPCRA
are
aimed
at
facilitating
response
planning
and
community
right­
to­
know.
Thus,
EPA
was
correct
when
it
said,
in
connection
with
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
certain
radionuclide
releases,
that:
(
p.
5­
6)

With
respect
to
the
availability
of
public
information
regarding
the
sources
and
doses
of
radiation
exposure
in
local
communities,
the
purpose
of
the
CERCLA
section
103
and
EPCRA
section
304
reporting
requirements
is
to
notify
government
personnel
of
releases
of
hazardous
substances
so
that
a
timely
decision
can
be
made
regarding
the
need
for
a
response
action
to
protect
public
health
or
welfare
or
the
environment.
These
reporting
programs
are
not
intended
to
serve
as
a
source
of
public
information
on
radiation
sources
and
exposures.
The
community
right­
to­
know
reporting
requirements,
toxic
release
inventory
requirements,
and
related
provisions
under
EPCRA
sections
311,
312,
and
313
remain
in
effect.
Therefore,
the
reporting
exemptions
will
not
significantly
impact
a
community's
ability
and
right
to
know
about
hazardous
substances.
(
p.
6)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
35
CERCLA
sections
102(
a),
103,
and
115
together
provide
EPA
with
authority
to
promulgate
administrative
reporting
exemptions.
Moreover,
the
legislative
history
of
CERCLA
reveals
that
Congress
anticipated
that
EPA
would
promulgate
appropriate
exemptions
where
necessary
to
avoid
unreasonable
burdens
on
the
response
system.
During
Senate
debate
on
S.
1480
(
CERCLA's
predecessor
bill),
the
Chairman
of
the
Environment
and
Public
Works
Committee
noted
that
EPA
would
have
to
develop
rules
to
implement
section
103,
and
EPA
could
exempt
certain
"
classes
of
persons,
substances,
or
vessels
and
facilities"
in
order
to
avoid
creating
"
an
undue
administrative
burden
on
the
[
NRC].
Similarly,
the
Senate
report
on
5.
1480
said
that
EPA
could
revise
reportable
quantities
(
RQs)
if
over­
reporting
or
under­
reporting
is
occurring
and
that
"
Administrative
feasibility
and
practicality
should
be
primary
factors"
in
setting
RQs.
(
p.
6)

Through
a
reporting
exemption
for
NOx
releases
to
air
from
combustion,
the
response
system
will
be
able
to
more
efficiently
implement
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
and
more
effectively
focus
on
reports
of
releases
that
are
more
likely
to
pose
a
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment
or
potentially
require
government
response.
(
p.
6­
7)

There
is
a
strong
rationale
for
exempting
NOx
releases
from
combustion
sources,
based
on
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
and
no
need
for
government
response
(
p.
7)

An
administrative
reporting
exemption,
if
properly
crafted,
would
provide
significant
burden
reduction
to
industry
and
government.
However,
more
importantly,
the
exemption
has
a
risk­
based
justification.
Given
the
specific
nature
of
NOx
releases
from
combustion,
one
would
not
reasonably
anticipate
that
any
response
to
such
releases
would
be
necessary.
And,
in
fact,
ample
experience
with
these
release
reports
has
proven
that
NOx
combustion
releases
pose
little
or
no
risk
and
have
not
required
government
response.
Experience
also
shows
that
reporting
NOx
releases
from
combustion
unnecessarily
burdens
the
release
notification
system.
An
administrative
exemption
will
remove
this
burden
from
the
system
and
thus,
result
in
more
effective
protection
of
public
health
and
the
environment,
in
part
by
focusing
response
activities
on
those
events
more
likely
to
require
a
possible
response.
(
p.
7)

As
discussed
above,
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
reporting
requirements
are
intended
to
facilitate
federal,
state,
and
local
emergency
responses.
The
main
concern
with
the
current
requirement
for
reporting
NOx
based
on
a
10­
pound
RQ
is
that
emergency
responders
are
overwhelmed
with
reports
of
combustion
NOx
releases,
yet
these
releases
do
not
require
any
emergency
response.
NOx
is
a
natural
by­
product
of
combustion
activities
and
is
thus
very
common,
not
only
in
industry,
but
also
in
many
familiar
residential
activities
such
as
driving
a
riding
lawn
mower
or
running
an
outboard
motor.
Most
industrial
combustion
emissions
have
significantly
lower
NOx
concentrations
than
these
residential
sources.
In
the
industrial
setting,
the
current
10­
pound
RQ
for
NOx
results
in
an
unreasonably
large
number
of
notifications
which
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
36
require
no
response,
placing
a
significant
unnecessary
burden
on
the
CERCLA/
EPCRA
notification
systems.
(
p.
7­
8)

According
to
EPA's
data
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
since
1994,
there
have
been
approximately
15,000
release
notifications
for
NOx
releases
to
air.
Yet
there
has
not
been
any
situation
in
which
a
release
of
NOx
from
combustion
devices
(
i.
e.
flares,
incinerators,
internal
combustion
engines,
turbines,
heaters,
thermal
oxidizers,
and
boilers)
necessitated
an
emergency
response.
Note
that
all
15,000
reports
were
evaluated
by
the
designated
response
personnel
who
determined
that
responses
to
combustion
device
releases
were
not
necessary.
Based
on
an
analysis
performed
by
the
U.
S.
Centers
for
Disease
Control
(
CDC),
the
only
emergency
responses
to
NOx
releases
from
all
of
CDC's
1993­
2002
data
for
incidents
that
involved
NOx
were
for
non­
combustion
device
releases 
either
liquid
or
chemical
or
because
of
explosion
or
fire.
To
illustrate,
below
are
three
examples
of
such
releases
extracted
from
the
CDC
analysis.
(
p.
8)

°
Washington
(
1996):
While
piping
nitric­
hydrofluonc
acid
from
a
3000­
gallon
holding
tank
inside
a
facility
to
a
smaller
portable
waste­
treatment
tank
outside,
a
gas
cloud
of
NOx
increased
pressure
in
the
portable
tank
until
a
safety
value
tripped.
An
estimate
of
750
pounds
of
NOx
gas
was
released
into
the
air.
An
emergency
response
was
necessary,
but
the
nature
of
the
NOx
release
was
non­
combustion.
(
p.
8­
9)

°
Harris
County,
Texas
(
2000):
A
butadiene
tank
was
off
line
and
believed
to
be
empty.
However,
residual
butadiene
and
popcorn
polymer
were
present
in
sufficient
quantities
to
react.
The
reaction
provided
enough
heat
to
overpressure
the
vessel
resulting
in
vessel
failure.
An
explosion
and
fire
followed
which
took
approximately
3
hours
to
extinguish.
NOx
was
released
incidental
to
the
explosion
and
fire.
An
emergency
response
was
necessary
not
to
address
potential
health
effects
of
exposure
to
NOx
emissions
from
any
combustion
device,
but
to
address
the
effects
of
the
explosion
and
fire.
(
p.
9)

°
Three
Rivers,
Texas
(
2001):
An
explosion
at
a
refinery
necessitated
an
emergency
response.
The
explosion
was
secondary
to
a
fire
that
originated
in
the
plant's
alkylation
unit.
Again,
the
emergency
response
was
necessary
not
to
address
potential
health
effects
of
exposure
to
NOx
emissions
from
a
combustion
device,
but
to
address
the
effects
of
the
uncontrolled
explosion
and
fire.
(
p.
9)

The
remaining
instances
of
incidents
involving
NOx
releases
in
the
CDC
analysis
are
similar
to
those
above.
All
instances
which
required
an
emergency
response
were
due
to
either
liquid
or
chemical
NOx
releases
or
because
of
explosion
and
fire.
In
other
words,
no
instances
of
a
release
of
NOx
from
combustion
devices
necessitated
an
emergency
response.
No
statutory
purpose
is
served
in
requiring
reporting
for
such
releases.
Therefore,
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
is
appropriate
for
all
types
of
NOx
releases
from
combustion
devices.
(
p.
9)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
37
A
properly
crafted
exemption
would
reduce
unnecessary
burden
for
both
government
and
the
regulated
community
(
p.
10)

Exempting
reporting
of
combustion
NOx
releases
to
air
has
the
potential
to
reduce
needless
reports
to
the
National
Response
Center
(
NRC)
and
state
and
local
responders,
and
thus
decrease
demands
on
emergency
response
resources.
The
exemption
would
also
reduce
burden
on
the
regulated
community,
with
no
reduction
in
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Thus,
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
has
the
potential
to
be
an
example
of
the
best
form
of
burden
reduction 
it
would
reduce
the
load
on
already
strained
government
and
business
resources,
with
no
sacrifice
in
health
and
environmental
protection.
The
system
set
in
place
by
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
will
be
improved
by
the
removal
of
thousands
of
unnecessary
release
reports.
(
p.
10)

API
developed
and
submitted
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
separate
comments
on
EPA's
estimates
of
burden
reduction
for
the
proposed
rule,
which
the
Agency
presented
in
the
form
of
adjusted
Information
Collection
Requests.
We
incorporate
these
earlier
comments
by
reference.
In
summary,
we
believe
that
EPA
has
seriously
overestimated
the
number
of
reports
that
will
be
avoided
by
its
exemption
as
proposed,
because
the
Agency
has
erroneously
assumed
that
none
of
the
current
reports
are
(
or
might
be
interpreted
to
be)
the
result
of
accidents
or
malfunctions.
However,
if
the
Agency
fixes
the
main
problem
with
the
current
proposal
(
exclusion
of
accidents
and
malfunctions),
then
we
think
that
the
burden
reduction
and
benefits
will
be
greater
than
EPA
estimates.
This
is
explained
further
in
our
comments
on
the
ICRs
and
later
in
these
comments.
Finally,
as
discussed
in
section
V
below,
burden
reduction
will
be
appropriately
maximized,
without
any
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment,
by
using
an
exemption
threshold
of
5,000
pounds.
(
p.
10­
11)

The
justifications
for
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
all
types
of
NOx
releases
from
combustion
are
clear.
However,
in
order
for
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
actually
meet
EPA's
stated
purposes,
it
must
be
crafted
so
as
to
correctly
target
the
universe
of
release
reports
that
are
not
needed.
As
discussed
in
the
sections
below,
the
current
proposal
requires
changes
in
several
areas
to
properly
target
the
NOx
combustion
release
reporting
that
is
unnecessary
and
should
be
eliminated
under
the
exemption.
(
p.
11)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
support
of
the
administrative
reporting
exemptions
proposed
October
4,
2005.

In
particular,
the
Agency
specifically
acknowledges:

(
1)
DPL's
recognition
of
the
extensive
Federal
and
state
level
regulatory
approach
to
NOx
control
and
reductions;
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
38
(
2)
NAM's
support
of
the
inclusion
of
all
forms
of
combustion
not
merely
the
specific
examples
cited
in
the
preamble;
(
3)
NEDA/
CAP's
recognition
of,
"
two­
and­
a­
half
decades
of
experience
that
such
emissions
rarely,
if
ever,
warrant
local,
state
or
federal
response
actions;"
(
4)
UARG's
recognition
that
even
though
no
action
is
currently
taken
in
response
to
release
notifications
below
1,000
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period,
EPA
estimates
that
the
private
sector
and
the
federal
government
spent
"
3.7
man
months"
to
prepare
and
process
these
notifications
between
1994
and
2004;
(
5)
AGA's
statement
that,
"
emergency
reporting
is
simply
the
wrong
place
to
capture
information
about
releases
from
otherwise
permitted
combustion
sources
that
are
operating
under
normal
conditions;"
and
finally,
(
6)
API's
belief
that,
"
EPA
has
seriously
overestimated
the
number
of
reports
that
will
be
avoided
by
its
exemption
as
proposed,
because
the
Agency
has
erroneously
assumed
that
none
of
the
current
reports
are
(
or
might
be
interpreted
to
be)
the
result
of
accidents
or
malfunctions.
However,
if
the
Agency
fixes
the
main
problem
with
the
current
proposal
(
exclusion
of
accidents
and
malfunctions),
then
we
think
that
the
burden
reduction
and
benefits
will
be
greater
than
EPA
estimates."

With
respect
to
the
DPL's
request
that
EPA
extend
the
Administrative
Reporting
Exemption
to
all
releases
of
NO
and
NO2,
to
the
extent
that
those
releases
meet
the
definition
of
a
Federally
Permitted
Release
under
CERCLA
§
101(
10),
the
person
in
charge
of
the
facility
is
not
required
to
report
the
release.

EPA
understands
the
concern
of
the
API
with
respect
to
the
assumption
that
none
of
the
current
reports
are
the
result
of
accidents
or
malfunctions
and
will
take
a
closer
look
at
its
assumptions
during
the
revised
burden
analysis.
Response
to
and
discussion
of
the
comments
related
to
the
exclusion
for
accidents
and
malfunctions
is
found
in
V.
Request
for
Broader
Exemptions
to
Include
Accidents
and
Malfunctions,
of
this
Response
to
Comment
document.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
39
II.
SUPPORT
FOR
ALTERNATIVE
 
EXPANDING
CONTINUOUS
RELEASE
REPORTING
IN
ADDITION
TO
PROPOSED
EXEMPTION
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
40
A.
Simplify
Continuous
Release
Initial
Release
Notification
Commenter
Number:
0101.1
Response
Number:
1
Commenter
Name:
Timothy
G.
Hunt,
Senior
Director,
Air
Quality
Programs,
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA)

EPA
requested
comments
on
other
means
of
addressing
unpermitted
releases
of
NOx
to
air,
including
more
efficient
use
of
continuous
release
reporting.
AF&
PA
would
support
this
approach
as
an
additional
option
to
the
one
proposed,
but
not
as
a
replacement
for
it.
For
the
continuous
release
option
to
be
useful,
however,
EPA
must
broaden
its
concepts
of
"
continuous"
and
"
stable
in
quantity
and
rate"
so
as
to
encompass
startup
and
shutdown
operations.
In
addition,
any
rules
issued
under
this
option
must
recognize
that
NOx
emissions
from
combustion
sources
are
not
constant
even
under
steady­
state
operation,
such
as
in
the
case
of
boiler
load
changes.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0098.1
Response
Number:
2
Commenter
Name:
Debra
D.
Lane,
Senior
Environmental
Consultant,
Corporate
Safety,
Health
and
Environment,
MeadWestvaco
EPA
also
requested
comment
on
alternatives
to
the
exemption,
such
as
simplifying
the
continuous
release
reporting
requirements.
MeadWestvaco
supports
simplification
of
the
continuous
release
reporting
requirements
and
recommends
that
EPA
broaden
the
definition
of
a
continuous
release
to
include
releases
associated
with
startup
and
shutdown.
Such
releases
may
exceed
those
associated
with
normal
operation,
but
are
still
predictable.
We
stress
that
addressing
continuous
release
reporting
should
be
in
addition
to
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
rather
than
replacing
it.
(
p.
1)

In
addition
to
the
above
comments,
MeadWestvaco
also
specifically
supports
the
comments
of
the
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association,
the
American
Chemistry
Council,
and
the
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0090.1
Response
Number:
3
Commenter
Name:
Stephen
B.
Ellingson,
Ph.
D.,
Environmental
Compliance
Director,
Koch
Mineral
Services,
LLC
(
KMS)

The
proposed
rule
requests
comments
on
whether,
as
an
alternative
to
the
administrative
exemption,
the
requirement
for
notification
of
releases
of
NOx
from
combustion
sources
should
be
covered
under
the
continuous
release
reporting
scenario
and
if
so,
how
the
process
could
be
made
more
efficient.
KMS
believes
that
reporting
NOx
releases
from
combustion
sources
of
less
than
1000
lbs
per
24­
hour
period,
either
on
an
incident
specific
basis
or
through
a
continuous
release
report,
does
not
necessitate
an
agency
response
and
therefore
agrees
with
EPA's
proposal
to
exempt
these
releases
from
both
types
of
notification
requirements.
(
p.
2)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
41
KMS
does
find
that,
in
general,
the
continuous
release
reporting
scenario
as
currently
implemented
poses
an
undue
administrative
burden.
KMS
therefore
suggests
that
the
requirement
to
update
the
report
for
administrative
changes
be
limited
to
changes
that
would
affect
EPA's
ability
to
contact
or
identify
the
site
(
i.
e.,
actual
contact
telephone
numbers
or
site
identification
numbers).
Other
changes,
including
changes
in
personnel,
should
not
necessitate
an
update
to
the
report
as
long
as
the
basic
site
telephone
contact
numbers
remain
the
same.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0109
Response
Number:
4
Commenter
Name:
Renu
Chhabra,
Waste
&
EPCRA
Systems
Manager,
INVISTA
The
proposed
rule
requests
comments
on
whether,
as
an
alternative
to
the
administrative
exemption,
the
requirement
for
notification
of
releases
of
NOx
from
combustion
sources
should
be
covered
under
the
continuous
release
reporting
(
CRR)
scheme
and
if
so,
how
the
process
could
be
made
more
efficient.
INVISTA
submits
that
reporting
NOx
releases
from
combustion
sources
of
less
than
1000
lbs
per
24
hour
period,
either
on
an
incident
specific
basis
or
through
a
continuous
release
report
does
not
necessitate
an
agency
response
and
therefore,
agrees
with
EPA's
proposal
to
exempt
these
releases
from
both
types
of
notification
requirements.
(
p.
3)

INVISTA
does
find
that,
in
general,
the
continuous
release
reporting
scheme
as
currently
implemented
poses
an
undue
administrative
burden.
We,
therefore,
suggest
that
the
requirement
to
update
the
report
for
administrative
changes
be
limited
to
changes
that
would
affect
EPA's
ability
to
contact
or
identify
the
site
(
i.
e.,
actual
contact
phone
numbers
or
site
identification
numbers).
Other
changes,
including
changes
in
personnel
should
not
necessitate
an
update
to
the
report
as
long
as
the
basic
site
telephone
contact
numbers
remain
the
same.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0087.1
Response
Number:
5
Commenter
Name:
Leslie
S.
Ritts,
Counsel
to
NEDA/
CAP,
The
National
Environmental
Development
Association's
Clean
Air
Project
(
NEDA/
CAP)

In
the
NPRM,
EPA
asks
for
comment
on
other
alternatives,
including
modifying
40
CFR
§
302.7,
applicable
to
continuous
releases,
for
sources
that
emit
less
than
1,000
lbs
NOx/
day.
If
the
Agency
decides
it
needs
a
one­
time
notification
for
continuous
NOx
releases
from
combustion,
the
initial
notification
requirement
must
be
greatly
simplified,
as
compared
with
other
continuous
releases
notifications
(
and
updates)
that
are
currently
required.
Such
a
notification
should
not
be
burdensome
to
small
business,
requiring
a
business
to
hire
a
professional
engineer
to
calculate
emissions.
We
think
it
should
be
sufficient
for
the
name
and
the
address
of
the
owner
or
the
operator
of
the
unit
with
the
general
description
of
the
fuel
source
for
the
equipment
to
be
provided
with
a
general
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
42
contact
telephone
number
(
e.
g.,
office
of
the
building
engineer,
office
of
the
principal
of
a
school,
Hospital
Administration
office).
It
is
particularly
important
that
it
not
be
necessary
for
a
"
contact
person's"
name
to
be
modified
if
another
person
is
employed
in
this
position
after
the
notification
is
filed.
Further,
periodic
or
annual
notifications
should
not
be
required.
This
activity
could
be
coordinated
through
the
Small
Business
Administration,
which
has
worked
with
the
EPA
Office
of
Compliance
and
Small
Business
Ombudsman
on
similar
activities.
(
p.
4­
5)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
support
of
a
more
efficient
use
of
continuous
release
reporting
in
addition
to
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
as
proposed
October
4,
2005.

AF&
PA
urges
EPA
to
broaden
its
concepts
of
"
continuous"
and
"
stable
in
quantity
and
rate"
so
as
to
encompass
startup
and
shutdown
operations,
"
for
the
continuous
release
option
to
be
useful."

The
definition
of
continuous
under
40
CFR
302.8
says
that,
"
a
continuous
release
is
a
release
that
occurs
without
interruption
or
abatement
or
that
is
routine,
anticipated,
and
intermittent
and
incidental
to
normal
operations
or
treatment
processes."
The
definition
of
stable
in
quantity
and
rate
under
40
CFR
302.8
says
that,
"
a
release
that
is
stable
in
quantity
and
rate
is
a
release
that
is
predictable
and
regular
in
amount
and
rate
of
emission."
The
regulation
puts
the
burden
on
the
person
in
charge
of
a
facility
to
establish
a
sound
basis
for
qualifying
the
release
for
continuous
release
reporting
(
see
40
CFR
302.8
(
d))
and
allows
that
establishment
to
be
made
using
release
data,
engineering
estimates,
knowledge
of
operating
procedures,
best
professional
judgment,
or
reporting
to
the
NRC
for
a
period
sufficient
to
establish
the
continuity
and
stability
of
the
release.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
in
certain
instances
startup
and
shutdown
operations
may
meet
the
definitions
of
continuous
and
stable
in
quantity
and
rate.

EPA
also
acknowledges
the
suggestion
of
KMS
and
INVISTA
to
reduce
the
burden
associated
with
the
continuous
release
reporting
by
updating
the
requirement
to
update
the
continuous
release
report
for
administrative
changes
(
40
CFR
302.8(
g)(
3))
to
require
only
those
that
would
affect
EPA's
ability
to
contact
or
identify
the
site.

With
respect
to
NEDA/
CAP's
statement
that,
"
EPA
asks
for
comment
on
other
alternatives,
including
modifying
40
CFR
§
302.7,
applicable
to
continuous
releases,
for
sources
that
emit
less
than
1,000
lbs
NOx/
day."
The
correct
citation
is
40
CFR
§
302.8.
The
Agency
is
not
contemplating
a
one­
time
notification
for
continuous
NOx
releases
from
combustion;
however,
the
NPRM
did
seek
data
or
additional
information
to
help
us
consider
the
appropriateness
of
two
alternative
options.
One
of
those
options
included
a
more
efficient
use
of
Continuous
Release
reporting.
The
Agency
does
acknowledge
NEDA/
CAP's
position
that
the
notification
requirement
must
be
greatly
simplified,
as
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
43
compared
with
other
continuous
releases
notifications
(
and
updates)
that
are
currently
required.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
44
B.
Simplify
and
Clarify
Continuous
Release
Reporting
Requirements
Commenter
Number:
0099.1
Response
Number:
6
Commenter
Name:
Robert
D.
Bessette,
President,
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
(
CIBO)

CIBO
believes
that
a
number
of
changes
would
be
needed
to
simplify
and
clarify
the
continuous
release
reporting
requirements
for
this
to
be
a
viable
approach
for
addressing
NOx
release
reporting
from
a
variety
of
sources.
First,
CIBO
believes
that
notification
for
these
sources
must
be
substantially
simpler
than
the
present
continuous
release
reporting
requirements
for
it
to
be
a
viable
for
the
many
small
sources
that
may
release
over
10
pounds
per
day
of
NOx
from
unpermitted
sources.
Small
businesses
should
not
be
required
to
hire
a
consultant
to
estimate
emissions
from
their
equipment.
Instead
the
notice
should
require
a
description
of
the
size
and
type
of
equipment
and
fuel
sufficient
for
calculation
by
regulatory
agencies.
Further,
once
the
initial
notification
is
done,
annual
updates
should
not
be
required.
Statistically
significant
increase
reports
should
not
be
required.
It
should
be
sufficient
for
owners
to
update
the
continuous
release
report
only
if
a
large
combustion
source
is
physically
modified.
Finally,
it
would
be
very
burdensome
to
agencies
and
businesses
if
all
small
combustion
sources
were
subject
to
this
notification
requirement,
so
some
cut­
off
of
at
least
20
MMBTU/
hr
or
so
should
be
considered.
(
p.
4­
5)

In
addition
to
these
burden
considerations,
in
order
for
this
reduced
reporting
requirement
to
be
used,
the
release
must
be
"
continuous"
and
"
stable
in
quantity
and
rate."
While
EPA
has
clarified
these
terms
in
the
July
24,
1990
rulemaking
in
a
manner
that
they
could
be
applied
to
many
common
process
scenarios,
EPA
may
need
to
further
refine
the
applicability
of
these
criteria
for
them
to
be
utilized.
For
instance,
the
term
"
continuous"
is
defined
to
mean
a
release
that
occurs
without
interruption
or
one
that
is
routine,
anticipated,
intermittent
and
incidental
to
normal
operations
or
treatment
processes
40
C.
F.
R.
§
302.8(
b).
In
the
July
24,
1990
preamble
EPA
indicated
that
releases
associated
with
the
following
activities
or
events
could
be
considered
routine
and
regular
and
therefore
"
continuous"
even
though
they
are
intermittent:
batch
processes,
loading
and
unloading,
decompression
of
pressure
vessels,
drawing
off
of
liquid
at
regular
intervals
during
a
production
process,
venting
that
occurs
each
time
a
storage
tank
is
filled,
removal
of
fly
ash
or
dust
from
pollution
control
devices
and
cyclical
operations
at
production
facilities.
In
contrast,
EPA
explained
in
the
July
24,
1990
preamble
that
continuous
does
not
include
"
emergency
shut­
downs
or
pipe
ruptures."
If
annual
release
reporting
is
to
be
of
benefit,
it
should
be
able
to
cover
start­
ups
and
shut­
downs
including
emergency
shutdowns
of
combustion
equipment,
which
might
need
to
occur
more
quickly
than
normal
to
protect
people
or
equipment,
or
even
in
the
event
of
severe
weather.
(
p.
5)

In
addition
to
the
continuous
criteria,
EPA
defined
"
stable
in
quantity
and
rate"
to
mean
a
release
that
is
predictable
and
regular
in
amount
and
rate
of
emission.
In
the
July
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
45
24,
1990
preamble,
EPA
explained
that
a
release
need
not
be
uniform
in
quantity
and
rate
to
be
stable.
For
example,
as
a
pressurized
batch
reactor
decompresses,
the
rate
of
fugitive
emissions
will
decline.
EPA
indicated
that,
the
emissions
in
that
example
could
be
considered
"
stable
in
quantity
and
rate"
as
long
as
the
emissions
are
predictable
in
the
sense
that
the
rate
and
amount
of
release
vary
in
basically
the
same
manner
each
time
the
decompression
occurs
or
the
process
is
operated.
EPA
also
noted
that
malfunctions
incidental
to
normal
operations
may
qualify
for
reduced
reporting
if
they
come
within
the
definitions
of
"
continuous"
and
"
stable"
in
quantity
and
rate.
(
p.
5)

It
is
important
that
if
EPA
were
to
use
this
approach,
that
the
criteria
encompass
all
regular
process
operations
that
affect
NOx
emissions.
It
is
similarly
important
that
EPA
further
refine
the
meaning
of
the
terms.
A
general
reading
of
these
terms
could
lead
business
owners
to
believe
they
could
not
be
applied
to
many
process
situations
such
as
start­
ups
or
shut­
downs
or
even
load
changes.
Yet,
given
appropriate
clarification,
many
process
situations
may
qualify
for
this
continuous
release
reporting.
In
the
absence
of
this
clarification,
many
businesses
may
believe
they
need
to
file
daily
reports.
Again,
this
would
defeat
the
purpose
of
the
effort
to
eliminate
unnecessary
reporting.
(
p.
5)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
CIBO's
suggested
changes
to
the
continuous
release
reporting
requirements
to
make
expanding
continuous
release
reporting
a
viable
approach
for
addressing
NOx
release
reporting
from
a
variety
of
sources.

In
the
July
24,
1990,
preamble
to
its
final
rule,
Reporting
Continuous
Releases
of
Hazardous
Substances,
(
55
FR
30166,
30174),
EPA
addressed
commenters
who
requested
a
clarification
about
whether
EPA
expects
a
facility
to
perform
monitoring
beyond
that
which
is
currently
performed
to
determine
the
continuity
and
quantity
of
releases.
EPA
responded,
in
part,
that
it
does
not
expect
a
facility
to
perform
additional
monitoring
in
order
to
comply
with
the
rule
stating
that,
"[
n]
either
the
identification
of
SSIs
nor
the
other
reporting
requirements
in
today's
final
rule
necessitates
monitoring
or
measuring
of
releases
to
acquire
empirical
data."
In
addition,
the
person
in
charge
may
use
as
a
basis
for
reporting
continuous
releases
per­
occurrence
reporting
sufficient
to
establish
its
continuity
and
stability.

CIBO
suggests
that
small
businesses
should
not
be
required
to
hire
a
consultant
to
estimate
emissions
from
their
equipment
but
rather,
the
reporting
requirements
only
require
a
description
of
the
size
and
type
of
equipment
and
fuel
sufficient
for
calculation
by
regulatory
agencies.

Current
regulations
do
not
require
the
hiring
of
consultants
to
estimate
emissions.
In
addition,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
not
appropriate
for
regulatory
agencies
to
assume
the
responsibility
for
calculating
the
amount
of
a
release
based
on
a
description
of
the
size
and
type
of
equipment
and
fuel.
It
would
be
inefficient
and
contrary
to
the
intent
of
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
46
CERCLA
for
a
regulatory
agency
to
attempt
to
make
those
determinations
given
all
the
variables
that
may
apply.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
47
C.
Clarify
Continuous
Release
Reporting
Requirements
Commenter
Number:
0084
Response
Number:
7
Commenter
Name:
Patricia
McCullough,
Director
 
Environmental
Management,
Northeast
Utilities
System
(
NUSCO)

NUSCO
requests
clarification
in
the
regulatory
language
that
the
reporting
exemption
also
applies
to
continuous
releases.
Large
combustion
sources
generally
tend
to
operate
on
a
continuous
basis.
The
arguments
used
in
the
previous
section
in
support
of
eliminating
the
threshold
level
also
apply
to
continuous
releases.
Further,
emissions
data
from
most
large
sources
are
reported
to
federal
and
state
agencies
on
a
routine
basis.
Agency
databases
would
not
be
enhanced
by
continuous
release
reporting.
(
p.
2)

Response
The
Agency
agrees
that
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
releases
of
NO
and
NO2
would
also
apply
to
continuous
releases.
The
notification
requirements
apply
to
episodic
releases
as
well
as
those
that
meet
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
302.8.
That
section,
302.8,
sets
forth
the
regulatory
requirements
for
CERCLA
section
103(
f)(
2)
 
the
purpose
of
which
is
to
reduce
release
notifications
where
the
releases
are
"
continuous"
and
"
stable
in
quantity
and
rate."
In
general,
if
a
release
is
"
continuous"
and
"
stable
in
quantity
and
rate,"
Federal
officials
should
not
have
to
be
notified
each
time
the
release
occurs
to
decide
whether
a
response
is
needed.
(
See
55
FR
30166,
30168,
July
24,
1990).
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
48
This
page
is
intentionally
left
blank
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
49
III.
OPPOSITION
FOR
ALTERNATIVE
 
EXPANDING
CONTINUOUS
RELEASE
REPORTING
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
50
A.
Should
Not
be
Used
In­
Lieu
of
Proposed
Exemption
Commenter
Number:
0089.1
Response
Number:
1
Commenter
Name:
Eric
Clark,
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA)

SOCMA
Does
Not
Support
EPA's
Continuous
Release
Reporting
Alternative.
(
p.
2)

One
of
the
alternatives
discussed
in
EPA's
proposal
is
expanding
use
of
the
continuous
release
reporting
mechanism.
SOCMA
has
submitted
comments
in
both
April
and
August
of
2000,
and
continues
to
maintain
that
continuous
release
reporting
is
not
a
viable
option
for
SOCMA
members
and
other
batch
processors.
Because
batch
processing
involves
intermittent
processing
periods
and
shifting
product
lines,
the
NOx
emissions
may
not
be
able
to
be
categorized
as
"
continuous"
even
though
the
emissions
would
be
low
enough
to
fall
below
the
proposed
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
threshold.
Because
of
this,
SOCMA
requests
that
EPA
pursue
the
administrative
exemption
as
a
more
practical
mechanism
for
achieving
the
stated
goal.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0097.1,
0112
Response
Number:
2
Commenter
Name:
John
M.
McManus,
Vice
President,
Environmental
Services,
American
Electric
Power
(
AEP)

AEP
does
not
support
the
expanded
use
of
Continuous
Release
Reporting
in
lieu
of
the
proposed
administrative
exemption.
(
p.
2)

Many
of
the
smaller
combustion
sources
that
are
exempt
from
Clean
Air
Act
permitting
requirements
have
chosen
to
submit
a
"
continuous
release"
report
pursuant
to
40
CFR
§
302.8
for
releases
that
are
either
continuous
or
intermittent,
but
stable
in
quantity
and
rate,
anticipated,
and
associated
with
normal
operations.
One
alternative
EPA
proposed
is
to
make
more
efficient
use
of
the
continuous
release
reporting
provisions
for
NOx
releases,
rather
than
adopting
an
administrative
exemption
for
releases
below
1,000
pounds
in
24
hours.
(
p.
2­
3)

AEP
believes
that
the
definition
of
"
continuous"
is
broad
enough
to
cover
a
number
of
NOx
releases
from
different
types
of
combustion
sources
 
including
emergency
generators,
diesel­
powered
construction
and
maintenance
equipment,
and
seasonal
space
heating
equipment.
Some
of
these
sources
may
submit
reports
only
when
they
operate;
others
may
have
submitted
continuous
release
reports
to
cover
their
emissions
during
intermittent
periods
of
operation.
To
the
extent
such
emissions
have
been
reported
currently
on
an
"
as­
operated"
basis,
utilization
of
the
continuous
release
reporting
provision
would
merely
shift
the
reporting
burden,
not
eliminate
it.
And
while
the
reporting
burden
might
be
somewhat
lessened
by
utilizing
the
procedures
under
40
CFR
302.8,
sources
would
still
be
required
to
regularly
review
their
intermittent
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
51
operations
to
assure
that
emissions
during
any
24­
hour
period
do
not
exceed
the
high
end
of
the
reported
range
in
order
to
fully
comply
with
these
requirements.
(
p.
3)

In
contrast,
administratively
exempting
all
NOx
releases
associated
with
combustion
sources
that
are
below
1,000
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period
would
alleviate
a
significant
portion
of
the
burden
associated
with
NOx
emissions
that
have
been
reported,
both
for
the
affected
sources
and
for
the
receiving
agencies.
AEP
fully
supports
EPA's
proposal,
and
does
not
believe
that
more
expansive
use
of
the
continuous
release
reporting
option
would
as
effectively
address
the
issues
identified
by
EPA.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0107,
0107.1,
0107.2
Response
Number:
3
Commenter
Name:
Pamela
A.
Lacey,
Senior
Managing
Counsel,
American
Gas
Association
(
AGA)

AGA
Opposes
the
Alternative
of
Requiring
Continuous
Release
Reporting
(
p.
3)

For
the
reasons
AGA
gave
at
pages
3­
5
of
the
attached
April
7,
2000
comments,
AGA
urges
EPA
to
reject
the
proposed
alternative
option
of
requiring
continuous
release
reporting
for
NOx
emissions
less
than
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours.
(
p.
3)

From
April
7,
2000
comments
(
0107­
2):

Over
One
Million
New
Reports
Would
Overwhelm
the
NRC
(
0107­
2,
p.
3)

Minor
Sources
of
NOx
 
Small
Engines,
Boilers
&
Turbines
(
0107­
2,
p.
3)

The
primary
mission
of
the
National
Response
Center
(
NRC)
is
to
respond
to
emergency
reports
of
hazardous
substance
spills
that
could
pose
an
immediate
and
significant
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
mission
could
be
seriously
compromised
by
the
sheer
volume
of
new
release
reports
contemplated
by
the
Interim
Guidance.
AGA
recognizes
that
many
small
sources
of
NOx
should
qualify
for
limited
reporting
because
they
have
"
continuous
releases"
that
are
"
continuous
and
stable
in
quantity
and
rate"
within
the
meaning
of
40
C.
F.
R.
§
302.8.
However,
the
Interim
Guidance
would
require
possibly
over
one
million
small
engines,
boilers,
and
furnaces
to
report
their
miniscule
"
releases"
of
NOx.
In
the
first
year,
this
flood
of
continuous
release
reports
could
seriously
overwhelm
NRC's
resources.
In
addition,
not
all
small
sources
have
continuous
releases
 
for
example
irrigation
pumps,
emergency
generators,
and
space
heaters.
Those
operating
intermittently
could
be
forced
to
file
multiple
release
reports
during
the
year,
whenever
they
operate.
(
0107­
2.
p.
3)

Nitrogen
oxide
(
NO)
and
nitrogen
dioxide
(
NO2)
are
listed
as
CERCLA
hazardous
substances,
each
having
a
reportable
quantity
of
10
pounds/
24
hours.
40
C.
F.
R.
§
302.4.
Both
are
products
of
combusting
fossil
fuels.
Coal
and
residual
oil
fired
engines
and
boilers
produce
significantly
more
pounds
of
NOx
per
million
Btu
than
do
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
52
natural
gas
fired
engines,
boilers
or
turbines.
In
order
to
determine
the
approximate
size
of
natural
gas
fired
equipment
that
could
be
subject
to
reporting
of
releases
under
the
Interim
Guidance,
an
AGA
member
company
constructed
the
following
tables,
using
emission
factors
(
EF)
from
the
5
edition
of
EPA's
AP­
42
for
NOx.
(
0107­
2,
p.
3­
4)

Unit
Uncontrolled
AP­
42EF
lb/
hp­
hr
Horsepower
for
10
lbs/
24
hr
Gas
Turbine
0.00287
145.2
Engines
2­
cycle
lean
burn
4­
cycle
lean
burn
4­
cycle
rich
burn
0.024
0.026
0.022
17.4
16.0
18.9
Unit
lb/
10
ft
Heat
Input,
MMBtu/
hr
Boilers
Small
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
140
100
94
3.0
4.2
4.4
Most
of
these
small
engines,
boilers
and
residential
furnaces
are
not
required
to
install
add
on
control
equipment
for
NOx
emissions.
They
are
legally
allowed
to
operate
under
their
state
implementation
plan
or
other
Clean
Air
Act
regulations
as
minor
sources
and
may
be
only
registered
with
a
state
agency
because
of
their
small
size.
One
can
produce
a
very
conservative
estimate
the
number
of
small
engines
that
would
be
affected
by
the
Interim
Guidance
based
on
an
EPA
document,
"
Alternative
Control
Techniques
Document
 
NOx
Emissions
from
Stationary
Reciprocating
Internal
Combustion
Engines",
EPA­
453/
R­
93­
032,
tables
3­
1
to
3­
4.
This
data
appears
to
be
for
engines
operating
in
the
late
1970'
s.
Undoubtedly,
the
engines
currently
in
use
will
have
increased
in
number,
but
this
provides
a
general
sense
of
how
many
engines
will
be
subject
to
the
reporting
EPA
is
envisioning.
This
data
presented
in
an
attached
table
is
only
for
onshore
small
engines,
assumed
to
be
those
with
an
average
horsepower
of
15
to
400
horsepower
in
each
category.
The
total
number
of
these
engines
is
2,026,000.
(
0107­
2,
p.
4)

To
this
would
be
added
small
turbines
used
in
the
oil
and
gas
industry
(
other
than
at
compressor
stations)
and
as
stand­
by/
emergency
electric
power
generation.
Some
of
these
engines
and
turbines
are
likely
to
be
subject
to
specific
NOx
permit
limits
and
therefore
qualify
for
the
federally
permitted
release
exemption
even
under
the
Interim
Guidance's
interpretation.
Some
of
the
smaller
turbines
probably
do
not
operate
24
hours/
day
and
therefore
would
not
exceed
10
pounds
of
NOx
in
a
24
hour
period.
However,
given
the
total
number
of
small
engines,
the
Interim
guidance
will
likely
result
in
hundreds
of
thousands
of
notifications
for
small
turbines.
(
0107­
2,
p.
4)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
53
Many
office
buildings
heated
with
natural
gas
or
oil­
fired
boilers
or
furnaces
will
also
have
to
report
NOx
emissions
under
the
Interim
Guidance.
Natural
gas
fired
space
heating
systems
for
moderately
sized
office
buildings
of
about
200,000
square
feet
or
more
will
typically
result
in
NOx
emissions
of
10
lbs/
24
hrs.
In
1995,
there
were
about
25,000
commercial
buildings
 
200,000
square
feet
of
which
an
estimated
12,000
used
fossil
fuels
for
heating,
primarily
natural
gas.
See
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States
1998,
118th
Edition
(
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Commerce,
Economics
and
Statistics
Administration,
Bureau
of
the
Census,
Oct.
1998)
at
page
594,
Table
958.
Other
buildings
having
large
space
heating
requirements,
such
as
schools,
senior
citizen
homes,
apartment
buildings,
recreational
facilities,
hospitals,
and
offices
at
industrial
facilities,
will
also
be
likely
to
emit
greater
than
10
lbs
NOx/
24
hours.
(
0107­
2,
p.
4­
5)

In
summary,
the
number
of
small
engines,
boilers,
and
furnaces
required
to
submit
notifications
because
of
NO
or
NO2
emissions
from
fossil
fuel
combustion
will
be
very
large
­­
certainly
hundreds
of
thousands
and
probably
over
one
million.
(
0107­
2,
p.
5)

Permitted
Major
Sources
(
0107­
2,
p.
5)

The
Interim
Guidance
states
that
even
if
a
source
has
a
specific
permit
limitation
for
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs)
as
criteria
pollutants
or
ozone
precursors,
the
emissions
allowed
under
that
permit
will
not
be
considered
a
"
federally
permitted
release."
The
Guidance
contends
that
this
would
not
qualify
because
the
emission
limitations
and
controls
in
such
permits
were
not
designed
to
address
the
hazardous
impacts
from
the
release
of
a
hazardous
substance.
64
Fed.
Reg.
at
71618­
19.
Would
EPA
apply
a
similar
restriction
on
major
source
permits
for
NOx?
If
so,
almost
all
fossil
fuel­
fired
major
sources
(
large
boilers,
engines,
heaters)
in
the
country,
permitted
for
releases
of
tons
of
NOx
per
year
would
be
required
to
submit
notifications
for
emissions
of
NO
or
NO2
as
a
hazardous
substance.
This
would
affect
a
substantial
number
of
facilities,
probably
tens
of
thousands
of
facilities.
(
0107­
2,
p.
5)

Continuous
Release
Reports
Will
Flood
NRC
In
2000
(
0107­
2,
p.
5)

AGA
recognizes
that
a
source
may
submit
an
initial
notification
and
a
follow­
up
notification
one
year
later
if
emissions
qualify
as
"
continuous
and
stable
in
quantity
and
rate"
under
40
C.
F.
R.
§
302.8.
This
will
help
reduce
reporting
burdens
on
the
regulated
community
and
paperwork
burdens
on
the
NRC
and
Local
Emergency
Response
Centers
(
LERCs)
in
future
years.
However,
in
this
first
year
following
the
issuance
of
the
Interim
Guidance,
the
flood
of
these
initial
and
anniversary
notifications
will
overwhelm
the
NRC
and
LERCs.
(
0107­
2,
p
5)

In
effect,
for
NOx
emissions,
the
proposed
guidance
is
creating
major
new
requirements
for
reporting
of
NOx
emissions
from
all
but
the
tiniest
sources
combusting
fossil
fuels.
Assuming
there
are
at
least
one
million
fossil
fuel­
fired
facilities
affected,
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
54
and
each
facility
chooses
to
report
a
continuous
release
of
NOx,
the
NRC
will
receive
about
114
reports/
hour
for
the
entire
first
year.
And
of
course,
the
reports
are
not
likely
to
be
spread
evenly
through
the
year.
Instead,
most
will
likely
occur
in
a
clump
during
the
first
few
months
after
the
news
is
absorbed
and
understood
by
the
regulated
community
 
including
manufacturers,
school
administrators,
small
businesses,
office
and
apartment
building
owners,
government
office
building
managers,
nursing
homes,
hospitals
and
the
like.
(
0107­
2,
p
5)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
position
that
an
expanded
use
of
Continuous
Release
Reporting
should
not
be
used
in
lieu
of
the
proposed
administrative
exemption.

However,
EPA
disagrees
with
SOCMA
that
continuous
release
reporting
is
not
a
viable
option
for
batch
processors.
EPA
addressed
this
issue
in
the
July
24,
1990,
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
"
Reporting
Continuous
Releases
of
Hazardous
Substances."
(
55
FR
30166)
Even
though
batch
processing
involves
intermittent
processing
periods
and
shifting
product
lines,
the
continuous
release
regulation
allows
for
releases
that
are
routine,
anticipated,
intermittent,
as
well
as
releases
that
are
uninterrupted.
(
See,
55
FR
30169).
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
55
B.
Does
not
Afford
Practical
Relief
Commenter
Number:
0113.1
Response
Number:
4
Commenter
Name:
Howard
J.
Feldman,
Director,
Regulatory
Analysis
and
Scientific
Affairs,
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)

The
Option
of
Relying
Upon
a
Continuous
Release
Scheme
Would
Not
Afford
Practical
Relief
(
p.
27)

In
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
seeks
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
alternative
options
to
address
the
CERCLA
section
103
and
EPCRA
section
304
reporting
requirements
of
certain
unpermitted
releases
of
NOx
from
combustion
sources.
One
of
the
alternative
options
suggested
by
EPA
is
more
efficient
use
of
continuous
release
reporting.
In
the
proposal,
EPA
defines
continuous
release
as
"
a
release
that
occurs
without
interruption
or
abatement
or
that
is
routine,
anticipated,
and
intermittent
and
incidental
to
normal
operations
of
treatment
processes."
Such
releases
must
also
be
stable
in
quantity
and
rate.
(
p.
27)

Most
releases
from
combustion
sources,
such
as
flares,
do
not
fit
the
Agency's
definition
of
continuous
release.
Releases
from
control
devices
such
as
flares
are
often
not
routine
or
predictable,
or
stable
in
quantity
and
rate.
Simply
put,
flaring
does
not
typically
fit
in
the
Agency's
definition
of
continuous
release
reporting.
Even
if
EPA
were
to
claim
that
it
does,
many
member
companies
would
have
legal
and
compliance
concerns
with
the
suggested
expansion
of
the
continuous
release
reporting
scheme,
due
to
differences
in
opinion
among
industry
and
regulators
over
the
definition
of
continuous
release
and
the
nature
of
flaring
operations.
(
p.
27)

Therefore,
API
opposes
the
option
of
"
more
efficient
use
of
continuous
release
reporting."
Such
a
scheme
would
not
be
appropriate
for
combustion
NOx
releases,
would
not
apply
to
a
significant
portion
of
the
reports
the
proposal
is
intended
to
address,
and
would
not
alleviate
burden,
or
otherwise
afford
any
practical
relief.
(
p.
27)

Response:
(
III/
B/
4)

EPA
acknowledges
the
API's
position
that
an
expanded
use
of
Continuous
Release
Reporting
would
not
afford
practical
relief
because
it
would
not
apply
to
a
significant
portion
of
the
reports
the
proposal
is
intended
to
address
or
alleviate
burden.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
56
This
page
is
intentionally
left
blank
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
57
IV.
SUPPORT
FOR
ALTERNATIVE
 
INCREASE
LEVEL
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
58
A.
Support
a
Number
Larger
than
1,000
Pounds
Commenter
Number:
0097.1,
0112
Response
Number:
1
Commenter
Name:
John
M.
McManus,
Vice
President,
Environmental
Services,
American
Electric
Power
(
AEP)

AEP
supports
the
EPA's
proposal
to
create
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
releases
of
nitrogen
oxides
less
than
1,000
pounds,
and
urges
EPA
to
evaluate
all
additional
information
provided
during
the
rulemaking
to
determine
whether
there
is
sufficient
information
available
to
support
a
higher
threshold.
(
p.
2)

AEP
supports
the
EPA
proposal
to
create
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
releases
of
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
less
than
1,000
pounds
during
a
24­
hour
period,
and
would
support
a
number
larger
than
1,000
pounds
as
the
threshold
for
such
an
exemption.
At
a
minimum,
such
a
number
should
be
above
the
level
at
which
permits
generally
are
required
for
combustion
sources
under
the
Clean
Air
Act,
especially
since
the
EPA
notes
in
its
proposal
that
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
is
below
any
limit
at
which
permits
for
NOx
are
required.
In
addition,
one
can
review
Summary
Table
1
 
NOx
Release
Notifications
(
to
Air)
ERNS
 
Notification
at
70
Fed.
Reg.
57813,
57815,
and
similarly
make
a
case
that
the
appropriate
number
should
be
5,000
pounds,
since
that
number
would
more
effectively
reduce
the
number
of
required
reports,
and
EPA
has
already
determined
that
the
likelihood
of
a
federal
or
state
response
action
to
a
release
of
NOx
below
5,000
pounds
is
unlikely.
See,
70
Fed.
Reg
57813,
57818.
(
p.
2)

As
further
support
for
the
1,000­
pound
threshold
or
an
even
higher
number,
AEP
notes
that
the
majority
of
its
combustion
units
are
very
large,
and
some
have
maximum
hourly
NOx
emissions
rates
that
exceed
the
proposed
reporting
thresholds.
These
emissions
are
generally
released
from
stacks
extending
a
hundred
feet
or
more
into
the
air,
and
are
immediately
and
widely
dispersed
with
the
hot
flue
gases
from
these
combustion
sources.
In
addition,
there
are
literally
millions
of
ground­
level
NOx
combustion
sources,
including
construction
equipment,
residential
heating
and
cooling
systems,
baking
equipment,
home
and
garden
power
tools,
and
other
sources,
that
contribute
emissions
in
excess
of
the
proposed
reporting
thresholds
to
the
atmosphere
on
a
daily
basis.
As
EPA
noted
in
the
proposal,
the
actual
number
of
reports
submitted
since
1999,
when
EPA
first
determined
that
the
"
federally
permitted
release
exemption"
does
not
apply
to
air
emission
sources
that
are
exempted
or
excluded
from
Clean
Air
Act
permitting
requirements,
may
well
underestimate
the
number
of
reports
that
could
or
should
be
submitted
for
such
small
sources
by
several
orders
of
magnitude.
An
administrative
exemption
from
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
notification
requirements
at
1,000
pounds
per
day
or
more
will
effectively
address
these
small
sources
and
will
not
diminish
the
availability
of
any
information
the
federal,
state,
or
local
agencies
need
to
effectively
administer
their
responsibilities
under
these
Acts.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0092.1
Response
Number:
2
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
59
Commenter
Name:
Thomas
B.
Carter,
Director,
Environment
Health
and
Safety,
Portland
Cement
Association
(
PCA)

Portland
cement
is
the
powder
which
acts
as
the
glue
or
bonding
agent
that,
when
mixed
with
water,
sand,
gravel
and
other
materials,
forms
concrete.
Cement
is
produced
from
various
naturally
abundant
raw
materials,
including
limestone,
shale,
clay,
and
silica
sand.
Portland
cement
is
an
essential
construction
material
and
a
basic
component
of
our
nation's
infrastructure.
It
is
utilized
in
numerous
markets,
including
the
construction
of
highways,
streets,
bridges,
airports,
mass
transit
systems,
commercial
and
residential
buildings,
dams,
and
water
resource
systems
and
facilities.
The
low
cost
and
universal
availability
of
portland
cement
ensure
that
concrete
remains
one
of
the
world's
most
essential
and
widely
used
construction
materials.
(
p.
1)

As
mentioned
above,
PCA
supports
the
concept
of
exempting
combustion
sources
from
release
of
NO
and
NO2.
However,
EPA's
proposal
only
solves
part
of
the
problem
and
will
not
affect
combustion
sources
that
emit
more
than
1000
pounds
per
day
of
NOx.
This
will
mean
that
local,
state,
and
federal
officials
will
still
receive
reports
on
a
daily
basis
that
will
provide
no
new
information
that
affects
their
responsibilities
or
actions.
(
p.
1­
2)

NOx
is
nationally
regulated
to
an
extent
that
is
sufficiently
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
As
pointed
out
in
the
proposal
at
page
57816,
NOx
is
covered
by
several
sections
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Section
111
establishes
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
(
NAAQS)
for
both
NOx
and
ozone,
for
which
NOx
is
a
precursor.
The
purpose
of
NAAQS
is
to
achieve
air
quality
measures
that
are
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Section
111
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
each
state
to
either
attain
these
standards
or
develop
state
implement
plans
(
SIPs)
to
extract
reductions
from
sources
that
will
result
in
attainment.
The
entire
United
States
has
been
designated
as
being
in
attainment
of
the
NOx
NAAQS
(
70
Fed.
Reg.
57816),
demonstrating
that
all
current
releases
of
NOx
from
combustion
sources
cause
no
actual
unacceptable
impact
to
the
ambient
air
quality.
NOx
emissions
from
combustion
sources
are
further
regulated
under
various
SIP
programs,
stemming
from
strategies
being
implemented
for
ozone
attainment.
(
p.
2)

In
addition,
NOx
is
covered
in
section
112
and
Title
1,
Part
C
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
in
the
NSPS,
NESHAP,
and
NSR/
PSD
provisions.
Because
all
NOx
emissions
are
comprehensively
federally
regulated
by
these
many
programs,
all
continuous
and
routine
NOx
emissions
that
satisfy
the
requirements
of
SIPs,
Title
V
permits,
and
other
federal
regulations 
or
state
regulations
promulgated
under
federal
authority 
could
be
interpreted
to
be
federally
permitted.
These
myriad
federal
regulations
provide
adequate
justification
for
exempting
NOx
completely
from
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
notification
requirements.
Any
violations
of
SIPs
or
permits
that
result
from
accidents
or
malfunctions
would
still
need
to
be
reported
to
emergency
officials
since
they
would
not
be
covered
by
the
NOx
exemption.
Any
minor
exceedences
would
be
dealt
with
under
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
60
the
permitting
provisions,
which
is
a
much
more
appropriate
result
than
reporting
them
to
emergency
officials.
(
p.
2)

The
bottom
line
is
that
emergency
officials
are
not
benefited
by
receiving
notification
of
routine
NOx
releases,
regardless
of
the
quantity.
Unless
the
release
is
the
result
of
a
catastrophic
accident,
emergency
officials
would
likely
take
no
action
to
address
a
NOx
release.
Therefore,
EPA
should
extend
the
proposed
exemption
to
include
all
sources
of
NOx
releases
resulting
from
routine
combustion
activities.
As
evidenced
by
the
Agency's
statement
at
page
57818
of
the
proposal,
the
mission
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
would
not
be
jeopardized
by
such
an
exemption
since
the
Agency
is
"
not
aware
of
any
of
the
NOx
release
notifications
that
were
previously
submitted
has
resulted
in
a
response
action
being
taken,
unless
it
was
the
result
of
a
accident
or
malfunction."
This
is
in
light
of
notifications
made
from
numerous
facilities
releasing
in
quantities
in
excess
of
5000
pounds
per
24
hours
(
Table
1
and
2
on
pages
57815
and
57816,
respectively).
(
p.
2)

If
non­
accidental
NOx
releases
from
stationary
combustion
sources
are
not
entirely
exempted
from
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
notification
standards,
then
EPA
should
at
the
very
least
exempt
two
other
sources
of
NOx
to
further
reduce
the
notification
burden.
One
source
is
stationary
internal
combustion
engines
(
emergency
generators)
of
moderate
size
which
can
emit
NOx
emissions
in
excess
of
1000
pounds
per
day
based
on
AP­
42
emission
factors.
Emergency
generators
are
used
in
emergency
situations
and
have
limited
hours
of
operation.
At
a
time
when
emergency
generators
are
required,
facility
personnel
have
too
many
pressing
matters
on
their
hands
to
be
required
to
file
a
notification
that
will
only
be
filed
away
with
no
action
on
the
part
of
the
recipient.
(
p2­
3)

The
second
specific
activity
that
should
be
exempted
is
explosive
detonation
associated
with
blasting
of
hard
rock
in
quarries.
These
blasts
can
release
low
levels
of
NOx
that
would
not
alone
exceed
the
current
10
pound
threshold
in
a
single
blast.
Again,
the
additional
burden
of
having
to
report
these
continuous
releases
of
NOx
is
significant,
particularly
when
compared
to
the
fact
that
a
few
additional
pounds
of
NOx
released
will
most
likely
have
no
impact
on
the
emergency
official
receiving
the
notification.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0101.1
Response
Number:
3
Commenter
Name:
Timothy
G.
Hunt,
Senior
Director,
Air
Quality
Programs,
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA)

The
proposed
rule
limits
the
reporting
exemption
to
releases
of
less
than
1000
pounds
in
24
hours.
AF&
PA
believes
that
the
exemption
cap
should
be
increased
so
it
is
consistent
with
applicable
NOx
permitting
thresholds.
(
p.
2)

EPA
noted
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
exemption
rule
that
"
NOx
releases
to
air
are
somewhat
unique
in
that,
in
most
cases,
federally
enforceable
permits
(
including
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
61
State
issued
through
delegated
programs)
are
not
issued
to
facilities
that
release
NOx
below
a
certain
threshold."
70
Fed.
Reg.
57,817.
EPA
concluded
that
"
NOx
emissions
from
these
sources
are
minimal
and
may
not
pose
a
hazard
to
health
or
the
environment."
Id.
Although
EPA
acknowledged
that
such
thresholds
range
up
to
250
tons
per
year,
it
limited
the
exemption
to
less
than
1000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period,
which
is
roughly
180
tons
per
year
for
a
plant
operating
24
hours
per
day,
365
days
per
year.
The
proposed
rule
includes
no
justification
for
capping
the
exemption
short
of
the
permitting
threshold.
In
fact,
the
proposal
reasoned
that
the
1000­
pound
exemption
is
warranted
because
"
this
level
is
below
the
level
at
which
permits
are
required
under
the
CAA
for
NOx,
such
that
it
appears
`
infeasible'
that
any
response
would
be
undertaken.
The
same
can
be
said
of
releases
up
to
1500
pounds
per
24­
hour
period,
which
are
also
below
the
250
TPY
threshold
EPA
cited
in
the
preamble.
For
this
reason,
EPA
should
increase
the
exemption
cap
to
1500
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
(
p.
2­
3)

Finally,
AF&
PA
understands
that
other
commenters
have
prepared
risk
assessments
to
support
still
higher
exemption
caps.
AF&
PA
would
support
such
exemption
caps
that
are
supported
by
sound
science.
We
note,
in
this
regard,
that
several
of
our
member
companies
have
state­
issued
permits
that
include
5,000
pound
NOx
threshold
levels.
States
issuing
such
permits
have
already
determined
that
emissions
below
such
levels
do
not
warrant
regulatory
oversight
or
response.
We
urge
EPA
to
follow
suit.
One
way
to
accomplish
this
result
is
for
EPA
to
finalize
a
clear
and
concise
definition
of
"
federally
permitted
release"
that
recognizes,
as
"
permitted,"
NOx
releases
that
are
below
thresholds
established
by
either
federal
or
state
rules.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0108.1
Response
Number:
4
Commenter
Name:
Arline
M.
Seeger,
Executive
Director,
National
Lime
Association
(
NLA)

Lime
manufacturing
requires
burning
fossil
fuels
to
calcine
high
quality
chemical
grade
limestone
in
kilns.
Combustion­
related
NOx
emissions
from
virtually
every
commercial
lime
plant
in
the
U.
S.
exceed
the
proposed
reporting
threshold
of
1,000
pounds/
day.
(
p.
1)

Although
lime
plants
with
federal
permits
that
contain
NOx
emission
limits
qualify
for
the
"
federally­
permitted
release"
exemption
from
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
release
reporting,
many
federal
permits
for
lime
plants
do
not
specifically
limit
NOx.
For
such
plants,
reporting
under
EPA's
emergency
release
reporting
programs
would
ordinarily
be
required.
However,
EPA
announced
on
April
17,
2002
its
decision
to
refrain
from
enforcing
the
reporting
requirement
for
all
combustion
sources
of
NOx
until
it
examined
whether
emergency
response
planning
agencies
need
such
information.
(
p.
1)

Combustion­
related
NOx
emissions
from
all
lime
plants
are
reported
annually
to
the
states
under
the
federal
Consolidated
Emissions
Reporting
Rule
(
CERR).
These
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
62
reports
are
readily
available
to
emergency
response
agencies
and
the
public
through
databases
such
as
the
NEI
and
AirData.
(
p.
2)

Contrary
to
the
implication
in
the
preamble,
EPA's
proposal
is
not
deregulatory.
More,
not
fewer
facilities
will
have
to
submit
release
reports
under
EPA's
preferred
option.
Many
of
these
facilities,
including
lime
plants,
are
small
businesses.
We
urge
EPA
to
reconsider
its
preferred
approach,
especially
in
light
of
the
burden
it
will
place
on
small
businesses.
There
is
absolutely
no
need
for
emergency
responders
or
the
public
to
receive
reports
on
combustion­
related
NOx
emissions
from
industrial
sources
more
frequently
than
annually.
We
would
be
glad
to
participate
in
any
small
business
outreach
the
Agency
plans
to
conduct
on
this
proposal.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0083.1
Response
Number:
5
Commenter
Name:
John
E.
Pinkerton,
Ph.
D.,
Vice
President,
Air
Quality,
National
Council
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement,
Inc.
(
NCASI)

The
overall
value
of
reporting
non­
federally
permitted
combustion
source
NO
and
NO2
emissions
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
must
be
questioned.
It
seems
unlikely
that
short­
term
emissions
of
NO
or
NO2
would
result
in
adverse
human
health
effects,
since
EPA
has
determined
that
only
an
annual
average
NO2
NAAQS
is
necessary
to
protect
human
health
from
adverse
effects
of
oxides
of
nitrogen.
Furthermore,
larger
NOx
emission
sources
would
most
likely
have
a
federally­
enforceable
air
operating
permit,
and
thus
would
not
be
subject
to
CERCLA/
EPCRA
reporting
for
NO
and
NO2
emissions.
While
the
proposed
1000
lb/
24
hr
administrative
exemption
for
combustion
sources
would
eliminate
much
unnecessary
reporting,
it
is
not
apparent
why
CERCLA/
EPCRA
release
reports
from
non­
federally
permitted
combustion
sources
emitting
over
1000
lb/
24
hr
are
still
needed.
It
seems
unlikely
that
such
reports
will
trigger
response
actions.
It
appears
illogical
to
require
such
reports
when
both
smaller
and
larger
federally
permitted
NOx
emission
sources
are
not
being
required
to
do
CERCLA/
EPCRA
reporting.
(
p.
1­
2)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
support
for
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
that
includes
releases
greater
than
1,000
pounds.

AF&
PA
suggested
increasing
the
exemption
to
a
1,500
pound
level
because
those
releases
would
also
be
below
the
250
TPY
that
EPA
cites
in
the
NPRM.
Because
EPA
has
adopted
the
RQ
levels
of
1,
10,
100,
1000,
and
5000
pounds
originally
established
pursuant
to
CWA
section
311
(
see
40
CFR
Part
117)
the
Agency
would
not
adopt
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
level
that
is
inconsistent
with
its
long­
established
RQ
levels.
The
Agency
adopted
the
CWA
five­
level
system
primarily
because
(
1)
it
has
been
successfully
used
pursuant
to
the
CWA,
(
2)
the
regulated
community
is
already
familiar
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
63
with
these
five
levels,
and
(
3)
it
provides
a
relatively
high
degree
of
discrimination
among
the
potential
hazards
posed
by
different
CERCLA
hazardous
substances.
(
See
50
FR
13456,
13465,
April
4,
1985.)

At
this
time
EPA
is
not
considering
extending
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
specific
sources.
However,
EPA
wishes
to
clarify
that
the
release
of
NOx
during
the
activity
of
explosive
detonation
associated
with
blasting
of
hard
rock
in
quarries
(
described
by
PCA)
is,
for
the
purposes
of
this
final
rule,
a
release
of
NOx
that
is
the
result
of
combustion
and
thus
eligible
for
the
administrative
reporting
exemption.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
64
B.
Increase
RQ
for
Combustion­
Related
Exemption
to
5,000
Pounds
Commenter
Number:
0081.1
Response
Number:
6
Commenter
Name:
Nancy
J
Dotson,
Environmental
Associate,
Corporate
Health,
Safety,
Environment
and
Security
Division,
Eastman
Chemical
Company
(
Eastman)

°
Increase
the
combustion­
related
exemption
to
5,000
pounds
per
24
hours,
to
further
reduce
burden
on
industry
and
the
Federal
response
system,
because
this
quantity
of
release
is
also
unlikely
to
require
or
result
in
any
agency
action.
The
lack
of
any
needed
agency
action
appears
to
have
been
the
basis
for
proposing
1,000
pounds,
and
Eastman
believes
the
same
rationale
applies
for
releases
up
to
5,000
pounds.
(
p.
2)

°
The
current
10­
pound
reportable
quantity
(
RQ)
results
in
an
abundance
of
reports
for
which
no
response
is
ever
taken
or
needed.
It
is
a
waste
of
resources
on
both
the
part
of
industry
and
government.
(
p.
2)

°
According
to
EPA,
the
average
passenger
car
driven
12,500
miles
annually
puts
38
pounds
of
NOx
into
the
air
(
www.
gocarfree.
com/
whycarfree.
htm).
In
2003,
there
were
107
million
U.
S.
households,
each
with
an
average
of
1.9
cars,
trucks
or
sport
utility
vehicles
and
1.8
drivers,
reported
by
the
Bureau
of
Transportation
Statistics.
That
equals
204
million
vehicles
and
191
million
drivers.
(
http://
hypertextbook.
com/
facts/
2001/
MarinaStasenko.
shtml)
Overall,
motor
vehicles
are
estimated
to
account
for
about
55%
of
all
NOx
emissions.
(
p.
3)

°
Industrial/
commercial/
residential
sources
combined
account
for
about
22%
of
all
NOx
emissions,
with
utilities
also
accounting
for
22%
(
www.
epa.
gov/
air/
urbanair/
nox/
what.
html).
(
p.
3)

°
EPA
has
put
in
place
a
number
of
regulations
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
that
have
the
effect
of
lowering
NOx
emissions,
e.
g.,
the
NOx
SIP
Call.
EPA
also
has
a
significant
amount
of
data
regarding
NOx
emissions
throughout
the
country.
Given
these
other
sources
of
data,
requiring
reports
on
small
quantities
of
NOx
from
industrial
sources
is
meaningless.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0091.1
Response
Number:
7
Commenter
Name:
Bruce
J.
Alexius,
EH&
S
Regulatory
Affairs
Expertise
Center,
The
Dow
Chemical
Company
(
DOW)

The
administrative
reporting
exemption
level
should
be
raised
to
5000
pounds.
(
p.
3)

Discussion:
Dow
has
done
air
dispersion
modeling
using
a
USEPA
developed
model
to
illustrate
the
relatively
minor
impact
of
an
incremental
5000
pounds
of
emissions
from
actual
boiler
and
gas
turbine
operations.
In
the
examples
below,
Dow
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
65
interprets
all
NOx
emissions
as
NO2
as
NO
quickly
reacts
to
NO2
after
release
from
a
combustion
stack.
(
p.
3)

Example
1:
A
boiler
normally
operates
with
emissions
of
3800
pounds
NOx
per
day
or
approximately
160
pounds
per
hour.
Under
an
assumption
that
all
3800
permitted
emissions
plus
5000
pounds
of
episodic
emissions
were
released
in
24
hours,
and
using
the
stack
and
operating
conditions
of
the
boiler,
an
episodic
increase
to
8800
pounds
per
day
results
in
a
worst
case
predicted
hourly
concentration
of
73
micrograms
per
cubic
meter,
much
less
than
the
California
acute
REL
for
NO2
of
470
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
(
p.
3)

Example
2:
Two
gas
turbines
normally
operate
with
emissions
of
5000
pounds
per
day
or
approximately
210
pounds
per
hour.
The
predicted
worst
case
hourly
concentrations
from
these
units
are
34
and
62
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
respectively.
Even
if
the
hourly
emission
from
these
units
doubled,
reflecting
a
5000
pound
per
day
increase,
maximum
predicted
hourly
concentrations
of
68
and
124
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
result.
Again,
the
results
are
much
less
than
the
California
acute
REL
for
NO2
of
470
micrograms
per
cubic
meter.
(
p.
3)

Aside
from
modeling
exercises
on
individual
equipment,
5000
pounds
of
additional
emissions
in
any
given
day
from
a
large
facility
will
most
likely
not
push
the
facility
past
its
site
wide
permitted
emissions.
For
example,
Dow
Louisiana
Operations,
a
relatively
small
power
generator
in
the
area,
is
permitted
for
approximately
16
tons
per
day
of
NOx
emissions,
which
is
in
compliance
with
all
regulatory
requirements.
Normal
emissions
are
such
that
a
5000
pound
episodic
increase
would
not
result
in
total
emissions
reaching
permitted
levels.
Even
if
a
permit
limit
is
exceeded,
in
the
broader
context
of
the
wider
geographic
area
with
large
power
generation
facilities,
a
5000
pound
episode
becomes
a
minor
concern
requiring
no
immediate
notification
or
response.
As
mentioned
above,
reporting
of
these
emissions
will
still
occur
under
other
regulatory
domains.
(
p.
4)

Recommendation:
Raise
the
administrative
exemption
level
to
5000
pound
as
releases
from
combustion
devices
do
not
represent
a
threat
requiring
immediate
reporting
and
response.
(
p.
4)

Commenter
Number:
0082.1
Response
Number:
8
Commenter
Name:
T.
Ted
Cromwell,
Managing
Director
 
Environmental,
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC)

EPA
Should
Promulgate
a
Higher
Exemption
Threshold
of
5,000
Pounds
(
p.
2)

EPA's
preamble
requests
comment
on
whether
a
higher­
level
threshold
than
the
proposed
1,000
pounds
is
appropriate.
EPA
should
promulgate
a
higher
exemption
threshold
of
5,000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
A
5,000
pound
administrative
exemption
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
66
would
result
in
fewer
release
reports
being
filed,
resulting
in
less
burden
for
facilities
who
otherwise
would
have
to
comply
with
the
notification
requirements
of
§
103
of
CERCLA
and
§
304
of
EPCRA
and
with
resultant
reduced
burden
for
EPA,
the
National
Response
Center,
State
Emergency
Response
Commissions
(
SERCs)
and
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committees
(
LEPCs).
(
p.
2)

EPA
requests
supporting
data
for
increasing
the
exemption
threshold
to
5,000
pounds
per
24
hours.
70
FR
57818.
ACC
incorporates
by
reference
the
Dow
Chemical
Company's
comments
on
this
proposal.
Specifically,
Dow
has
conducted
modeling
to
illustrate
the
relatively
minor
impact
of
5,000
pounds
of
emission
from
actual
boiler
and
gas
turbine
operations
at
its
facilities.
Further,
Dow's
comments
state
that
by
increasing
the
NOx
exemption
threshold
to
5,000
pounds
for
an
episodic
release,
a
facility's
emissions
would
still
be
within
its
permitted
levels.
We
believe
this
information
helps
support
an
increase
in
the
threshold
for
NOx
to
5,000
pounds,
or
at
a
minimum,
it
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
promulgate
a
threshold
of
1,000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
(
p.
3)

Since
1983,
monitored
levels
of
NO2
have
decreased
by
21
percent.
These
downward
trends
in
national
NO2
levels
are
reflected
in
all
regions
of
the
country.
Nationally,
average
NO2
concentrations
are
well
below
the
NAAQS
and
are
currently
at
the
lowest
recorded
in
the
past
20
years.
All
areas
of
the
country
that
once
violated
the
NAAQS
for
NO2
now
meet
the
standard.
(
See
www.
epa.
gov/
airtrends/
nitrogen.
html)
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0086.1
Response
Number:
9
Commenter
Name:
Norbert
Dee,
Ph.
D.,
Director,
Environment
&
Safety,
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
(
NPFA)

The
reporting
exemption
threshold
should
be
5000
pounds
(
p.
3)

In
the
proposal,
EPA
defines
the
threshold
level
to
be
1000
lbs
per
24
hour
period,
but
requests
comments
on
whether
it
should
be
raised
to
a
higher
level.
In
developing
this
proposed
rule,
EPA
said
that
the
record
shows
that
a
significant
number
of
NOx
release
reports
from
combustion
events
were
for
releases
less
than
1000
pounds,
and
they
required
no
emergency
response;
therefore,
a
1000
pound
threshold
per
24
hour
period
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
(
p.
3)

However,
in
reviewing
Summary
Tables
1
and
2
in
the
proposed
regulation,
there
are
a
significant
number
of
notifications
at
the
1000
to
5000
pound
level.
We
are
aware
of
a
response
to
a
NOx
release
only
when
there
was
a
direct
release
of
a
compound
of
nitrogen
and
oxygen
(
not
the
effect
of
combustion)
or
when
other
substances
having
an
effect
on
health
(
sulfuric
acid,
ammonia,
hydrofluoric
acid,
hydrogen
cyanide,
etc.)
were
involved
(
Docket
No.
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
0071).
Therefore,
the
5000
pound
threshold
is
also
protective
of
human
heath
and
the
environment,
and
using
it
as
the
threshold
would
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
67
result
in
fewer
unproductive
release
reports
being
filed
with
the
regulatory
agencies.
Consequently,
we
can
see
that
a
significant
value
would
be
gained
by
setting
the
threshold
at
5000
pounds
in
a
24
hour
period.
(
p.
3)

Further,
Dow
Chemical
plans
to
submit
to
the
docket
the
results
of
a
modeling
study
which
shows
that
there
is
no
significant
impact
for
the
release
of
5000
pounds
of
NOx
in
a
24
hour
period,
even
if
the
total
quantity
is
released
in
the
first
hour.
NPRA
incorporates
by
reference
the
Dow
Chemical
comments
on
this
proposal.
(
p.
4)

EPA
addresses
the
consequences
of
an
RQ
of
10
pounds
for
NOx
(
p.
4)

EPA
has
correctly
concluded
that
an
RQ
of
10
pounds
in
24
hours
for
combustion
NOx
is
not
necessary
for
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
in
fact,
it
has
resulted
in
a
high
frequency
of
release
notifications
which
have
caused
unproductive
efforts
by
both
the
regulators
and
the
regulated
community.
In
general,
NPRA
supports
the
approach
followed
by
EPA
in
this
proposal
to
address
this
problem
by
administratively
exempting
the
reporting
of
certain
NOx
emissions
due
to
combustion
activities.
(
p.
4)

However,
NPRA
believes
that
the
correct
solution
for
NOx
release
reporting
is
to
change
the
basic
reportable
quantity
(
RQ)
from
10
pounds
to
a
reasonable
figure,
which
we
consider
to
be
5000
pounds.
Although
we
support
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
as
a
source
of
immediate
relief
(
as
long
as
it
includes
an
exemption
for
the
release
of
NOx
for
all
combustion
activities),
we
recognize
that
the
appropriate
solution
for
an
unnecessarily
low
RQ
is
to
raise
the
RQ,
as
was
done
for
sulfur
dioxide
a
few
years
ago.
NPRA
encourages
the
Agency
to
continue
to
pursue
this
issue.
(
p.
4)

Commenter
Number:
0095.1
Response
Number:
10
Commenter
Name:
James
D.
Schultz,
Vice
President,
Environment
&
Energy,
American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute
(
AISI)

In
the
first
instance,
the
threshold
of
1,000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period
is
unreasonably
low.
While
we
do
not
believe
that
any
threshold
is
necessary,
EPA
at
the
very
least
should
consider
a
higher
reporting
threshold
of
at
least
5,000
pounds.
A
large
number
of
reports
in
recent
years
fall
within
the
1,000
to
5,000
pound
range
and
none
are
known
to
have
necessitated
a
response
nor
threatened
human
health
or
the
environment.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0096.1
Response
Number:
11
Commenter
Name:
Roderick
T.
Dwyer,
Deputy
General
Counsel,
National
Mining
Association
(
NMA)

EPA
has
requested
comment
on
whether
the
proposed
exemption's
RQ
should
be
lower
or
higher
than
the
proposed
level
of
1,000
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period.
NMA
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
68
strongly
urges
EPA
not
to
lower
the
trigger
level.
Lower
reporting
levels
would
mean
that
too
many
facilities
would
still
be
reporting
NOx
releases
for
which
no
government
response
would
be
necessary,
appropriate
or
even
possible.
Lower
trigger
levels
would
thus
continue
to
waste
response
authorities'
limited
resources.
(
p.
3)

On
the
other
hand,
the
record
evidence
would
support
granting
a
reporting
exemption
for
NOx
releases
at
levels
as
high
as
5,000
pounds.
As
long
as
the
NOx
release
was
not
due
to
an
accident
or
a
malfunction
but
instead
was
a
routine
or
anticipated
release,
the
need
for
any
type
of
governmental
response
would
be
as
highly
questionable
as
the
need
for
a
government
response
to
releases
at
the
l,
000
pound
level.
It
is
worth
noting
again
that
CAA
NOx
controls
are
imposed
at
release
levels
considerably
higher
than
5,000
pounds.
(
p.
3)

NMA
would
strongly
support
providing
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
NOx
releases
up
to
5,000
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period
that
did
not
result
from
an
accident
or
malfunction.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0102.1,
0110
Response
Number:
12
Commenter
Name:
Pamela
F.
Faggert,
Vice
President
and
Chief
Environmental
Officer,
Dominion
While
proposing
an
administrative
exemption
for
NOx
releases
above
1000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period,
EPA
has
also
requested
comment
on
several
other
administrative
exemption
levels
for
NOx
releases.
Dominion
urges
EPA
to
adopt
an
exemption
level
of
5000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
(
p.
2)

As
outlined
above,
the
RQ
for
NOx
releases
has
been
set
at
a
level
that
has
no
correlation
to
protection
of
the
public
health.
In
it's
discussion
of
the
1000­
pound
threshold,
EPA
concludes
that
even
raising
the
administrative
exemption
level
to
1000
pounds
may
not
trigger
an
agency
response:
"
in
selecting
an
exemption
level
of
1000
pounds
per
24
hour
period,
the
Agency
notes
that
this
level
is
below
the
level
at
which
permits
are
required
under
the
CAA
for
NOx,
such
that
it
appears
`
infeasible'
that
any
response
would
be
undertaken."
EPA
further
concludes
that
the
reporting
mechanism
currently
in
place,
which
has
produced
more
than
13,000
notifications
for
NOx
releases
since
1994,
have
not
provided
the
intended
results:
" 
such
submissions
particularly
those
at
levels
below
1000
pounds
per
24
hours,
have
not
furthered
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment".
(
p.
2­
3)

The
example
cited
above
for
new
large
utility
units
shows
that
some
facilities
may
be
fully
compliant
with
the
most
stringent
NOx
emissions
limits
and
still
emit
1320
times
the
10­
pound
RQ
under
this
rule.
As
a
practical
matter,
the
NOx
emissions
limits
in
new
permits
are
set
even
lower
than
the
proposed
NSPS.
A
recent
permit
issued
for
a
coalfired
plant
in
Illinois
established
a
NOx
emission
limit
at
0.08
pounds
per
million
Btu
of
heat
input.
A
5000
million
Btu
per
hour
coal­
fired
boiler
in
compliance
with
this
permit
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
69
limitation
would
still
emit
almost
twice
an
RQ
threshold
for
NOx
of
5000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
Therefore,
EPA
should
consider
setting
an
RQ
threshold
no
lower
than
5000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0104.1
Response
Number:
13
Commenter
Name:
Lee
B.
Zeugin,
Normal
W.
Fichthorn,
David
G.
Scott
II,
Junton
&
Williams,
LLP,
Counsel
for
the
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)

Emissions
of
NOx
Are
Heavily
Regulated
and
Monitored
in
the
United
States.
(
p.
5)

NOx
emissions
from
electric
generating
power
plant
combustion
are
already
heavily
regulated,
monitored,
and
reported
under
the
CAA
and
will
be
subject
to
further
control
following
the
implementation
of
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
("
CAIR")
and
EPA's
regional
haze
regulations
requiring
Best
Available
Retrofit
Technology
("
BART").
(
p.
5)

NOx
emissions
from
electric
generating
units
are
regulated
directly
and
indirectly
under
CAA
emission
control
programs
including
CAA
Section
111
(
establishing
new
source
performance
standards),
CAA
Title
I
Part
C
(
governing
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
and
visibility
improvement
programs),
the
NOx
SIP
Call,
CAA
Title
I
Part
D
governing
nonattainment
areas,
state
implementation
plans
("
SIPs")
to
attain
and
maintain
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
("
NAAQS")
for
ozone
and
NOx
and,
in
the
case
of
coal­
fired
plants,
the
Title
IV
acid
rain
program.
Title
IV
and
other
programs
also
impose
detailed
requirements
for
monitoring
and
reporting
on
NOx
emissions
from
fuel
combustion
at
virtually
all
sizeable
electric
generating
units
in
the
48
contiguous
United
States.
In
addition,
new
regulations
to
implement
CAIR
and
BART
requirements
are
expected
to
result
in
further
control
of
emissions
of
NOx
from
power
plants
in
most
areas
of
the
United
States.
(
p.
5)

Given
the
significant
level
of
NOx
emission
control
regulations
and
NOx
emission
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
applicable
to
electric
generating
units
under
the
CAA,
increasing
the
effective
reporting
threshold
for
NOx
emissions
from
those
sources
will
not
reduce
the
amount
of
meaningful
information
available
to
emergency
responders.
(
p.
5)

Commenter
Number:
0107,
0107.1
Response
Number:
14
Commenter
Name:
Pamela
A.
Lacey,
Senior
Managing
Counsel,
American
Gas
Association
(
AGA)

AGA
Supports
API
Request
to
Raise
the
Exemption
to
5,000
Ibs/
24
hrs
(
p.
3)

While
we
support
the
proposal
to
exempt
combustion
sources
of
up
to
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours,
we
would
prefer
a
threshold
of
5,000
pounds
per
24
hours.
Legally
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
70
allowed
emissions
from
some
natural
gas
combustion
sources
could
exceed
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
particularly
if
the
threshold
were
applied
on
a
plant­
wide
basis
rather
than
on
a
unit
specific
basis.
It
would
be
helpful
for
EPA
to
clarify
this
issue.
(
p.
3)

AGA
agrees
with
the
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)
that
EPA
should
increase
the
new
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
cover
combustion
sources
that
emit
up
to
5,000
pounds
per
24
hours.
We
agree
that
this
would
help
reduce
unnecessary
reporting
from
sources
of
legally
permitted
emissions
and
would
allow
EPA
and
other
state
and
local
responders
to
focus
resources
on
toxic
emissions
that
require
emergency
response.
(
p.
3)

EPA
has
requested
human
health
and
ecological
risk
assessments
to
support
extending
the
proposed
administrative
reporting
exemption
from
1,000
pounds
to
5,000
pounds
NOx
per
24
hours.
AGA
has
not
conducted
such
studies;
however,
we
believe
you
would
find
it
useful
to
review
the
studies
underlying
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
(
NAAQS)
for
nitrogen
dioxide.
Permitting
agencies
are
not
allowed
to
issue
air
permits
that
would
allow
a
source
to
exceed
the
nitrogen
dioxide
NAAQS.
EPA
has
determined
that
this
standard
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Sources
operating
in
compliance
with
their
air
permits
and
the
NAAQS
for
NOx
do
not
pose
a
human
health
or
ecological
risk.
(
p.
3­
4)

It
should
be
noted
that
the
reporting
data
EPA
relied
upon
in
proposing
1,000
pounds
as
the
administrative
exemption
threshold
suggests
that
most
releases
occur
below
that
level.
However,
as
EPA
acknowledges,
the
number
of
releases
reported
in
the
past
was
lower
than
the
number
of
actual
releases
that
occurred
due
to
disagreement
about
reporting
legally
allowed
emissions
and
the
combustion
industry's
reliance
on
EPA's
exercise
of
enforcement
discretion
since
2000.
(
p.
4)

Commenter
Number:
0113.1
Response
Number:
15
Commenter
Name:
Howard
J.
Feldman,
Director,
Regulatory
Analysis
and
Scientific
Affairs,
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)

The
Threshold
Level
Should
be
5,000
Pounds
(
p.
25)

EPA
has
not
offered
any
justification
for
setting
the
reporting
exemption
limit
as
low
as
1000
pounds.
As
illustrated
herein,
extensive
existing
data
show
there
is
no
need
for
response
to
releases
below
1,000
pounds,
thereby
justifying
a
threshold
of
at
least
1,000
pounds.
But
the
data
also
support
a
threshold
of
at
least
5,000
pounds.
According
to
EPA's
data
in
the
preamble,
there
were
approximately
500
notifications
for
NOx
releases
between
1,000
and
5,000
pounds
from
1994
through
2004.
As
for
releases
upward
to
5,000
pounds,
none
of
the
releases
from
combustion
warranted
a
response.
(
p.
25)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
71
EPA
requests
a
health
and
ecological
risk
assessment
to
support
extending
the
exemption
to
all
releases
of
NOx.
API
believes
that
a
threshold
of
5,000
pounds
is
most
appropriate
and
supported
by
existing
data.
A
risk
assessment
for
releases
of
5,000
pounds
or
less
is
not
necessary
because
actual
experience
has
shown
that
these
releases
do
not
require
responses.
(
p.
25)

Furthermore,
for
some
petroleum
operations
that
are
upstream
of
refining,
a
threshold
of
at
least
5,000
pounds
would
be
much
more
practical
to
cover
many
release
scenarios,
due
primarily
to
the
special
circumstances
involved
in
exploration
and
production
activities,
which
are
often
remote
and
occasionally
may
emit
NOx
from
combustion
devices
at
a
threshold
over
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours.
(
p.
25)

Reports
between
the
1,000
and
5,000
lb.
range
serve
no
useful
purpose.
Upon
review
of
the
materials
in
the
docket
(
i.
e.,
the
above­
referenced
CDC
analysis)
there
is
no
evidence
that
any
emergency
responses
were
necessary
or
would
ever
be
necessary
to
any
reports
of
a
release
of
5,000
pounds
per
24
hours
or
less
of
NOx
from
combustion
devices.
Furthermore,
emissions
of
NOx
of
5,000
pounds
are
routinely
permitted
under
state
air
quality
regulations.
(
p.
25­
26)

By
limiting
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
releases
of
less
than
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours,
reporting
would
still
be
required
for
hundreds
of
unnecessary
reports
of
NOx
releases
annually.
As
discussed
above,
these
reports
are
unnecessary
as
no
emergency
response
has
ever
been
required
for
such
release
events.
Further,
API
believes
the
number
of
reports
could
increase
substantially
if
the
enforcement
discretion
were
no
longer
in
place.
Applying
the
exemption
to
releases
of
combustion
NOx
of
5,000
pounds
or
less
per
24
hours
is
the
most
appropriate
choice
for
reducing
unnecessary
reporting
burden
on
the
regulated
community,
the
U.
S.
government,
the
states,
and
local
communities.
(
p.
26)

Furthermore,
API
wishes
to
refer
the
Agency
to
an
impact
analysis
conducted
by
the
Dow
Chemical
Company
(
Dow),
which
has
also
submitted
comments
on
this
proposal.
In
brief,
Dow
has
modeled
sources
(
i.
e.,
boiler
and
gas
turbine)
that
illustrate
the
relatively
minor
impact
of
5,000
pounds
emissions
of
NOx
per
24
hours
from
actual
boiler
and
gas
turbine
operations
(
all
pounds
assumed
to
be
released
the
first
hour).
Dow's
analysis
indicates
that
an
increase
in
the
reporting
threshold
to
5,000
pounds
does
not
represent
a
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment
that
would
require
immediate
reporting
and
emergency
response.
(
p.
26)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
support
for
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
that
increases
the
combustion­
related
exemption
to
5,000
pounds
per
24
hours.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
72
EPA
acknowledges
and
appreciates
the
air
dispersion
modeling
that
DOW
has
performed
using
a
USEPA
developed
model
to
illustrate
the
relatively
minor
impact
of
an
incremental
5000
pounds
of
emissions
from
actual
boiler
and
gas
turbine
operations.

DOW6
used
a
USEPA
air
dispersion
model
to
illustrate
the
impact
of
an
incremental
5,000
pounds
of
emissions
from
actual
boiler
and
gas
turbine
operations
to
support
the
position
that
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
should
be
raised
to
5,000
pounds.
DOW
provided
two
examples
of
NO2
emissions
(
NO
quickly
reacts
to
NO2
after
release
from
a
combustion
stack)
and
the
resulting
hourly
concentrations
(
micrograms/
meter3)
that
illustrate
concentration
levels
that
are
much
less
than
the
California
acute
reference
exposure
level
(
REL)
for
NO2.
DOW
relies
on
the
California
REL
for
airborne
NO2
as
a
benchmark
to
show
that
predicted
ambient
concentrations
from
a
combustion
device
does
not
adversely
affect
human
health.
EPA
has
not
established
an
acute
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
(
NAAQS)
for
short
term
exposure
to
NO2
for
emissions
over
a
24
hour
period.
EPA
does
not
consider
the
risk
information
addressing
these
two
examples
to
be
an
sufficient
for
the
requested
human
health
and
ecological
risk
assessments
because,
1)
commenters
were
informed
in
the
proposed
rule
where
to
obtain
guidance
on
conducting
human
health
and
ecological
risk
assessments,
7
including
addressing
all
current
complete
site­
specific
exposure
pathways
for
all
affected
media,
future
land
use
potential,
potential
exposure
pathways,
and
toxicity
information
and
2)
the
example
emission
scenarios
are
too
narrow
given
the
broader
potential
release
scenarios
that
this
administrative
reporting
exemption
is
seeking
to
include.
In
addition,
releases
of
NOx
to
the
environment
cause
a
wide
variety
of
health
and
environmental
impacts
that
is
not
addressed
by
the
California
REL.
For
example,
ground­
level
ozone
is
formed
when
NOx
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs)
react
in
the
presence
of
sunlight;
acid
rain
is
formed
when
NOx
and
sulfur
dioxide
react
with
other
substances
in
the
air
to
form
acids;
and
NOx
reacts
readily
with
common
organic
compounds
to
form
a
wide
variety
of
toxic
products.
Therefore,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
information
provided,
while
informative,
is
not
sufficient
to
further
increase
the
administrative
reporting
exemption.

With
respect
to
changing
the
basic
reportable
quantity
(
RQ)
from
10
pounds
to
a
"
reasonable"
figure,
which
NPFA
considers
to
be
5,000
pounds;
changing
the
RQ
would
be
contrary
to
EPA's
long
established
principle
of
maintaining
one
RQ
that
applies
to
all
media.
The
RQ
for
NO
and
NO2
was
adjusted
in
the
final
rule
published
April
4,
1985
(
see
50
FR
13456).
The
RQ
for
both
hazardous
substances
was
adjusted
from
their
statutory
RQ8
to
the
current
10
pound
RQ.

The
methodology
chosen
to
adjust
RQs
begins
with
an
evaluation
of
the
intrinsic
physical,
chemical,
and
toxicological
properties
of
each
designated
hazardous
substance.
The
intrinsic
properties
examined
 
called
"
primary
criteria"
 
are
aquatic
toxicity,

6
This
commenter's
position
was
endorsed
and
supported
by
reference
in
several
other
comment
letters.
7
See,
70
FR
57819,
October
4,
2005.
Guidance
can
be
found
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oswer/
riskassessment/
superfund_
toxicity.
htm.
8
The
statutory
RQ
for
NO
was
1
pound.
The
statutory
RQ
for
NO2
was
1,000
pounds.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
73
mammalian
toxicity
(
oral,
dermal,
and
inhalation),
ignitability,
reactivity,
and
chronic
toxicity.
The
Agency
then
ranked
each
intrinsic
property
on
a
five­
tier
scale,
associating
a
specified
range
of
values
on
each
scale
with
a
particular
RQ
value.
Thus,
each
substance
receives
several
tentative
RQ
values
based
on
its
particular
properties.
[
If
available
evidence
shows
that
a
substance
hydrolyzes
into
a
reaction
product
that
is
more
hazardous
than
the
original
substance,
the
primary
criteria
are
applied
to
the
reaction
product
rather
than
to
the
original
substance
to
determine
the
primary
criteria
RQ
values
for
the
original
substance.]
The
lowest
of
all
of
the
tentative
RQs
becomes
the
"
primary
criteria
RQ"
for
that
substance.
After
the
primary
criteria
RQs
are
assigned,
substances
are
further
evaluated
for
their
susceptibility
to
certain
extrinsic
degradation
processes.
These
extrinsic
processes
 
or
secondary
criteria
 
are
biodegradation,
hydrolysis,
and
photolysis,
or
BHP.
If
that
analysis
indicates
that
a
substance
degrades
relatively
rapidly
to
a
less
harmful
compound
through
one
or
more
of
these
processes
when
it
is
released
into
the
environment,
the
primary
criteria
RQ
is
raised
one
level.
The
single
RQ
assigned
to
each
substance
on
the
basis
of
the
primary
criteria
and
BHP
becomes
the
adjusted
RQ
for
that
substance
(
see
50
FR
13456,
13466).

The
Agency
established
a
single
RQ
for
each
hazardous
substance,
regardless
of
the
media
into
which
a
release
might
occur
or
the
most
likely
medium
of
release,
rather
than
on
the
most
sensitive
environmental
trigger.
The
Agency
believed
that
this
was
appropriate
because
(
1)
RQs
are
not
intended
to
represent
judgments
by
the
Agency
as
to
the
specific
degree
of
hazard
associated
with
certain
releases,
(
2)
the
actual
hazard
will
vary
with
the
circumstances
of
the
particular
release,
and
(
3)
the
single
RQ
approach
provides
a
relatively
simple
reporting
system
that
does
not
unduly
burden
either
EPA
or
the
regulated
community
 
since
releases
into
more
than
one
medium
often
occur,
the
single
RQ
approach
will
prevent
confusion.
Section
102(
a)
of
CERCLA
expressly
authorized
the
Administrator
to
set
a
single
quantity
for
each
hazardous
substance,
and
the
legislative
history
emphasizes
the
virtues
of
simplicity
and
administrative
convenience
(
see
50
FR
13456,
13466
and
Sen.
Rep.
848,
96th
Cong.,
2d
Sess.
29
(
1980)).
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
74
C.
Raise
or
Eliminate
the
1,000
Pound
Reporting
Threshold
for
all
Combustion­
Related
Releases
Commenter
Number:
0084
Response
Number:
16
Commenter
Name:
Patricia
McCullough,
Director
 
Environmental
Management,
Northeast
Utilities
System
(
NUSCO)

NUSCO
suggests
eliminating
the
1,000
pound
reporting
threshold,
thereby
exempting
all
combustion­
related
releases.
The
purpose
of
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
emergency
release
reporting
programs
is
to
enable
government
agencies
to
evaluate
and
implement
appropriate
response
actions.
In
the
October
4,
2005
Federal
Register
Notice
of
the
Proposed
Rule
("
Notice")
(
70
FR
57,818)
EPA
states
that
despite
numerous
reports
of
NO
or
NO2
releases,
some
exceeding
5,000
pounds,
there
have
been
no
known
emergency
or
remedial
responses.
Application
of
an
arbitrary
reporting
threshold
is
not
likely
to
change
that.
(
p.
1)

The
EPA's
mission,
also
stated
in
the
Notice
(
70
FR
57,818),
is
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Combustion­
related
NO
and
NO2
emissions
are
usually
very
dilute,
and
do
not
pose
a
significant
health
hazard.
The
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
for
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
are
generally
not
exceeded
in
the
vicinity
of
large
combustion
sources.
In
any
case
where
the
NAAQS
is
exceeded,
it
can
be
dealt
with
on
an
individual
basis.
State
environmental
agencies
are
generally
well
aware
of
the
characteristics
of
sources
of
the
magnitude
of
the
threshold
(
potential
NOx
emissions
in
excess
of
180
tons
per
year).
Thus,
reporting
releases
of
1,000
pounds
or
more
will
serve
no
useful
purpose.
(
p.
1­
2)

Commenter
Number:
0099.1
Response
Number:
17
Commenter
Name:
Robert
D.
Bessette,
President,
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
(
CIBO)

EPA
asks
whether
a
third
alternative
­
exempting
all
NOx
releases
from
combustion
from
the
notification
requirements
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
­­
would
be
appropriate.
CIBO
believes
that
approach
would
certainly
simplify
the
reporting.
While
CIBO
has
not
done
modeling
and
does
not
have
any
specific
risk
data
to
offer
EPA,
EPA
and
state
agencies
have
inventoried
and
assessed
NOx
emissions
from
all
sources
of
combustion
in
detail
in
their
ambient
air
quality
planning
to
assure
compliance
with
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
to
protect
public
health
and
welfare.
It
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
operations
consistent
with
inventories
and
SIPs
are
protective
of
the
public
health.
(
p.
6)

From
a
legal
perspective,
EPA
certainly
could
interpret
the
CERCLA
federally
permitted
release
reporting
exemption
under
§
101(
10)(
H)
to
exclude
all
NOx
from
combustion
activities.
CERCLA
§
101(
10)(
H)
defines
"
federally
permitted
release"
under
the
CAA
to
include
"
any"
emission
subject
to
permits
or
controls
under
§
111,
§
112,
Title
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
75
I
Part
C,
Title
I
Part
D,
or
SIPS.
All
of
the
NOx
emissions
from
sources
of
combustion
are
part
of
the
emission
inventories,
which
make
up
part
of
SIP
plans.
SIP
plans
include
not
only
NSPS
and
NSR/
PSD
requirements,
but
also
include
NOx
SIP,
BART,
RACT
and
other
control
and
permit
requirements
for
major
as
well
as
minor
sources.
It
follows
then
that
all
of
the
NOx
from
combustion
activities
could
be
considered
to
be
covered
under
SIPs
and
CAA
requirements.
(
p.
6)

Commenter
Number:
0103­
1,
0105,
0105­
1,
0111
Response
Number:
18
Commenter
Name:
Douglas
J.
Fulle,
Director,
Environmental
&
Regulatory
Affairs,
Oglethorpe
Power
Corporation
(
OglethorpePower)

EPA
SHOULD
EXEMPT
ALL
RELEASES
OF
NOx
FROM
COMBUSTION
SOURCES
<
1000
POUNDS
(
p.
5)

EPA
has
proposed
a
simple
solution
to
a
complex
problem.
There
is
no
statutory
goal
to
be
served
by
requiring
combustion
sources
to
report
releases
of
NOx
above
a
10­
pound
RQ
in
a
24­
hour
period.
NOx
emissions
from
combustion
sources
are
generally
emitted
from
relatively
tall
stacks
rather
than
at
ground
level.
Therefore,
plume
rise
and
atmospheric
dispersion
reduce
NOx
concentrations
considerably
before
reaching
ground
level.
Excess
emissions
of
1,000
pounds
or
even
more
in
a
24­
hour
period
are
unlikely
to
result
in
ground­
level
concentrations
above
any
health
effects
threshold.
Therefore,
a
higher
threshold
or
even
a
blanket
exemption
would
be
appropriate.
EPA
should
consider
raising
the
threshold
higher
than
1,000
pounds
perhaps
even
establishing
a
blanket
exemption,
so
that
no
release
of
NOx
from
a
combustion
source
would
trigger
the
CERCLA
§
103
or
EPCRA
§
304
reporting
obligations.
(
p.
5)

Using
a
1,000­
pound
threshold,
there
appears
to
be
no
basis
for
distinguishing
between
releases
of
NOx
resulting
from
an
accident
or
equipment
malfunction
and
those
resulting
from
all
other
causes,
in
terms
of
justifying
whether
a
release
should
be
reported
to
the
NRC,
SERC
and
LEPC.
Therefore,
EPA
should
simply
establish
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
NOx
releases
from
combustion
sources
at
1,000
pounds.
While
the
Corporation
could
possibly
support
other
options,
including
a
"
more
efficient
use"
of
the
Continuous
Release
Reporting
Rule,
we
believe
that
the
most
simple
solution
would
be
a
clear,
unequivocal
administrative
reporting
exemption
of
a
certain
threshold
 
here
1,000
pounds.
(
p.
6)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
support
for
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
that
eliminates
the
reporting
threshold
for
combustion­
related
releases
of
NO
and
NO2.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
76
This
page
is
intentionally
left
blank.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
77
V.
REQUESTS
FOR
BROADER
EXEMPTIONS
TO
INCLUDE
ACCIDENTS
AND
MALFUNCTIONS
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
78
A.
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
Commenter
Number:
0113.1
Response
Number:
1
Commenter
Name:
Howard
J.
Feldman,
Director,
Regulatory
Analysis
and
Scientific
Affairs,
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)

The
Exemption
Should
Extend
To
Releases
Resulting
From
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
(
p.
11)

EPA
presents
no
rationale
for
excluding
accidents
and
malfunctions
(
p.
11)

Nowhere
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
does
EPA
present
a
rationale
for
or
in
any
way
explain
why
it
proposed
an
exemption
that
would
be
granted
only
for
releases
that
are
not
the
result
of
accidents
or
malfunctions.
The
only
clue
is
the
statement,
"
First,
we
are
not
aware
that
any
of
the
NOx
release
notifications
that
were
previously
submitted
has
resulted
in
a
response
action
being
taken,
unless
it
was
a
result
of
an
accident
of
malfunction."
This
implies
that
there
have
been
previously
submitted
NOx
notifications
resulting
from
accidents
or
malfunctions
that
did
result
in
a
response
being
taken.
However,
as
explained
above,
this
is
not
true
for
releases
resulting
from
combustion
devices.
No
NOx
releases
from
combustion
devices 
including
many
related
to
accidents
and
malfunctions 
have
required
any
response.
(
p.
11­
12)

The
NOx
release
notifications
that
have
required
response
actions
have
only
been
in
the
category
of
releases
not
related
to
combustion
devices,
such
as
in
situations
where
NOx
was
released
incidental
to
the
actual
reason
for
the
response
(
i.
e.,
fires
and
explosions).
Thus,
limiting
the
exemption
to
releases
to
air
that
are
the
result
of
combustion
devices
may
be
justified.
But
to
further
carve
out
accidents
and
malfunctions
is
unjustified
and
counterproductive.
(
p.
12)

The
approximately
15,000
release
notifications
for
NOx
releases
to
air
since
1994
have
included
many
that
have
been
related
to
accidents
and
malfunctions,
as
explained
in
section
C
below.
Yet
there
has
not
been
any
incident
where
there
has
been
an
emergency
response
to
a
report
of
a
NOx
release
from
a
combustion
device.
This
is
a
strong
riskbased
rationale,
based
on
ample
data,
for
an
exemption
that
encompasses
all
types
of
NOx
releases
to
air
from
combustion
devices,
including
accidents
and
malfunctions.
Based
on
actual
experience,
there
is
no
basis
for
concern
that
there
is
some
unforeseen
type
of
combustion
device­
related
NOx
release
from
an
accident
or
malfunction
that
would
necessitate
a
response.
Further,
EPA's
proposed
approach
of
splitting
combustion
NOx
into
two
types
(
one
qualifying
for
the
exemption
and
one
not
qualifying
for
the
exemption
due
to
its
nature
as
an
accident/
malfunction
emission)
is
not
scientifically
logical
and
is
very
difficult
to
determine
at
the
time
of
the
release.
(
p.
12­
13)

Again
and
again,
over
the
course
of
more
than
15,000
reports
in
a
ten­
year
span
of
time,
emergency
response
personnel
received
reports
of
releases
of
NOx
from
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
79
combustion
sources
and
determined
that
no
response
was
necessary.
This
is
compelling
proof
that
combustion
NOx
releases
pose
little
or
no
risk
to
human
health,
whether
the
releases
are
from
accidents
or
malfunctions
or
otherwise.
(
p.
13)

Moreover,
API's
recommended
approach
is
not
without
parameters,
because
the
threshold
limit,
whether
it
is
1,000
pounds
or
the
5,000
pound
limit
that
we
are
advocating,
would
apply
equally
to
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions.
Thus,
if
EPA
includes
accidents
and
malfunctions
within
the
exemption,
it
would
not
be
without
limitation.
(
p.
13)

Excluding
accidents
and
malfunctions
from
the
reporting
exemption
will
create
confusion
for
the
regulated
community
and
those
enforcing
the
requirements
(
p.
13)

The
discussion
in
the
proposed
rule
does
not
indicate
that
EPA
has
thoroughly
analyzed
the
consequences
of
not
including
accidents
and
malfunctions
in
the
exemption.
In
the
first
place,
EPA
has
not
even
defined
"
accident"
or
"
malfunction"
in
the
proposed
rule,
and
the
definitions
of
"
malfunction"
referenced
by
footnote
in
the
preamble
do
not
provide
sufficient
clarification
to
avoid
confusion.
There
is
also
no
discussion
of
how
accidents
and
malfunctions
are
defined
or
handled
in
other
programs
(
e.
g.,
air
permitting).
(
p.
13)

Without
adopting
the
Clean
Air
Act
NSPS
and
NESHAPS
programs
definitions
of
"
malfunction"
for
purposes
of
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
does
refer
to
those
definitions
at
70
Fed.
Reg.
at
57817
n.
9.
Both
of
those
definitions
provide
that
"
Failures
that
are
caused
in
part
by
poor
maintenance
or
careless
operation
are
not
malfunctions."
This
would
suggest
the
seemingly
anomalous
result
that
a
release
resulting
from
equipment
failure
despite
careful
operation
would
be
a
malfunction
and
not
exempt
from
reporting,
while
a
release
caused
by
careless
operation
would
not
be
a
malfunction,
and
would
be
exempt.
Further,
accidents
and
malfunctions
as
defined
in
the
NSPS
and
NESHAPS
programs
must
already
be
reported
under
those
regulations.
Duplicative
reporting
of
these
events
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
when
no
emergency
response
is
needed
is
both
unnecessary
and
confusing.
(
p.
14)

Combustion
emissions
of
NOx
from
control
devices
such
as
flares
often
result
from
or
are
otherwise
related
to
what
would
probably
be
considered
accidents
and
malfunctions.
While
the
operation
of
a
control
device
is
not
an
accident
or
malfunction
per
se,
it
may
be
related
to
an
accident
and/
or
malfunction.
On
a
practical
level,
it
would
be
difficult
for
both
the
regulated
community
and
government
officials
implementing
and
enforcing
the
requirements
to
interpret
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
when
a
release
is
clearly
outside
the
bounds
of
an
accident
or
malfunction
(
particularly
when
EPA
has
not
even
defined
the
terms),
especially
within
the
timeframe
necessary
to
determine
whether
an
"
immediate"
notification
is
required.
(
p.
14)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
80
The
potential
for
confusion
is
evident
in
the
notifications
EPA
has
received
over
the
past
ten
years.
Based
on
API's
analysis
of
NOx
releases
reported
to
the
NRC,
thirty
percent
of
the
NOx
releases
reported
from
1997
through
2004
included
words
such
as
failure,
emergency,
malfunction,
upset,
or
tripped
in
the
incident
description.
The
analysis
also
determined
that
almost
80
percent
of
the
notifications
included
flare
or
flaring
in
the
incident
description.
It
is
evident
from
the
incident
descriptions
that
it
is
not
automatic
or
even
easy
for
reporting
facility
personnel
to
make
the
distinction
between
the
flaring
activity
itself
(
which
is
intended)
and
event
that
caused
the
gas
to
go
to
the
flare
(
which
may
be
related
to
the
underlying
accident
or
malfunction).
Interpreting
the
limits
of
the
reporting
exemption
would
be
difficult
given
the
nature
of
NOx
releases
from
combustion
activities,
which
are
often
from
control
devices
that
are
operated
as
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction
that
has
occurred
upstream
of
the
device.
(
p.
15)

The
inclusion
of
accidents
and
malfunctions
under
the
exemption
is
necessary
to
provide
clarity
so
that
facilities
and
implementing
officials
understand
their
compliance
obligations.
If
EPA
finalizes
an
exemption
that
does
not
apply
to
accidents
and
malfunctions,
then
confusion
will
follow.
Owners
and
operators
(
and
enforcement
personnel)
will
have
to
make
complicated
case­
by­
case
determinations
of
whether
a
release
is
within
the
boundaries
of
the
exemption.
This
is
the
case
even
where
owners
and
operators
are
properly
operating
control
devices
in
the
normal
course
of
operations.
EPA
will
need
to
ensure
that
any
interpretation
it
makes
regarding
what
is
considered
within
an
"
accident"
or
"
malfunction"
event
is
consistent
with
interpretations
in
other
EPA
programs
(
e.
g.,
air
permitting).
EPA
should
avoid
this
confusion
by
removing
the
"
and
not
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction
of
equipment"
qualifier
from
its
exemption
language
at
40
CFR
302.6(
e)(
1)
&
(
2)
and
40
CFR
355.40(
a)(
2)(
vii).
(
p.
15­
16)

If
accidents
and
malfunctions
are
not
exempt,
EPA
will
seriously
undermine
the
stated
purpose
of
the
reporting
exemption
(
p.
16)

By
not
exempting
NOx
releases
that
result
from
an
accident
or
malfunction,
the
proposed
rule
seriously
undermines
the
Agency's
stated
purpose
of
reducing
unnecessary
reporting.
It
is
difficult
to
assess
the
number
of
NOx
releases
reported
to
the
NRC
that
result
from
accidents
or
malfunctions.
However,
the
incident
descriptions
in
the
NRC
data
do
provide
an
indication
that
a
large
portion
of
reported
incidents
were
somehow
related
to
accidents
or
malfunctions.
As
mentioned
above,
thirty
percent
of
the
NOx
releases
reported
from
1997
through
2004
included
words
related
to
accident
or
malfunction
in
the
incident
description.
(
p.
16)

Also,
informally
collected
information
from
a
subset
of
API
member
facilities
suggests
that
80
percent
or
more
of
reported
NOx
releases
are
related
to
what
would
probably
be
considered
accidents
or
malfunctions.
This
result
is
not
surprising
considering
the
nature
of
the
enforcement
discretion
that
EPA
has
been
exercising
for
NOx
releases,
which
states
that
EPA
will
not
enforce
against
owners/
operators
or
persons
in
charge
for
failure
to
report
air
releases
of
NOx
that
would
otherwise
trigger
a
reporting
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
81
obligation,
unless
such
releases
are
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction.
Thus,
given
that
current
enforcement
discretion
is
extended
only
for
releases
that
are
not
accidents
or
malfunctions,
it
would
be
logical
that
most
current
release
reports
are
related
to
accidents
and
malfunctions.
(
p.
16­
17)

In
summary,
it
appears
that
the
proposed
rule
as
written
would
effectively
disallow
the
exemption
for
many
of
the
very
reports
that
it
is
purported
to
exempt.
As
we
highlighted
in
our
comments
on
the
adjusted
ICRs,
EPA's
burden
reduction
analysis
ignores
the
issue
of
accidents
and
malfunctions
by
incorrectly
assuming
that
none
of
the
currently
reported
releases
are
the
result
of
accidents
or
malfunctions.
If
a
significant
portion
of
current
reports
are
a
result
of
accidents
and
malfunctions
(
or
would
be
interpreted
to
be
in
conservative
practice),
as
suggested
by
the
NRC
data
and
other
information,
then
EPA
is
substantially
overestimating
the
notification
reduction
that
would
be
achieved
by
the
proposed
rule
as
currently
drafted.
EPA
should
rethink
its
approach
to
the
exemption
(
i.
e.,
so
that
it
also
exempts
combustion
releases
related
to
accidents
and
malfunctions)
to
achieve
significant
and
necessary
reduction
in
NOx
release
reports.
(
p.
17)

EPA
has
authority
to
exempt
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions,
as
shown
by
EPA's
own
precedent.
(
p.
17)

As
shown
above,
EPA
has
ample
statutory
authority
to
promulgate
administrative
reporting
exemptions,
and
Congress
specifically
anticipated
that
EPA
would
do
so
in
appropriate
cases.
Moreover,
nothing
in
the
language
of
the
statutes
or
their
legislative
histories
suggests
that
EPA
may
not
include
releases
resulting
from
accidents
or
malfunctions
in
such
exemptions.
(
p.
17­
18)

In
its
2002
guidance
on
federally
permitted
releases,
EPA
hinted
that
releases
resulting
from
accidents
or
malfunctions
could
not
be
exempt
from
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
reporting
requirements.
EPA
quoted
the
following
statement
from
the
discussion
of
federally
permitted
releases
in
the
Senate
report
on
S.
1480:
(
p.
18)

Accidents
 
whatever
their
cause
 
which
result
in,
or
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
result
in
releases
of
hazardous
pollutants
would
not
be
exempt
from
the
requirements
and
liabilities
of
this
bill.
Thus,
fires,
ruptures,
wrecks
and
the
like
invoke
the
response
and
liability
provisions
of
the
bill.
(
p.
18)

This
passage
from
the
legislative
history
does
not
constrain
EPA's
discretion
to
exempt
releases
resulting
from
accidents
or
malfunctions
under
appropriate
circumstances.
First,
nothing
in
the
statutory
language
prohibits
the
exemption
of
such
releases.
Legislative
history
can
be
used
to
explain
­­
but
not
to
change,
enlarge,
or
restrict
­­
statutory
language.
(
p.
18)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
82
Second,
even
if
the
quoted
legislative
history
were
binding
on
EPA,
that
language
dealt
very
specifically
with
the
federally
permitted
releases
exemption.
The
administrative
reporting
exemption
at
issue
in
the
present
rulemaking
is
not
governed
by
any
restrictions
specific
to
the
federally
permitted
releases
exemption.
(
p.
18)

Third,
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
that
includes
releases
of
combustion
NOx
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
would
not
eliminate
reports
for
the
types
of
activities
that
EPA
was
concerned
about
in
the
quoted
passage.
Facilities
would
continue
to
make
reports
to
appropriate
emergency
response
centers
in
the
event
of
fires,
ruptures
and
explosions.
(
p.
18­
19)

However,
facilities
would
no
longer
be
required
to
specifically
report
releases
of
combustion
device
NOx
from
accidents
or
malfunctions.
The
reports
would
instead
focus
on
the
actual
reasons
why
an
emergency
response
may
be
necessary,
including
fires,
explosions
or
releases
of
materials
that
are
truly
hazardous
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
If
EPA
continues
with
a
rule
that
requires
reports
of
releases
of
combustion
NOx
from
accidents
and
malfunctions,
then
it
is
defeating
the
very
purpose
of
the
statutes
that
it
is
trying
to
preserve,
because
such
reports
do
not
require
any
emergency
response
but
do
burden
the
emergency
response
system.
(
p.
19)

Moreover,
there
is
precedent
in
EPA's
existing
regulations
for
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
that
encompasses
accidents
and
malfunctions.
In
a
March
19,
1998
final
rule,
EPA
broadened
reporting
exemptions
for
releases
of
naturally
occurring
radionuclides.
The
stated
purpose
of
the
exemption
was
to
eliminate
"
needless
reporting
burdens"
and
"
allow
EPA
to
better
focus
its
resources
on
the
most
serious
releases,
resulting
in
more
effective
protection
of
public
health
and
welfare
and
the
environment."
(
p.
19)

The
scope
of
the
radionuclides
administrative
reporting
exemption
is
limited
to
releases
from
land
disturbance,
but
it
does
not
exclude
accidents
and
malfunctions.
For
example,
the
exemption
applies
to
releases
from
the
"
transportation
of
coal
and
coal
ash."
Whether
coal
ash
is
slurried
through
a
pipeline
to
a
disposal
pond
or
transported
by
truck,
an
accident
could
occur
during
the
course
of
such
transportation
and
cause
a
release
of
radionuclides.
Yet
the
release
would
be
subject
to
the
reporting
exemption.
This
precedent
necessarily
implies
that
EPA
has
previously
determined
that
it
has
the
statutory
authority
to
exempt
releases
resulting
from
accidents
or
malfunctions,
in
appropriate
cases.
(
p.
19­
20)

In
the
radionuclides
rule,
EPA
judged
limiting
the
exemption
to
releases
from
land
disturbance
to
be
appropriate
given
the
nature
of
radionuclide
releases.
For
NOx
releases,
limiting
the
exemption
to
releases
from
combustion
sources
is
appropriate,
as
these
releases
are
proven
to
be
of
a
nature
that
does
not
require
response.
Whether
or
not
a
release
is
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction
is
irrelevant
from
the
viewpoint
of
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
83
risk
and
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
in
the
case
of
combustion
device
NOx
releases.
(
p.
20)

Moreover,
as
discussed
above,
as
long
as
there
is
some
cap
on
the
exemption
(
e.
g.,
5000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period)
that
is
supported
by
the
existing
record
demonstrating
no
need
for
a
response,
EPA
need
not
speculate
as
to
whether
some
vastly
larger
release
might
someday
require
a
response.
Releases
above
the
cap
would
still
be
reported,
whether
resulting
from
accidents
or
malfunctions
(
however
the
terms
are
defined)
or
from
some
other
cause.
(
p.
20)

EPA
Can
Limit
the
Scope
of
the
Administrative
Reporting
Exemption
to
Combustion
Devices.
(
p.
20)

In
extending
the
exemption
to
accidents
and
malfunctions,
the
Agency
can
nonetheless
limit
the
proposed
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
emissions
from
combustion
devices,
as
opposed
to
emissions
of
all
combustion
NOx.
By
adding
the
qualifier
"
devices"
to
the
scope
of
the
exemption,
situations
that
potentially
warrant
an
emergency
response,
such
as
explosions
and
fires
and
liquid
or
chemical
releases
of
NOx,
would
fall
outside
of
the
exemption.
(
p.
20­
21)

As
part
of
this
approach,
EPA
should
specifically
define
combustion
devices
as
including,
among
other
devices,
flares,
incinerators,
internal
combustion
engines,
turbines,
boilers,
thermal
oxidizers,
and
heaters.
The
administrative
reporting
exemption
would
then
be
limited
to
these
combustion
devices,
and
would
not
apply
to
explosions
and
fires
from
uncontrolled
sources
and
liquid
or
chemical
NOx
releases.
NOx
releases
from
explosions
and
uncontrolled
fires
and
liquid
or
chemical
releases
would
still
be
reported
to
emergency
response
personnel,
even
though
many
such
releases
may
also
be
considered
combustion
emissions.
(
p.
21)

In
Section
II
A
of
these
comments,
we
presented
three
examples
of
NOx
releases
resulting
from
fires
or
explosions,
or
a
liquid
or
chemical
release
of
NOx.
The
examples
were
extracted
from
the
CDC
analysis
of
NOx
releases
requiring
an
emergency
response.
Although
in
all
three
instances
an
emergency
response
was
necessary,
the
response
was
necessary
as
a
result
of
either
the
explosion
or
fire
or
the
liquid
or
chemical
release
of
NOx,
not
the
NOx
release
itself.
Further,
all
instances
of
incidents
involving
NOx
that
necessitated
an
emergency
response
referenced
in
the
CDC
analysis
were
the
result
of
either
an
explosion
or
fire
or
a
liquid
or
chemical
release
of
NOx
 
not
from
combustion
devices
(
i.
e.,
flares,
incinerators,
internal
combustion
engines,
turbines,
boilers,
thermal
oxidizers,
and
heaters).
(
p.
21­
22)

Amending
the
scope
and
defining
combustion
devices
as
flares,
incinerators,
internal
combustion
engines,
turbines,
boilers,
thermal
oxidizers,
and
heaters
will
allow
facilities
to
take
advantage
of
the
proposed
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
these
devices,
including
combustion
emissions
related
to
accidents
and
malfunctions,
but
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
84
facilities
would
still
be
required
to
report
explosions
and
fires
from
uncontrolled
sources
or
a
liquid
or
chemical
release
of
NOx
where
the
release
exceeds
10
pounds
of
NOx
per
24
hours.
(
p.
22)

In
summary,
by
extending
the
exemption
to
accidents
and
malfunctions
and
limiting
the
scope
to
combustion
devices,
EPA
would
eliminate
the
confusion
caused
by
the
accident
and
malfunction
exclusion,
while
continuing
to
receive
reports
of
NOx
releases
from
explosions,
fires
from
uncontrolled
sources,
and
liquid
and
chemical
releases
of
NOx.
(
p.
22)

Commenter
Number:
0082.1
Response
Number:
2
Commenter
Name:
T.
Ted
Cromwell,
Managing
Director
 
Environmental,
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC)

EPA
Should
Broaden
Any
Exemption
to
Include
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
(
p.
2)

The
immediate
release
reporting
provisions
under
EPCRA
and
CERCLA
are
designed
to
alert
regulatory
authorities
in
case
they
are
needed
to
respond
to
unplanned
events.
Planned
air
emissions,
such
as
combustion
NOx,
are
addressed
in
a
facility's
Title
V
permit.
ACC
believes
that
EPA's
proposal
exempting
certain
types
of
releases,
but
not
covering
unplanned
events
(
e.
g.,
accidents
and
malfunctions)
is
flawed.
Regardless
of
the
form
of
the
release,
the
net
result
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
and
the
need,
or
lack
thereof,
for
government
response,
is
the
same.
(
p.
2)

EPA's
notice
does
not
extend
the
proposed
exemption
to
include
accidents
or
malfunctions
that
result
in
the
releases
of
NOx
at
the
final
RQ
of
10
pounds
or
more
per
24
hours.
EPA's
proposal
also
sets
forth
two
tables
of
notification
data
from
the
National
Response
Center.
Table
1
refers
to
episodic
emission
events
and
Table
2
refers
to
data
from
continuous
release
reports.
70
FR
57815.
Table
2
indicates
that
only
16
continuous
release
reports
were
made
in
2004,
which
has
declined
dramatically
as
grandfathered
sources
are
permitted
and
as
a
result
of
the
current
enforcement
discretion
policy.
Table
1
shows
an
increase
in
episodic
reports.
We
believe
the
majority
of
episodic
reports
are
due
to
accidents
or
malfunctions.
Therefore,
to
achieve
EPA's
goal
of
burden
reduction,
accidents
and
malfunctions
should
be
included
in
the
exemption.
(
p.
2)

Finally,
we
believe
that
exempting
combustion
NOx
releases
is
appropriate.
EPA's
docket
for
this
rulemaking
contains
information
to
support
this
exemption.
A
memo
from
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
(
CDC)
dated
August
8,
2003
to
EPA
evaluates
emergency
response
incidents
involving
NOx.
The
incidents
from
1993
 
2002
involving
NOx
were
from
non­
combustion
releases.
See
EPA­
HQ­
SFUND­
2003­
0022­
007
1,
ATSDR
Response
to
USEPA
Data
Request
for
Incidents
that
Involved
the
Substances
Nitrogen
Dioxide,
Oxides
of
Nitrogen
and
Nitrogen
Oxide
Either
Alone
or
in
a
Mixture.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0083.1
Response
Number:
3
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
85
Commenter
Name:
John
E.
Pinkerton,
Ph.
D.,
Vice
President,
Air
Quality,
National
Council
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement,
Inc.
(
NCASI)

EPA's
proposed
administrative
exemption
would
not
cover
releases
above
the
10
lb
RQ
that
result
from
accidents
or
malfunctions
of
equipment.
It
should
be
recognized
that
NOx
emissions
from
combustion
sources
are
not
constant
even
under
steady­
state
operation.
Trying
to
quantify
the
change
in
NOx
emissions,
especially
of
a
small
amount
like
10
lb,
that
might
result
from
some
type
of
equipment
malfunction,
can
be
very
difficult
even
if
a
continuous
NOx
emission
monitoring
system
is
in
place.
Smaller
NOx
emission
sources
normally
do
not
have
NOx
monitoring
systems,
so
quantification
of
NOx
changes
would
not
even
be
possible.
Thus,
excluding
emissions
during
malfunctions
from
the
administrative
exemption
seems
to
be
unrealistic.
This
restriction
should
be
dropped.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0086.1
Response
Number:
4
Commenter
Name:
Norbert
Dee,
Ph.
D.,
Director,
Environment
&
Safety,
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
(
NPRA)

(
1)
The
Administrative
Reporting
exemption
should
also
apply
to
accidents
and
malfunctions
(
p.
2)

EPCRA
and
CERCLA
reporting
requirements
are
intended
to
alert
regulatory
agencies
about
unplanned
releases
which
may
require
them
to
respond
to
the
event.
Planned
releases,
such
as
the
combustion
release
of
NOx,
are
typically
covered
in
a
facility's
Title
V
permit.
In
EPA's
proposal,
the
Agency
makes
an
unnecessary
distinction
between
these
two
types
of
releases
for
purpose
of
this
exemption.
(
p.
2)

The
effect
on
the
environment
is
the
same
whether
the
NOx
emission
results
from
the
combustion
of
fuel
in
a
furnace
or
boiler
or
from
an
upset
condition
in
a
process
unit
that
causes
a
release
that
is
then
combusted.
NPRA
does
not
support
EPA
distinguishing
between
these
events
for
purposes
of
the
RQ.
Reporting
unplanned
events
such
as
accidents
and
malfunctions
which
exceed
a
10
pound
threshold
will
continue
to
produce
unproductive
calls
to
the
National
Response
Center
(
NRC),
the
State
Emergency
Response
Commission
(
SERC),
and
the
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committee
(
LEPC).
These
calls
are
unproductive
because
the
releases
have
no
significant
effect
on
the
environment
and
no
emergency
response
is,
in
fact,
made
by
the
local
community.
(
p.
2)

Further,
our
members
have
noted
that
if
accidental
or
malfunction
releases
are
excluded
from
the
reporting
exemption,
then
the
effect
of
reporting
burden
reduction
will
be
minimal.
In
fact,
if
the
proposed
administrative
amendment
is
finalized
as
proposed
(
excluding
accident
and
malfunction
releases),
and
if
EPA
subsequently
rescinds
the
enforcement
discretion,
the
reporting
burden
will
become
considerably
higher
than
at
present.
We
believe
that
most
of
the
current
NOx
release
reports
are
due
to
unplanned
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
86
events
(
upsets
and
malfunctions
within
a
process
unit),
whereas
federally
permitted
releases
and
continuous
release
reports
now
cover
normal
operations.
(
p.
2)

Having
two
tiers
of
RQ
 
one
for
accidents,
and
one
for
other
events
­­
is
bad
public
policy.
We
are
not
aware
of
RQ
exemptions
for
other
substances
that
would
require
reporting
in
the
event
of
a
malfunction.
In
fact,
EPA's
RQ
exemption
for
radionuclides
from
land
disturbances
does
cover
accidents.
The
higher
RQ
should
apply
to
all
combustion
events
whether
startup,
shutdown,
malfunction
or
normal
operations.
Combustion
NOx,
no
matter
the
reason
for
its
release,
is
still
basically
the
same
substance
at
the
same
low
concentration.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0087.1
Response
Number:
5
Commenter
Name:
Leslie
S.
Ritts,
Counsel
to
NEDA/
CAP,
The
National
Environmental
Development
Association's
Clean
Air
Project
(
NEDA/
CAP)

NEDA/
CAP
submits
that
NOx
that
results
from
combustion
regardless
of
the
type
of
combustion
or
its
purpose
should
be
treated
as
a
continuing
release.
As
the
Agency
already
has
acknowledged
and
with
respect
to
certain
malfunctions
incidental
to
normal
operations
(
e.
g.,
fugitive
emissions
or
releases
from
valves
or
pump
seals)
these
emissions
may
qualify
for
reduced
reporting
under
CERCLA
§
103(
f)(
2)
if
they
come
within
the
definitions
of
"
continuous"
and
"
stable"
in
quantity
and
rate.
Also,
since
EPA
would
treat
these
emissions
as
"
continuous
releases"
they
can
be
distinguished
from
upsets
considered
in
the
Mobil
and
Borden
EAB
decisions.
In
those
cases,
the
EAB
found
that
releases
from
malfunctions
should
not
be
considered
"
federally
permitted."
(
p.
6­
7)

NEDA/
CAP
is
concerned
about
the
definition
of
"
accidents"
in
the
context
of
the
proposed
action.
As
EPA
indicates
on
page
57817
of
the
notice,
a
malfunction
is
specifically
defined
as
an
unforeseeable
and/
or
unpreventable
event
that
results
in
emissions
in
excess
of
an
applicable
standard.
There
is
no
parallel
Clean
Air
Act
definitive
definition
of
"
accident,"
however.
Therefore,
EPA
should
omit
the
reference
to
"
accident"
in
the
final
action
if
the
Agency
maintains
its
position
that
NOx
emissions
during
"
malfunctions
or
accidents"
require
separate
CERCLA
notification
and
reporting,
in
addition
to
Clean
Air
Act
notification
and
reporting.
Otherwise,
the
agency
must
carefully
define
the
term
accident
to
connote
an
incident
when
emissions
would
exceed
an
applicable
standard.
(
p.
7)

Commenter
Number:
0081.1
Response
Number:
6
Commenter
Name:
Nancy
J
Dotson,
Environmental
Associate,
Corporate
Health,
Safety,
Environment
and
Security
Division,
Eastman
Chemical
Company
(
Eastman)

°
Expand
the
exemption
to
include
accidents
or
malfunctions
resulting
in
releases
up
to
5,000
pounds,
because
there
is
no
good
rationale
why
such
releases
are
any
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
87
different
from
those
not
associated
with
an
accident
or
malfunction.
The
same
substance
is
released
at
the
same
concentration.
A
release
of
either
type
at
that
poundage
level
would
likely
result
in
no
agency
action,
yet
would
result
in
the
Federal
response
system
receiving
a
significant
number
of
useless
reports.
(
p.
2)

°
Given
the
high
percentage
of
NOx
emissions
accounted
for
by
motor
vehicles,
each
of
which
on
average
generates
nearly
40
pounds
NOx/
year,
it
does
seem
overzealous
to
require
reporting
of
10­
pound
releases
due
to
accidents
or
malfunctions
of
industrial
equipment.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0088.1
Response
Number:
7
Commenter
Name:
Robert
E.
Schuler,
Environmental
Manager,
Huntsman
Polymers
(
Huntsman)

It
is
submitted
that
a
federal
response
should
be
no
more
likely
to
a
combustion
activity
generating
a
NOx
emission
in
the
range
of
10
to
1000
lbs/
24
hours
that
is
the
result
of
accident
or
malfunction
than
it
is
to
respond
to
a
combustion
activity
which
not
covered
by
a
federal
enforceable
permit
but
was
not
the
result
on
an
accident
or
malfunction
(
a
deliberate
act).
The
reason
why
a
response
should
be
unlikely
to
an
accident
or
malfunction
which
generated
a
NOx
release
in
the
range
in
question,
is
the
same
reason
stated
as
in
the
Federal
Register
proposal
as
the
reason
why
deliberate
generation
of
unpermitted
reportable
quantities
are
not
responded
to,
the
potential
impact
is
small
and
remediation
is
impractical.
This
applies
only
to
the
case
where
the
only
RQ
is
NOx
and
the
release
has
ceased.
(
p.
1)

It
seems
the
activity
being
exempted
by
this
proposal,
the
deliberated
generation
of
a
reportable
quantity
of
NOx
should
be
a
relative
rare
occurrence.
If
a
party
knows
that
a
federally
enforceable
permit
is
required,
it
constitutes
a
deliberate
and
willful
violation
to
proceed
with
the
combustion
activity.
If
no
permits
are
required
[
its]
because
the
source
is
so
small
than
even
SIP
programs
have
not
covered
the
emission.
The
owner[
s]
are
unlikely
to
have
been
reporting
the
activity
due
to
a
lack
of
knowledge.
Therefore,
this
proposal
will
not
accomplish
the
stated
purpose
of
reducing
the
administrative
burden
associated
with
reporting.
(
p.
1)

If
the
EPA
intents
to
reduce
the
administrative
burden
associated
with
the
release
of
NOx
from
combustion
in
the
range
from
10­
1000
lbs/
24hrs,
the
inclusion
of
accidents
and
malfunction
would
significantly
reduce
reporting
burden.
Many
NOx
releases
in
the
referenced
range
are
the
result
of
accidents
or
malfunctions.
Some
of
involved
emission
points
are
covered
by
federally
enforceable
permits,
however
since
NOx
releases
which
are
due
to
accident
or
malfunction
have
been
specifically
identified
as
requiring
reporting
these
releases
are
being
reported
even
when
permit
limitations
for
hourly
and
annual
NOx
emissions
are
not
exceeded.
More
frequently,
for
the
case
of
permitted
emission
points
with
a
specific
NOx
limitation,
an
hourly
limit
is
exceeded
because
releases
due
to
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
88
accidents
or
malfunction
tend
to
be
rapid,
but
annual
or
daily
limit
is
not
exceeded.
(
p.
1­
2)

As
an
example,
a
polyethylene
plant
experiences
a
malfunction
causing
a
relief
valve
to
open
which
routes
10,000
lbs
of
ethylene
to
a
flare.
The
ethylene
is
burned
with
98%
combustion
efficiency.
An
ethylene
release
of
200
lbs
occurs
at
the
flare.
The
9,800
lbs
of
ethylene
is
burned
in
a
steam
assisted
flare
which
using
EPA's
published
value
of
0.068
lb
NOx
/
million
BTU
and
20,276
BTU/
lb
ethylene
burned
results
in
a
release
of
13.5
lb
of
NOx
.
There
is
no
smoking
associated
with
the
release.
There
is
no
federal
RQ
for
ethylene.
The
release
flow
to
the
flare
which
is
measured
and
recorded
occurs
over
a
one
hour
time
period.
The
flare
is
permitted
for
120
lb
of
NOx/
24
hours.
As
the
reporting
rules
exist
currently,
this
is
a
reportable
release
of
NOx
since
more
than
10
lb
NOx
/
24
hour
have
been
released
which
is
due
to
a
malfunction.
This
reporting
needs
to
be
performed
"
immediately."
(
p.
2)

If,
however,
using
the
above
example
and
taking
credit
for
the
NOx
allowable
emission
is
permissible
the
following
scenario
would
exist.
The
average
daily
NOx
generation
at
the
flare
is
25%
of
the
permitted
120
lb/
24
hours.
The
example
NOx
permit
limitation
would
be
prorated
to
a
limitation
of
5.0
lb/
hr
of
NOx,
then
the
excess
emission
above
the
permit
limit
is
13.5
lb/
hr
plus
the
1.25
lb/
hr
normally
generated
minus
the
5.0
lb
NOx
in
the
permit
condition
and
since
the
release
is
confined
to
one
hour
the
excess
emission
is
9.75
lb
NOx/
24hour
and
an
RQ
would
not
have
occurred.
However,
this
is
a
malfunction
or
accident
generated
release
since
by
definition
a
relief
valve
opening
constitutes
an
automated
response
to
an
unintended
condition,
an
accident
or
malfunction.
Thus
an
immediate
telephone
report
must
be
made
to
three
levels
of
governmental
agencies;
in
addition
follow­
up
written
reports
are
frequently
required
at
the
State
level
for
any
reporting
was
done
as
a
result
of
RQ
release.
(
p.
2)

In
the
aforementioned
example,
if
the
release
continued
for
two
hours
at
the
same
rate,
the
total
NOx
release
due
to
the
malfunction
would
be
27
lb/
24
hour
and
the
amount
in
excess
of
the
prorated
hour
limitation
would
be
17
lb/
24
hour.
In
this
case,
an
RQ
would
have
occurred
since
more
than
10
lb
of
NOx
/
24
hours
due
to
malfunction
would
have
been
generated.
Since
reporting
of
an
RQ
release
is
required
to
be
immediate,
release
reports
again
must
be
generated.
Even
if
as
in
the
preceding
example,
the
NOx
emissions
for
the
24
hours
period
are
less
than
the
120
lb/
24
hour
permit
limit.
In
this
case,
we
are
again
assuming
that
the
prorated
NOx
limitation
can
be
subtracted
(
p.
2)

A
burden
is
imposed
both
on
the
regulated
entity
and
the
federal,
state
and
local
agencies
which
[
are]
receive
and
process
the
release
reports
generated
by
the
various
interpretations
of
the
example
releases.
Three
telephone
calls
need
to
be
made.
This
is
one
call
to
each
of
the
responsible
agencies,
federal,
state
and
local.
Although
the
EPA
does
not
generally
request
a
detailed
follow­
up
chemical
release
report
for
a
release
such
as
the
example,
many
state
agencies
require
a
follow
up
written
report
for
each
RQ
release
report
filed.
As
a
minimum,
both
sides
of
the
reporting
employ
material
and
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
89
human
resources
which
response
to
a
release
which
this
exemption
proposal
states
poses
little
risk.
Therefore
we
believe
the
EPA
cost
estimates
are
low
because
these
follow­
up
reports
are
not
included.
(
p.
2)

Whether
covered
by
permit
or
not,
these
releases
have
no
more
potential
for
environmental
impact
than
those
which
this
proposal
would
exempt.
A
lb
of
NOx
is
a
lb
of
NOx
from
an
environmental
impact
standpoint.
In
[
an]
earlier
paragraph
a
point
is
made
that
the
reporting
which
this
proposal
would
exempt
must
be
a
relatively
rare
occurrence
and
that
the
accidental
or
malfunction
caused
of
the
same
type
are
more
common.
Based
on
first
hand
knowledge
gained
by
working
in
two
petrochemical
facility[
yies]
and
logging
RQ
releases,
I
can
state
that
more
than
half
of
all
RQ
releases
at
these
facilities
were
accidental
or
malfunction
caused
NOx
RQ
in
the
range
from
10­
1000
lb/
24
hours.
Further,
based
on
conversations
with
several
other
engineers
[
that]
were
in
similar
facilities,
I
can
state
that
it
is
common
for
half
or
more
of
the
RQ
releases
from
at
least
this
kind
of
facility
is
in
the
range
of
release
which
would
be
exempted
for
deliberate
actions.
The
addition
of
accidental
and
malfunction
caused
releases
to
this
proposal
would
therefore
significantly
reduce
the
reporting
burden.
(
p.
3)

One
of
the
issues
stated
in
the
proposal
was
a
concern
as
to
whether
the
regulated
agencies
would
have
knowledge
of
the
NOx
releases
which
are
proposed
to
be
exempted
from
reporting.
This
concern
could
be
raised
relative
to
a
proposal
to
exempt
accidental
and
malfunction
based
NOx
releases
of
the
same
magnitude.
These
releases
are
included
in
emissions
inventories
which
are
required
as
part
of
Title
V
emission
inventories.
Therefore,
Title
V
facility
emissions
are
reported.
Further,
many
facilities
not
covered
by
Title
V
have
filed
emission
inventories
with
a
regulatory
agency
to
document
the
facility's
ability
to
opt
out
of
the
Title
V
requirements.
For
those
facilities
which
were
not
required
to
file
as
either
a
Title
V
facility
or
a
synthetic
minor,
emission
limitation
has
been
incorporated
into
permits
issued
at
the
time
of
construction
or
modification.
Grandfathered
sources
either
have
been
or
are
in
the
process
of
being
removed
from
operations
or
changed
to
permitted
facilities.
As
part
of
SIP
development
States
require
emission
inventories
of
small
sources
which
may
not
be
covered
under
other
programs
such
as
NSR,
PSD,
NSPS
or
Title
V
on
a
periodic
basis.
(
p.
3)

EPA
thus
has
knowledge
of
these
emissions.
In
answer
to
the
question
of
whether
this
knowledge
is
timely,
the
proposal
states
that
a
federal
response
to
releases
of
NOx
is
unlikely,
unless
the
release
is
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction.
This
document
makes
a
case
for
a
federal
response
being
unlikely
for
accidental
or
malfunction
caused
release
of
the
type
under
consideration.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0089.1
Response
Number:
8
Commenter
Name:
Eric
Clark,
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
SOCMA)

SOCMA
Believes
that
the
Exemption
Should
Include
Accidents
and
Malfunctions.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
90
Finally,
SOCMA
supports
efforts
by
the
American
Petroleum
Institute
to
convince
EPA
of
the
need
to
further
investigate
burden
reduction
potential
associated
with
expanding
the
administrative
exemption
to
address
releases
caused
by
accident
or
malfunction.
As
API
argues,
the
fact
that
the
exemption
is
limited
to
NOx
releases
from
combustion
already
excludes
all
incidents
that
would
lead
to
a
federal
response.
EPA
has
an
opportunity
to
enact
significant
a
burden
reduction
measure
by
expanding
the
administrative
exemption
to
include
accidents
and
malfunctions.
By
requiring
affected
entities
to
report
accident
and
malfunctions
differently
than
startup
and
shutdown,
EPA
is
making
the
rule
unnecessarily
complicated.
API's
analysis
shows
that
because
of
the
current
enforcement
discretion,
most
of
the
relevant
reports
filed
with
the
National
Response
Center
are
likely
the
result
of
accidents
or
malfunctions.
As
such,
codifying
the
administrative
exemption
as
embodied
in
the
enforcement
discretion
will
provide
certainty
in
the
requirements,
but
will
achieve
very
little
additional
burden
reduction.
SOCMA
requests
that
EPA
carefully
analyze
available
data
and
comments
on
this
proposed
rule
regarding
accidents
and
malfunctions
to
fully
explore
burden
reduction
options.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0094.1
Response
Number:
9
Commenter
Name:
William
C.
Herz,
Director
Scientific
Programs,
The
Fertilizer
Institute
(
TFI)

EPA
Should
Expand
the
Exemption
to
Include
NOx
Releases
Resulting
From
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
(
p.
4)

Just
as
NOx
releases
from
both
combustion
and
non­
combustion
processes
are
unlikely
to
require
a
federal
response,
NOx
releases
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
are
equally
unlikely
to
require
a
federal
response.
Again,
NOx
emissions
at
or
below
1,000
pounds
per
24
hour
period
are
not
subject
to
CAA's
permitting
requirements,
even
where
the
release
is
the
result
of
accidents
or
malfunctions.
Such
releases,
therefore,
are
unlikely
to
pose
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
As
a
result,
NOx
releases
at
or
below
this
level
are
"
highly
unlikely"
to
require
a
Federal
response,
even
if
produced
by
an
accident
or
malfunction
and
should
be
included
in
the
Exemption.
(
p.
4)

As
previously
stated,
the
goal
of
the
exemption
is
to
eliminate
"
unnecessary"
reporting
of
NOx
emissions,
but
it
fails
to
do
this
to
the
extent
it
excludes
NOx
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions.
An
RQ
report
is
"
unnecessary"
if
it
is
highly
unlikely
to
result
in
a
Federal
response.
Indeed,
EPA's
goal
is
to
eliminate
notifications
triggered
by
small
releases
"
which
could
overburden
the
CERCLA
notification
system
and
impede
the
government's
ability
to
focus
its
resources
on
more
serious
releases."
70
Fed.
Reg.
57817­
57818.
NOx
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
that
are
less
than
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
are
the
types
of
"
small
releases"
contemplated
by
EPA
because
they
are
"
highly
unlikely"
to
result
in
a
federal
response.
The
stated
purpose
of
the
proposed
exemption
is
to
exclude
releases
that
obviously
do
not
require
a
government
response.
Thus,
the
exemption
should
be
expanded
to
include
NOx
releases
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
91
at
or
below
1,000
pounds
per
24
hour
period
that
result
from
an
accident
or
malfunction.
One
additional
example
of
this
would
be
the
flaring
as
an
emission
from
a
process
startup
or
malfunction
that
would
fall
under
the
reportable
category
when
10
lbs.
is
exceeded.
(
p.
4)

Commenter
Number:
0095.1
Response
Number:
10
Commenter
Name:
James
D.
Schultz,
Vice
President,
Environment
&
Energy,
American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute
(
AISI)

Secondly,
we
believe
the
exemption
should
apply
to
combustion­
related
malfunctions
and
accidents
as
well.
Reported
NOx
releases
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
have
numbered
in
the
thousands
in
recent
years
but
have
required
virtually
no
response.
Based
on
information
in
the
docket,
the
only
responses
to
NOx
releases
are
to
non­
combustion
releases,
those
involving
liquids
or
chemicals
or
because
of
explosion
or
fire,
incidents
that
warrant
response
for
reasons
other
than
due
to
NOx
releases.
In
the
absence
of
any
justification
for
responses
to
combustion­
related
NOx
releases,
whether
they
are
routine
or
related
to
accidents
or
malfunctions,
there
does
not
appear
to
be
a
compelling
reason
to
restrict
the
exemption.
(
p.
2)

Moreover,
it
is
often
times
very
difficult
to
determine
whether
a
NOx
release
from
a
combustion
unit
is
a
malfunction
or
not.
Variation
within
the
normal
course
of
operation,
possibly
due
to
upstream
or
downstream
processing
upsets
or
fluctuations,
might
well
be
viewed
as
a
malfunction
in
the
eyes
of
one
operator
but
not
in
another's.
Complications
of
this
sort
make
it
extremely
difficult
for
operators
or
enforcement
personnel
to
judge
compliance
with
a
reporting
obligation
determined
by
an
interpretation
of
malfunction
or
accident.
If
company
personnel
err
on
the
side
of
caution
in
such
circumstances
and
report
all
NOx
releases
that
could
be
remotely
considered
a
malfunction
or
accident,
then
the
exemption
fails
to
accomplish
its
intended
burden
reduction
objective.
(
p.
2)

A
prime
example
of
the
scenario
noted
above
is
related
to
the
use
of
flares.
Flares
are
by
definition
combustion
devices
and
are
typically
installed
as
control
or
safety
devices.
However,
NOx
releases
from
these
devices
are
routine
and
should
be
exempted
from
reporting.
Some
flaring
incidents
may
be
related
to
accidents
or
malfunctions,
but
the
NOx
release
resulting
from
the
flare's
operation
is
not
an
accident
or
malfunction;
it
is
the
primary
function
of
the
flare.
Any
effort
to
anticipate
the
circumstances
leading
to
the
use
of
a
flare
and
to
distinguish
between
accidents
or
malfunctions
and
normal
operation
of
the
flare
would
be
arbitrary
at
best
and
futile
at
worst.
The
inclusion
of
all
combustion­
related
releases
in
the
exemption
is
the
most
logical,
straightforward,
and
implementable
approach
and
in
no
way
compromises
environmental
protection.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0098.1
Response
Number:
11
Commenter
Name:
Debra
D.
Lane,
Senior
Environmental
Consultant,
Corporate
Safety,
Health
and
Environment,
MeadWestvaco
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
92
EPA
is
proposing
to
exempt
from
CERCLA
reporting
releases
of
NOx
from
combustion
sources
in
quantities
less
than
1000
pounds
per
24
hour
period
if
those
releases
do
not
result
from
accidents
or
malfunctions.
MeadWestvaco
agrees
that
reporting
of
such
releases
is
not
warranted,
since
it
would
be
unlikely
that
a
response
effort
would
be
needed.
We
also
believe
that
a
higher
threshold
may
be
justifiable
and
urge
EPA
to
carefully
consider
risk
assessment
data
submitted
by
other
commenters
in
determining
the
appropriate
exemption
level.
(
p.
1)

MeadWestvaco
believes
the
reporting
exemption
should
be
extended
to
cover
releases
due
to
accidents
or
malfunctions.
Regardless
of
whether
a
release
is
from
normal
operations
or
a
malfunction
event,
the
environmental
and
health
impacts,
and
thus
the
need
for
any
response
effort,
would
be
the
same.
Further,
EPA
should
clarify
that
CERCLA
reporting
is
not
required
for
NOx
emissions
from
fires
that
are
not
related
to
a
combustion
process,
such
as
structure
or
brush
fires.
It
is
unlikely
that
facilities
would
be
able
to
determine
the
NOx
emissions
from
such
fires,
and
even
if
they
could,
there
would
be
no
benefit
to
reporting
under
CERCLA.
(
p.
1)

In
addition
to
the
above
comments,
MeadWestvaco
also
specifically
supports
the
comments
of
the
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association,
the
American
Chemistry
Council,
and
the
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0099.1
Response
Number:
12
Commenter
Name:
Robert
D.
Bessette,
President,
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
(
CIBO)

In
addition,
EPA
has
proposed
to
exclude
emissions
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
from
the
proposed
exemption
unless
approved
EPA
procedures
or
permit
limits
apply.
CIBO
believes
that
the
1,000
lb
exclusion
need
not
be
narrowed
in
this
manner.
CIBO
is
concerned
that
the
terms
"
accident"
and
"
malfunction"
invite
interpretation
and
could
result
in
significantly
more
unnecessary
reporting
to
emergency
response
personnel.
In
EPA's
April
17
2002
Guidance,
EPA
did
not
extend
enforcement
discretion
to
"
unanticipated
releases,
such
as
an
accident
or
malfunction."
In
this
present
day
context,
the
terms
are
used
differently
and
more
narrowly
than
EPA
used
them
in
the
Preamble
to
the
July
24,
1990
CERCLA
rule
for
reduced
reporting
of
continuous
releases.
(
p.
3)

In
the
Preamble
to
the
July
24,
1990
Rule,
EPA
noted
that
some
malfunctions
incidental
to
normal
operations
(
e.
g.
fugitive
emissions
or
releases
from
valves
or
pump
seals)
may
qualify
for
reduced
reporting.
In
the
present
Proposal,
EPA
(
70
Fed.
Reg.
57817,
footnote
9)
defines
malfunctions
much
more
narrowly,
as
in
40
CFR
63.2.
On
that
basis
CIBO
concludes
that
incidental
fugitive
emissions
and
minor
leaks
from
valves
or
piping
would
not
be
considered
accidents
or
malfunctions
under
EPA's
exemption
proposal.
However,
because
the
term
malfunction
is
defined
differently
under
CERCLA,
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
93
and
because
other
than
footnote
9
in
the
Preamble,
malfunction
is
not
defined
in
the
regulatory
revisions,
a
reasonable
person
would
conclude
the
CERCLA
broad
definition
of
malfunction
applies.
This
could
lead
to
significant
confusion.
Without
further
revisions
in
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
to
cite
this
more
narrow
exclusion
for
malfunctions,
in
the
CAA
much
unnecessary
reporting
would
be
triggered
under
EPA's
proposal.
(
p.
3­
4)

Because
of
the
lack
of
clarity
of
these
terms,
CIBO
suggests
deleting
them.
In
addition,
given
that
EPA
has
limited
the
exclusion
to
1,000
pounds
per
day
from
combustion,
further
narrowing
of
this
exclusion
is
unnecessary,
because
ample
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
is
assured.
In
the
alternative,
if
EPA
chooses
to
keep
the
exclusion
for
malfunctions,
we
urge
EPA
to
cite
the
40
CFR
63.2
definition
in
the
regulatory
language.
In
addition,
since
accidents
are
not
defined,
we
strongly
suggest
that
EPA
not
include
this
term
in
the
final
CERCLA
or
EPCRA
rules.
(
p.
4)

CIBO's
Suggested
Changes
to
Proposed
Text
(
p.
4)

CIBO
recommends
these
changes
to
the
proposed
exemption:
302.6
Notification
requirements:
(
e)
The
following
releases
are
exempt
from
the
notification
requirements
of
this
section:
(
1)
Federally
permitted
releases,
as
defined
in
101
(
10)
of
CERCLA.
(
1)
(
2)
Non­
Federally
permitted
Rreleases
in
amounts
less
than
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
of
nitrogen
oxide
to
the
air
which
are
the
result
of
combustion
including
releases
from
start­
up
and
shut­
down
and
not
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction
of
equipment.
(
2)
(
3)
Non­
Federally
permitted
Rreleases
in
amounts
less
than
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
of
nitrogen
dioxide
to
the
air
which
are
the
result
of
combustion
and
not
the
result
of­
an
accident
or
malfunction
of
equipment.

355.40
Emergency
release
notification:
(
a)
***
(
2)
***
(
vii)
Any
release
that
is
not
covered
in
(
ii)
above
in
amounts
less
than
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours
of
nitrogen
oxide
or
nitrogen
dioxide
to
the
air
that
is
the
result
of
combustion
and
not
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction
of
equipment.
(
p.
4)

Commenter
Number:
0101.1
Response
Number:
13
Commenter
Name:
Timothy
G.
Hunt,
Senior
Director,
Air
Quality
Programs,
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA)

The
proposed
rules
would
exclude
from
the
administrative
exemption
releases
"
result[
ing]
from
an
accident
or
malfunction
of
equipment."
AF&
PA
understands
this
to
mean
that
releases
resulting
from
startup
or
shutdown
operations
are
exempted
by
the
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
94
proposed
rules
(
provided
they
meet
the
exemption
release
cap),
because
these
operations
are
routine
in
nature,
occur
periodically,
and
are
distinct
from
accidents
or
equipment
malfunction.
AF&
PA
supports
this
aspect
of
the
proposed
rule,
because
startup/
shutdown
operations
usually
release
only
small
amounts
of
NOx
that
pose
no
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
(
p.
2)

In
addition,
AF&
PA
urges
EPA
to
extend
its
exemption
to
releases
resulting
from
accidents
or
equipment
malfunction,
provided
that
such
do
not
exceed
the
exemption
cap.
We
see
no
human
health,
environmental,
or
program­
administration
reason
why
accidental
or
malfunction
releases
that
are
less
than
the
release
cap
should
be
excluded
from
the
administrative
exemption.
Because
such
releases
would
have
to
meet
the
1,000­
pound
cap,
they
pose
no
additional
human
health
or
environmental
risk
than
the
releases
EPA
proposes
to
exempt.
(
p.
2)

For
the
foregoing
reasons,
AF&
PA
urges
EPA
to
adopt,
as
final,
rules
which
recognize
that
startup
and
shutdown
releases
of
NOx
are
administratively
exempted
from
reporting
requirements,
provided
they
are
less
than
the
reporting
threshold
AF&
PA
also
urges
EPA
to
extend
the
reporting
exemption
to
malfunction
or
accidental
releases,
which
meet
the
release
cap.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0104.1
Response
Number:
14
Commenter
Name:
Lee
B.
Zeugin,
Normal
W.
Fichthorn,
David
G.
Scott
II,
Junton
&
Williams,
LLP,
Counsel
for
the
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)

As
stated
earlier,
NOx
emissions
from
electric
generating
power
plant
combustion
are
already
heavily
regulated,
monitored,
and
reported
under
the
CAA
and
will
be
subject
to
further
control
following
the
implementation
of
new
regulations
applicable
to
those
emissions.
Accordingly,
and
for
the
reasons
discussed
above,
UARG
believes
the
best
way
to
avoid
duplicative,
unnecessary,
and
excessive
reporting
is
to
extend
the
proposed
NOx
reporting
exemption
to
include
all
combustion
releases
of
NOx
from
electric
generating
combustion
units.
(
p.
8)

There
is
no
need
for
the
"
accident/
malfunction"
exception
that
EPA
suggests.
For
power
plants,
excess
NOx
emissions
could
occur
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
In
many
cases,
it
is
difficult
to
classify
these
releases
as
resulting
from
"
operational
error"
or
"
malfunctions."
Indeed,
any
attempted
classification
of
the
cause
of
the
release
makes
little
practical
difference
since
the
NOx
is
still
released
from
the
plant's
stack.
At
power
plants,
NOx
is
not
stored
in
tanks
or
some
other
type
of
vessel.
Accordingly,
releases
resulting
from
a
"
malfunction"
or
an
"
accident,"
as
EPA
typically
defines
those
terms,
will
not
occur.
Therefore,
EPA
should
remove
the
"
accident"
or
"
malfunction"
exception
from
the
proposed
NOx
reporting
exemption,
at
least
with
regard
to
electric
utility
power
plant
combustion
sources.
(
p.
8)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
95
Commenter
Number:
0103.1,
0105,
0105.1,
0111
Response
Number:
15
Commenter
Name:
Douglas
J.
Fulle,
Director,
Environmental
&
Regulatory
Affairs,
Oglethorpe
Power
Corporation
(
OglethorpePower)

EPA'S
PROPOSED
EXEMPTION
IS
TOO
NARROW
(
p.
3)

Properly
Broadened,
the
Exemption
Would
Still
Serve
the
Purposes
of
the
Release
Reporting
Requirements
of
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
(
p.
3)

The
purpose
of
these
reporting
requirements
is
to
notify
government
officials
of
potentially
dangerous
releases,
to
facilitate
the
assessment
of
risks
and
to
develop
any
response
action
to
prevent
or
mitigate
damage
to
the
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment.
More
specifically,
the
purpose
of
the
CERCLA
§
103
reporting
requirement
is
to
serve
as
a
trigger
for
informing
the
government
of
a
release,
so
that
Federal
representatives
can
evaluate
the
need
for
a
Federal
removal
or
remedial
action
and
undertake
any
necessary
Federal
response
in
a
timely
fashion.
Since
CERCLA
reporting
to
the
federal
NRC
does
not
guarantee
that
local
authorities
would
receive
the
swift
notice
necessary
to
respond
to
an
emergency,
Section
304
of
EPCRA
was
enacted
to
ensure
that
local
officials
would
receive
a
release
notice
similar
to
that
given
the
NRC.
EPCRA
requires
that
notice
be
given
the
appropriate
State
Emergency
Response
Commission
("
SERC")
and
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committee(
s)
("
LEPC").
In
requiring
that
notice
of
a
release
be
given
to
these
local
authorities,
EPCRA's
reporting
provision
serves
to
facilitate
local
emergency
planning
efforts,
by
supplementing
the
community
informational
database,
so
as
to
allow
for
better
planning
of
response
actions.
(
p.
3)

Selecting
an
exemption
level
of
1,000
pounds
for
NOx
releases
from
combustion
sources
will
not
interfere
with
the
stated
goals
of
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
release
reporting
provisions.
As
EPA
itself
noted
in
the
proposal,
the
1,000­
pound
threshold
is
below
the
level
at
which
air
permits
are
generally
required
for
sources
of
NOx
making
it
highly
unlikely
that
a
federal
response
to
a
release
of
<
1000
pounds
would
be
forthcoming
or
appropriate.
There
is
no
reason
to
believe
that
local
officials
would
conclude
otherwise.
(
p.
3)

Moreover,
as
EPA
notes,
release
notifications
of
NO
of
<
1,000
pounds
have
not
furthered
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Rather,
they
have
caused
EPA,
state
and
local
officials
and
industry
to
expend
valuable
resources
to
prepare
and
process
release
reports
for
incidents
that
did
not
require
any
type
of
response
action.
(
p.
4)

Given
this,
the
inescapable
conclusion
and
one
which
we
support
is
that
a
reporting
threshold
of
1,000
pounds
for
NOx
will
not
defeat
or
degrade
the
goals
and
purposes
of
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
release
reporting.
Instead,
it
will
allow
all
involved
­
industry,
the
public
and
government
­
to
focus
their
resources
on
responding
to
releases
that
are
of
concern,
through
the
timely
and
proper
reporting
of
such
releases.
NOx
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
96
releases
of
<
1,000
pounds
are
undeserving
of
such
attention.
EPA
should
move
forward
with
promulgating
this
exemption
for
combustion
sources.
(
p.
4)

For
the
same
reasons,
there
is
no
sound
basis
to
carve
out
from
the
proposed
exemption
NOx
releases
of
less
than
1,000
pounds
resulting
from
an
accident
or
equipment
malfunction.
NOx
released
as
the
result
of
an
accident
or
a
malfunction
is
no
more
harmful
than
NOx
released
due
to
other
causes,
e.
g.,
startup
or
shutdown.
NOx
emissions
due
to
accident
or
malfunction
are
quantified
by
monitoring
systems
in
the
same
way
as
are
NOx
emissions
due
to
other
causes.
Moreover,
these
monitoring
systems
operate
independently
of
the
combustion
processes,
so
that
an
accident
or
malfunction
in
the
combustion
process
that
might
cause
excess
NOx
emissions
generally
will
not
affect
the
ability
of
the
monitoring
systems
to
measure
these
releases
of
NOx.
Therefore,
provided
such
release
remains
below
the
threshold
deemed
sufficient
to
protect
statutory
objectives
 
here
1,000
pounds,
as
proposed
by
EPA
 
there
is
no
reason
to
conclude
that
a
federal,
state
or
local
response
is
any
more
likely
when
such
release
results
from
an
accident
or
malfunction
than
from
other
causes.
Therefore,
EPA
should
broaden
the
exemption
to
include
all
NOx
releases
from
combustion
sources,
regardless
of
the
cause
of
such
release,
where
the
amount
of
NOx
emitted
is
less
than
1,000
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period.
(
p.
4)

Commenter
Number:
0090.1
Response
Number:
16
Commenter
Name:
Stephen
B.
Ellingson,
Ph.
D.,
Environmental
Compliance
Director,
Koch
Mineral
Services,
LLC
(
KMS)

KMS
requests
that
this
exemption
be
broadened
to
releases
of
NOx
regardless
of
the
source.
KMS
agrees
that
the
need
and
likelihood
of
a
federal
response
to
a
release
of
NOx
below
1000
pounds
in
24
hours
is
negligible
and
therefore,
serves
no
useful
purpose.
However,
KMS
does
not
see
how
the
need
or
likelihood
of
a
response
would
be
different
for
a
NO
release
of
less
than
1000
pounds
in
24
hours
from
a
combustion
source
versus
another
source.
KMS
would
expect
the
effects
on
human
health
or
an
ecosystem
to
be
the
same
regardless
of
the
source
of
the
release.
(
p.
3)

By
specifying
that
only
emissions
from
combustion
sources
that
are
not
due
to
accidents
or
malfunctions
qualify
for
the
administrative
exemption,
the
proposal
has
the
unintended
consequence
of
making
reporting
needlessly
complicated.
The
time
needed
to
evaluate
reporting
would
be
increased
by
raising
questions
about
the
ultimate
source
of
the
release,
whether
the
unit
was
experiencing
an
accident
or
malfunction,
whether
the
release
was
federally
permitted
and
then
whether
it
was
episodic
or
continuous.
To
further
the
intent
of
EPCRA
and
CERCLA
to
provide
emergency
planners
and
responders
with
timely
information
in
order
to
protect
the
public
and
the
environment,
release
reporting
should
not
be
unduly
complicated.
Delays
associated
with
defining
small
releases
would
be
eliminated
if
all
releases
of
NOx,
irrespective
of
the
source,
were
treated
equally.
(
p.
3)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
97
KMS
understands
that
EPA
is
interested
in
reducing
the
reporting
burden
of
minor
NOx
emissions.
KMS
requests
clarification
of
EPA's
intentions
to
limit
the
exemption
to
emissions
from
combustion
sources.
In
particular,
it
is
not
clear
if
EPA
is
proposing
to
exempt
NOx
emissions
from
control
devices
occurring
as
a
result
of
an
malfunction
in
an
upstream
process,
and
exclude
from
the
exemption
malfunctions
occurring
at
a
control
device
Where
a
facility
experiences
unanticipated
problems
in
the
process
unit,
such
as
a
nitric
acid
plant,
the
process
unit
may
route
emissions
to
a
control
device
that
is
functioning
properly.
These
emissions
do
not
come
from
an
upset
or
malfunction
of
the
control
device
and
should
be
covered
by
the
exemption
from
notification
if
less
than
1000
pounds
per
24
hours.
Again,
the
effects
on
human
health
or
an
ecosystem
would
be
expected
to
be
the
same
regardless
of
the
source
of
the
release.
KMS
requests
that
EPA
clarify
that
emissions
from
properly
functioning
control
devices
are
exempt
under
the
proposed
rule,
including
when
there
has
been
an
upstream
upset
or
malfunction
in
the
process
unit.
(
p.
4)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
support
for
either
extending
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
or
limiting
the
scope
of
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
combustion
devices,
or
both.

The
commenters
are
correct
in
pointing
out
that
no
NOx
releases
from
combustion
devices 
including
many
related
to
accidents
and
malfunctions 
have
required
any
Federal
response.
In
fact,
as
several
commenters
pointed
out,
the
NOx
release
notifications
that
have
required
response
actions
have
only
been
in
the
category
of
releases
not
related
to
combustion
devices,
such
as
in
situations
where
NOx
was
released
incidental
to
the
actual
reason
for
the
response
(
i.
e.,
fires
and
explosions).

CERCLA
§
103
and
EPCRA
§
304
notification
requirements
require
the
person
in
charge
of
the
facility
or
vessel
that
released
the
hazardous
substance
to
make
the
notification
to
Federal,
State,
and
local
authorities.
Neither
statute
nor
their
implementing
regulations
differentiate
the
cause
of
the
release
(
i.
e.,
whether
the
release
was
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction).
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
to
require
a
separate
assessment
as
to
whether
the
release
was
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction,
particularly
with
respect
to
releases
that
result
from
combustion,
may
be
overly
burdensome
and
not
consistent
with
the
intention
of
either
statute,
nor
the
Agency's
goal
of
reducing
burden.
If
a
response
is
not
necessary
for
a
release
of
NOx
from
a
facility
due
to
normal
operations,
that
assessment
should
apply
even
if
an
accident
or
malfunction
somehow
generated
the
release.
EPA
also
agrees
that,
particularly
with
respect
to
certain
combustion
activities,
it
may
be
a
challenge,
if
not
impossible,
to
determine
whether
the
combustion
activities
were
caused
by
an
accident
or
malfunction.
Thus,
protective,
over­
reporting
could
result.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
98
API
points
out
that
EPA
has
not
defined
the
terms,
"
accident"
and
"
malfunction"
and
insists
that
EPA
will
need
to
ensure
that
any
interpretation
it
makes
regarding
what
is
considered
within
an
"
accident"
or
"
malfunction"
event
is
consistent
with
interpretations
in
other
EPA
programs
(
e.
g.,
air
permitting).
EPA
agrees
that
inconsistency
with
other
EPA
programs
has
the
potential
to
create
unnecessary
confusion.
However,
EPA
believes
that
the
definition
and
interpretation
of
those
terms
should
remain
within
the
EPA
programs
where
they
have
a
direct
regulatory
effect.
In
addition,
EPA
believes
that
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
define
"
flaring"
as
a
control
device
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
as
that
may
have
unintended
consequences
for
other
EPA
programs.
EPA
agrees
that
this
administrative
exemption
for
NOx
releases
to
air
that
are
a
result
of
combustion
activities
should
not
include
the
qualifier,
"
unless
such
release
is
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction."
EPA
also
believes
that
exclusion
of
the
qualifier
should
eliminate
the
need
for
EPA
to
specifically
identify
"
flaring"
as
a
control
device
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA.

With
respect
to
NEDA/
CAP's
caution
that
the
Agency
must
carefully
define
the
term
accident
to
connote
an
incident
when
emissions
would
exceed
an
applicable
standard,
if
it
is
to
maintain
its
position
that
NOx
emissions
during
"
malfunctions
or
accidents"
requires
notification
under
CERCLA
(
and
EPCRA);
the
Agency
believes
that
without
a
clear
definition
of
terms
confusion
may
ensue.
As
explained
above,
EPA
believes
that
the
definition
and
interpretation
of
any
term
should
remain
within
the
EPA
program
where
it
has
a
direct
regulatory
effect
and
that
this
administrative
exemption
for
NOx
releases
to
air
that
are
a
result
of
combustion
activities
should
not
include
the
qualifier,
"
unless
such
release
is
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction."

EPA
acknowledges
CIBO's
support
for
extending
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
and
to
include
releases
that
occur
during
startup
and
shutdown
activities,
as
well
as
the
suggested
regulatory
language.

EPA
acknowledges
AF&
PA's
support
for
extending
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
and
to
include
releases
that
occur
during
startup
and
shutdown
activities.

EPA
acknowledges
OglethorpePower's
support
for
extending
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
to
releases
regardless
of
the
cause
of
the
release.

Finally,
KMS
seeks
clarification
that
emissions
from
properly
functioning
control
devices
are
exempt
under
the
proposed
rule,
including
when
there
has
been
an
upstream
upset
or
malfunction
in
the
process
unit.
EPA
agrees
that
this
administrative
exemption
for
NOx
releases
to
air
that
are
a
result
of
combustion
activities
should
not
include
the
qualifier,
"
unless
such
release
is
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction."
EPA
also
believes
that
exclusion
of
the
qualifier
should
eliminate
the
need
for
EPA
to
specifically
identify
"
flaring"
as
a
control
device
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
99
B.
Also
Include
in
Exemptions
­
Start­
ups,
Shut­
downs,
and
Up­
Sets
Commenter
Number:
0090.1
Response
Number:
17
Commenter
Name:
Stephen
B.
Ellingson,
Ph.
D.,
Environmental
Compliance
Director,
Koch
Mineral
Services,
LLC
(
KMS)

KMS
does
not
see
the
basis
for
treating
releases
from
start­
ups,
upsets
and
malfunctions
differently
from
authorized
NOx
releases.
Again,
KMS
would
expect
the
effects
on
human
health
or
an
ecosystem
to
be
the
same
for
emissions
of
less
than
1000
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period
regardless
of
the
cause
of
the
release.
(
p.
4)

KMS
seeks
clarification
that
reporting
would
not
be
required
for
NOx
emissions
during
the
start­
up,
shutdown
or
malfunction
of
a
combustion
unit.
Under
the
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
general
provisions,
emissions
during
start­
up,
shutdown
and
malfunction
are
not
considered
to
be
representative,
and
therefore
an
exceedance
of
an
emission
limit
established
in
an
NSPS
subpart
during
such
an
event
does
not
constitute
a
violation
of
the
standard
[
CER
60.8(
c)].
This
has
created
ambiguity
as
to
whether
such
start­
up/
shutdown
and
malfunction
emissions
qualify
as
federally
permitted
releases.
Further,
for
facilities
required
to
maintain
start­
up,
shutdown
and
malfunction
(
SSM)
plans
under
federal
or
SIP
approved
rules
or
permits,
emissions
of
NOx
during
anticipated
SSM
events
and
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
SSM
plans
would
generally
be
construed
as
federally
permitted.
KMS
seeks
clarification
that
emissions
during
SSM
events
from
sources
subject
to
NSPS
standards
or
subject
to
a
required
SSM
plan
can
qualify
as
federally
permitted
releases.
In
the
alternative,
KMS
seeks
clarification
that
such
releases
would
be
eligible
for
the
proposed
CERCLA
reporting
exemption.
(
p.
4)

Commenter
Number:
0091.1
Response
Number:
18
Commenter
Name:
Bruce
J.
Alexius,
EH&
S
Regulatory
Affairs
Expertise
Center,
The
Dow
Chemical
Company
(
DOW)

Discussion:
Regardless
of
whether
a
release
is
from
normal
operations,
an
upset
or
a
malfunction,
the
net
result
to
the
environment
from
combustion
sources
is
the
same.
In
general,
a
release
from
a
combustion
source
will
be
from
the
same
stack
and
at
the
same
velocity
as
the
plume
from
normal
operations.
For
example,
the
temporary
loss
of
steam
or
water
injection
on
a
gas
turbine
would
result
in
elevated
emission
levels.
There
is
no
change
in
the
discharge
point
or
in
the
flow
characteristics
of
the
plume.
(
In
fact,
when
designing
larger
equipment
with
the
potential
for
higher
NOx
emissions,
the
stacks
heights
and
volume
flow
rates
are
higher
thereby
leading
to
better
dispersion
of
the
emissions.)
The
net
effect
on
ambient
concentrations,
which
will
be
discussed
in
the
next
section
addressing
a
5000
pound
exemption
level,
does
not
require
immediate
reporting
and
response.
(
p.
2)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
100
EPA
includes
two
tables
in
the
proposed
rule.
Table
1
refers
to
episodic
emission
events
while
Table
2
refers
to
data
from
continuous
release
reports.
Table
2
indicates
that
only
16
continuous
release
reports
were
made
in
2004,
which
has
declined
dramatically
as
grandfathered
sources
have
become
permitted.
Table
1,
however,
shows
an
increase
in
episodic
reports.
The
bulk
of
episodic
reports
are
due
to
upsets
and
malfunctions.
Therefore,
to
achieve
EPA's
goal
of
burden
reduction,
upsets
and
malfunctions
should
be
included
in
the
exemption.
(
p.
2)

RQs
are
designed
with
episodic
events,
including
upsets
and
malfunctions,
in
mind.
There
is
no
conflict
in
exempting
these
types
of
events
from
the
10
pound
reporting
limit
as
they
do
not
require
immediate
response.
In
an
EPA
memo
dated
08/
08/
03
from
Maureen
F.
Orr,
MS
to
Charles
Weir,
six
serious
incidents
involving
NOx
were
studied.
In
all
cases,
there
were
no
adverse
health
or
environmental
impacts
from
combustion­
related
NOx
releases.
Only
20
of
4,028
events
involved
persons
with
any
signs
or
symptoms
of
injury
within
24
hours.
The
six
incidents
chosen
for
study
were
all
found
to
be
due
to
multiple
injuries
with
no
shown
connection
to
combustion
releases
of
NOx.
Combustion
equipment,
such
as
boilers,
gas
turbines,
and
flares,
are
designed
with
tall
stacks
to
disperse
the
combustion
products
so
emissions
and
hot
gases
get
diluted
to
prevent
human
exposure.
The
reportable
NOx
release
would
come
out
of
the
same
tall
stack
and
likewise
be
diluted.
(
p.
3)

Recommendation:
Expand
the
exemption
to
include
upsets
and
malfunctions
from
combustion
devices
as
the
points
and
characteristics
of
release
are
the
same
as
in
normal
operating
mode.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0097.1,
0112
Response
Number:
19
Commenter
Name:
John
M.
McManus,
Vice
President,
Environmental
Services,
American
Electric
Power
(
AEP)

AEP
supports
extending
the
exemption
to
include
excess
NOx
emissions
from
all
combustion
sources,
including
equipment
malfunctions
or
upsets,
if
the
release
is
from
a
permitted
source
that
is
otherwise
required
to
report
excess
NOx
emissions.
(
p.
3)

AEP
also
supports
an
exemption
for
NOx
releases
up
to
the
1,000
pound
per
24­
hour
period
threshold
that
are
associated
with
equipment
malfunctions
or
upsets
if
the
facility's
emission
sources
are
otherwise
required
under
their
federal/
state
air
permits
to
report
such
NOx
releases
and
are
reporting
such
releases
pursuant
to
their
air
permit
for
those
NOx
emission
sources.
(
See,
e.
g.,
40
CFR
Parts
60
and
70).
Since
EPA
states
that
its
goal
is
to
reduce
unnecessary
reports
while
still
being
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
this
additional
exemption
would
meet
that
goal.
Otherwise,
maintaining
the
CERCLA/
EPCRA
release
notification
reporting
for
a
facility
already
reporting
excess
emissions
pursuant
to
their
federal
and/
or
state
air
permit
during
times
of
malfunction
or
upset
conditions
will
lead
to
duplicative
reporting,
contrary
to
EPA's
goal
and
without
additional
protection
of
human
health
or
the
environment.
(
p.
3)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
101
Many
utility
boilers
and
other
sources
are
regulated
by
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
under
various
subparts
of
40
CFR
Part
60.
For
electric
utility
steam
generating
units
subject
to
a
NOx
standard
under
the
NSPS,
continuous
emission
monitors
are
generally
required,
along
with
quarterly
excess
emissions
reports.
See,
e.
g.,
40
CFR
§
60.51
Da(
b)(
2).
These
reports
provide
the
same
general
information
required
by
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
requirements,
and
are
generally
available
to
federal,
state,
and
local
agencies
and
the
public.
Currently,
in
the
absence
of
an
administrative
exemption,
facilities
must
continuously
review
information
acquired
by
their
continuous
emission
monitors
in
an
attempt
to
determine
whether,
during
any
24­
hour
period,
emissions
exceeded
a
federally
permitted
level
by
10
pounds
or
more.
This
raises
complex
issues
about
the
averaging
periods
associated
with
emissions
limitations,
and
the
causes
for
minor
levels
of
excess
emissions
(
including
minor
operational
problems,
monitor
malfunctions,
mis­
calibrations,
and
downtime).
Resolution
of
these
issues
frequently
requires
detailed
investigation
and
can
delay
reporting
for
several
hours
or
even
days,
which
in
itself
can
cause
further
inquiry
by
the
agencies.
(
p.
3­
4)

In
addition
to
the
NSPS
requirements,
major
sources
of
emissions
are
regulated
under
other
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
some
of
which
were
enacted
long
after
Congress
defined
"
federally
permitted
releases"
for
purposes
of
CERCLA.
As
noted
in
EPA's
proposal,
Congress
has
not
revisited
this
definition
since
the
late
1980'
s.
In
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments,
Congress
added
the
Title
V
operating
permits
program,
which
has
as
its
centerpiece
the
collection
of
all
federally
enforceable
air
emission
limitations
for
a
facility
into
a
single
permit,
along
with
regular
emission
reporting
requirements.
This
program
applies
to
all
sources
with
a
potential
to
emit
more
than
100
tons
per
year
of
any
regulated
pollutant,
and
more
than
10
tons
per
year
of
any
single
hazardous
air
pollutant
or
25
tons
per
year
of
any
combination
of
hazardous
air
pollutants.
At
least
quarterly,
each
Title
V
source
must
submit
a
"
deviation"
report
to
the
permitting
agency,
detailing
every
deviation
from
federally
enforceable
emission
limitations,
and
providing
notice
of
corrective
actions
taken
to
prevent
recurrence.
(
p.
4)

In
short,
these
Clean
Air
Act
reporting
requirements
substantially
duplicate
the
information
otherwise
required
under
EPCRA
and
CERCLA,
so
extending
the
administrative
exemption
to
releases
associated
with
"
malfunctions'
or
"
upsets"
of
process
or
control
equipment
that
are
below
the
1,000
pound
threshold
in
any
24­
hour
period
would
not
diminish
the
quantity
or
quality
of
information
available
to
the
agencies
or
the
public,
but
would
eliminate
a
difficult,
duplicative,
and
time­
consuming
reporting
burden
for
affected
facilities
and
the
responsible
agencies.
(
p.
4)

Therefore,
in
addition
to
the
exemptions
proposed
by
EPA,
AEP
respectfully
suggests
that
the
following
language
be
added
to
both
40
CFR
§
302.6
(
e),
and
40
CFR
§
355.40(
a)(
2),
so
as
to
extend
the
administrative
exemption
to
excess
NOx
emissions
reported
pursuant
to
other
Clean
Air
Act
requirements:
(
p.
4)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
102
Excess
emissions
of
nitrogen
oxides
to
the
air
which
are
the
result
of
combustion,
and
which
are
the
result
of
a
malfunction
or
upset
condition,
provided
that
there
is
an
applicable
federally
enforceable
limitation
on
nitrogen
oxide
emissions
in
a
permit
issued
pursuant
to
the
Clean
Air
Act,
the
permit
requires
the
submission
of
excess
emission
reports
for
such
nitrogen
oxide
emissions
on
a
regular
or
periodic
basis,
and
the
amount
of
excess
emissions
does
not
exceed
1,000
pounds
per
24
hours.
(
p.
4)

Commenter
Number:
0109
Response
Number:
20
Commenter
Name:
Renu
Chhabra,
Waste
&
EPCRA
Systems
Manager,
INVISTA
IN
VISTA
does
not
see
the
basis
for
treating
releases
from
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions
differently
from
authorized
NOx
releases.
Again,
we
would
expect
the
effects
on
human
health
or
an
eco
system
to
be
the
same
for
emissions
of
less
than
1000
pounds
in
a
24
hour
period
regardless
of
the
cause
of
the
release.
(
p.
2)

IN
VISTA
seeks
clarification
that
reporting
would
not
be
required
for
NOx
emissions
during
the
start­
up,
shutdown
or
malfunction
of
a
combustion
unit.
Under
the
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
general
provisions,
emissions
during
startup
shutdown
and
malfunction
are
not
considered
to
be
representative,
and
therefore
an
exceedance
of
an
emission
limit
established
in
an
NSPS
subpart
during
such
an
event
does
not
constitute
a
violation
of
the
standard.
See
40
CFR
60.8(
c).
This
has
created
ambiguity
as
to
whether
such
start­
up/
shutdown
and
malfunction
emissions
qualify
as
federally
permitted
releases.
Further,
for
facilities
required
to
maintain
start­
up,
shutdown
and
malfunction
(
SSM)
plans
under
federal
or
SIP
approved
rules
or
permits,
emissions
of
NOx
during
anticipated
SSM
events
and
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
SSM
plans
would
generally
be
construed
as
federally
permitted.
INVISTA
seeks
clarification
that
emissions
during
SSM
events
from
sources
subject
to
NSPS
standards
or
subject
to
a
required
SSM
plan
can
qualify
as
federally
permitted
releases.
In
the
alternative,
SSM
seeks
clarification
that
such
releases
would
be
eligible
for
the
proposed
CERCLA
reporting
exemption.
(
p.
2­
3)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
concerns
and
request
for
clarification
on
whether
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
includes
start­
up,
shut­
down
and
malfunction
emissions.
EPA
agrees
that
to
the
extent
that
start­
up
and
shut­
down
emissions
are
the
result
of
combustion
activities,
those
emissions
would
also
be
included
in
the
administrative
reporting
exemption.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
103
C.
Clarify
that
Flares
are
Control
Devices
­
Not
Considered
Accidents
and
Malfunctions
Commenter
Number:
0081.1
Response
Number:
21
Commenter
Name:
Nancy
J
Dotson,
Environmental
Associate,
Corporate
Health,
Safety,
Environment
and
Security
Division,
Eastman
Chemical
Company
(
Eastman)

°
Clarify
that
releases
from
control
devices
such
as
flares
are
not
considered
accidents
and
malfunctions.
Such
releases
commonly
occur
but
not
on
the
basis
required
for
continuous
release
reporting.
NOx
is
emitted
from
a
flare
subsequent
to
the
combustion
of
hydrocarbons
and
heated
combustion
air
and
such
emissions
are
normal
and
intended
functions
of
the
flare.
NOx
is
not
emitted
from
a
flare
because
of
a
malfunction
of
the
flare
nor
is
it
an
accidental
release
from
the
flare.
Rather,
the
flare
is
operating
as
intended.
(
p.
2)

°
Industry
can
use
the
continuous
release
exemption
for
certain
routine
and
predictable
releases,
and
can
also
use
the
federally
permitted
release
exemption
for
others.
But
there
are
"
grandfathered"
combustion
units
that
do
not
have
federally
enforceable
permit
levels,
and
there
are
flares
that
release
greater
than
10
pounds
of
NOx
per
episode
that
do
not
qualify
for
federally
permitted
or
continuous
release
exemptions.
By
promulgating
an
exemption
for
all
combustion­
related
NOx
releases
including
accidents
and
malfunctions
up
to
5,000
pounds,
none
of
which
apparently
elicit
emergency
response
actions,
EPA
will
minimize
the
paperwork
burden
for
industry
and
for
the
Federal
response
system
without
losing
any
information
that
might
incur
a
government
response.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0082.1
Response
Number:
22
Commenter
Name:
T.
Ted
Cromwell,
Managing
Director
 
Environmental,
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC)

Flares
Should
be
Considered
Safety
Devices
and
Receive
the
Administrative
Exemption
(
p.
2)

Flares
are
safety
devices
to
control
emissions
from
an
episodic
event.
When
properly
operated,
flares
control
emissions
by
safely
containing
releases
from
a
stack
and
help
mitigate
a
potential
hazard
to
the
surrounding
area.
In
instances
when
a
flare
is
used,
the
NOx
portion
of
the
emission
is
of
little
or
no
concern
to
the
surrounding
area
and
does
not
necessitate
immediate
notification
to
federal,
state,
and
local
agencies.
ACC
recommends
that
EPA
include
flares
as
control
devices
and
include
the
NOx
release
portion
from
these
devices
in
the
Administrative
Exemption.
If
EPA
does
not
extend
the
combustion
NOx
exemption
to
cover
accidents/
malfunctions,
at
a
minimum
EPA
should
clarify
the
RQ
exemption
does
not
cover
flaring
(
that
flaring
is
not
considered
an
accident/
malfunction).
(
p.
2)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
104
Commenter
Number:
0086.1
Response
Number:
23
Commenter
Name:
Norbert
Dee,
Ph.
D.,
Director,
Environment
&
Safety,
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
(
NPFA)

Flares
are
safety
devices
and
should
be
included
in
the
Administrative
Exemption
(
p.
3)

The
purpose
of
a
flare
is
to
act
as
a
safety
device
to
control
emissions
from
an
episodic
event.
A
properly
operating
flare
controls
emissions
by
safely
dispersing
releases
from
the
stack
and
therefore
mitigates
potential
impacts
to
the
surrounding
area.
The
NOx
generated
by
the
flare
is
of
little
or
no
concern
to
the
surrounding
area
and
does
not
require
the
immediate
notification
of
regulatory
agencies.
(
p.
3)

If
an
accidental
release
of
hydrocarbon,
due
to
an
upset
or
malfunction
at
a
process
unit,
is
flared,
the
release
consists
of
constituent(
s)
other
than
NOx.
The
resulting
NOx
release
is
derived
from
"
treating"
or
controlling
the
accidental
release
in
the
flare.
So
NOx
is
not
accidentally
released
from
the
flare;
it
is
the
deliberate
result
of
treating
an
accidental
release
from
some
upstream
source
in
a
control
device
that
is
operating
in
normal
design
mode.
(
p.
3)

NPRA
strongly
recommends
that
EPA
include
the
NOx
emissions
attributed
to
flares
as
control
devices
in
the
Administrative
Exemption.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0091.1
Response
Number:
24
Commenter
Name:
Bruce
J.
Alexius,
EH&
S
Regulatory
Affairs
Expertise
Center,
The
Dow
Chemical
Company
(
DOW)

The
administrative
exemption
should
be
expanded
to
include
properly
operating
safety
devices,
such
as
flares.
(
p.
4)

Discussion:
The
discussions
above
can
be
further
expanded
into
the
operation
of
safety
devices,
such
as
flares,
to
control
emissions
from
episodic
events.
Flares
are
designed
to
safely
destroy
releases
and
prevent
them
from
becoming
a
hazard
to
the
surrounding
population
or
environment.
Properly
operated,
these
safety
devices
contain
and
safely
mitigate
a
release.
In
these
instances,
NOx
is
of
little
or
no
concern
from
a
public
health
and
safety
standpoint
and
should
not
confuse
possible
response
actions
with
its
inclusion
in
required
reporting.
Reporting
of
other
compounds,
such
as
hazardous
air
pollutants,
still
occurs,
taking
into
account
destruction
efficiency
and
remaining
emissions
relative
to
RQ.
(
p.
4)

For
example,
a
flaring
event
may
result
in
a
10
pound
benzene
release
after
destruction
has
taken
place.
In
this
scenario,
the
incident
would
be
reported
as
an
exceedance
of
the
10
pound
benzene
RQ.
Reporting
NOx
emissions
from
this
controlled
scenario
only
confuses
the
issue.
Benzene
is
a
carcinogen
and
a
hazardous
air
pollutant
for
which
reporting
has
merit.
The
NOx
poses
no
threat
requiring
immediate
reporting
or
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
105
response
nor
does
it
need
evaluation
in
this
scenario.
The
benzene
can
be
evaluated
due
to
its
hazardous
nature.
This
illustrates
another
interesting
point.
Benzene
has
a
status
that
demands
tighter
scrutiny.
Combustion
NOx
does
not
have
the
same
concerns
and
should
not
carry
the
same
RQ.
(
p.
4)

During
a
flare
event
the
10
pound
(
lb)
NOx
RQ
can
be
eclipsed
in
a
variety
of
ways.
For
example,
just
4,000
lbs.
of
additional
ethylene
vented
to
a
flare
will
yield
NOx
emissions
of
11
pounds.
This
calculation
uses
a
NOx
factor
of
0.138
lb/
MMBTU
obtained
from
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality
(
TCEQ)
technical
guidance
for
flares
and
vapor
oxidizers.
In
addition,
the
definition
of
"
Facility"
in
40
CFR
355
means
all
buildings,
equipment,
structure,
and
other
stationary
items
that
are
located
on
a
single
site
or
on
contiguous
or
adjacent
sites
and
which
are
owned
or
operated
by
the
same
person
etc.
Therefore,
one
can
easily
conclude
that
multiple
small
releases
of
NOx
from
sources,
such
as
flares,
across
a
given
site
must
be
aggregated
over
a
24
hour
period
and
compared
against
the
10
lb.
RQ
for
NOx.
This
leads
to
a
complicated
internal
accounting
system
where
releases
even
in
the
1
to
2
lb.
category
must
be
considered
and
aggregated
over
a
24
hour
period.
(
p.
4)

Again,
due
to
the
design
characteristics
and
proper
operation
of
a
flare,
there
will
be
negligible
health
impacts
from
the
amount
of
NOx
released.
Typically,
flares
have
a
high
release
point
so
that
ambient
concentrations
from
the
release
of
NOx
are
well
dispersed.
There
is
no
need
to
burden
response
personnel
with
information
that
does
not
pose
an
immediate
threat
to
health
or
the
environment.
(
p.
5)

Recommendation:
Specifically
eliminate
flares
and
other
safety
devices
from
NOx
reporting
requirements
if
the
flare
is
operating
properly.
(
p.
5)

Commenter
Number:
0113.1
Response
Number:
25
Commenter
Name:
Howard
J.
Feldman,
Director,
Regulatory
Analysis
and
Scientific
Affairs,
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)

The
Exemption
Requires
Clarity
Regarding
the
Operation
of
Control
Devices
such
as
Flares
(
p.
22)

If
EPA
does
not
extend
the
combustion
NOx
exemption
to
cover
accidents
and
malfunctions,
at
a
minimum,
the
Agency
should
clarify
that
flares
(
and
other
control
devices)
are
control
devices
and
should
be
covered
by
the
proposed
administrative
reporting
exemption.
Gas
combusted
in
flares
is
often
the
result
of
or
related
to
an
accident
or
malfunction,
however
the
flare
is
intentionally
operated
to
control
the
potential
health,
safety
and
environmental
impacts
of
the
gas.
NOx
is
generated
by
the
combustion
of
the
gas
in
the
flare,
not
the
event
that
sent
the
gas
to
the
control
device.
Since
flaring
burns
valuable
natural
gas,
it
is
not
done
unless
necessary
to
ensure
safe
and
environmentally
protective
operations.
(
p.
22­
23)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
106
The
compounds
directly
resulting
from
the
accident
or
malfunction
are
the
accident
and
malfunction
emissions 
not
the
compounds
generated
by
the
downstream
control
device.
To
illustrate,
NOx
emitted
from
flaring
is
subsequent
to
the
combustion
of
hydrocarbons
and
heated
combustion
air.
The
NOx
is
being
emitted
as
a
natural
consequence
of
normal
and
intended
operation
of
the
flare
and
is
not
due
to
the
malfunction
of
the
flare.
If
the
flare
were
to
fail,
there
would
be
no
NOx
emissions
from
the
flare.
This
is
consistent
with
the
definitions
of
malfunction
that
EPA
refers
to
in
the
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking,
which
state
that
a
malfunction
occurs
when
there
is
a
failure
of
air
pollution
control
equipment.
(
p.
23)

API's
analysis
of
NOx
releases
reported
to
the
NRC
between
1994
and
2004
indicates
that
about
12,300
of
the
15,800
records
searched
(
almost
80
percent)
included
flare
or
flaring
in
the
incident
description.
This
is
probably
a
low
estimate
because
incident
descriptions
might
omit
the
terms,
even
if
flaring
was
involved.
If
flares
and
other
control
devices
were
not
covered
by
the
proposed
administrative
reporting
exemption,
the
exemption
would
do
very
little
to
reduce
the
number
of
NOx
reports
and
the
associated
reporting
burden;
they
would
continue
to
number
in
the
many
thousands
per
year.
Simply
put,
if
the
Agency
were
to
exclude
accidents
and
malfunctions
from
the
exemption
and
not
articulate
in
the
final
rule
that
emissions
from
control
devices
including
flares
are
not
considered
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction
of
equipment,
then
when
the
current
enforcement
discretion
is
rescinded
(
once
the
proposal
is
finalized),
the
reporting
burden
will
become
considerably
higher
than
at
present.
Thus,
it
is
essential
that
the
exemption
clearly
and
unambiguously
covers
flares
and
other
control
devices.
(
p.
23­
24)

As
discussed
in
section
III
B
above,
the
rule
as
currently
proposed
creates
potential
confusion
because
of
the
exclusion
of
accidents
and
malfunctions
from
the
exemption.
Although
operation
of
flares
and
other
control
devices
are
not
accidents
and
malfunctions,
flaring
incidents
are
often
related
to
an
accident
or
malfunction,
i.
e.,
the
flare
is
operated
intentionally
in
response
to
an
accident,
malfunction,
or
other
operational
irregularity.
This
highlights
the
definitional
problems
that
would
be
created
by
attempting
to
carve
out
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
from
the
administrative
reporting
exemption.
If
accidents
and
malfunctions
do
not
have
the
exemption,
it
will
be
necessary
for
EPA
to
clearly
define
accident
and
malfunction
and
the
limits
of
the
definitions.
Crafting
and
clearly
implementing
these
definitions
would
not
be
easy
tasks,
particularly
because
there
would
be
issues
of
consistency
with
other
programs
(
e.
g.,
the
air
program,
in
which
flaring
is
often
granted
an
exemption
from
the
permitting
requirements
if
it
is
being
operated
as
a
result
of
a
malfunction).
(
p.
24)

In
order
to
provide
consistency
with
other
programs
that
may
have
their
own
exemptions
relating
to
the
use
of
control
devices
such
as
flares,
EPA
should
provide
clarifying
language
in
the
rule
that
makes
this
clear,
such
as:
"
As
long
as
a
safety
or
control
device
(
e.
g.,
a
flare)
is
operated
as
designed,
releases
of
combustion
NOx
from
the
safety
or
control
device
qualify
for
the
exemption."
However,
as
stated
above,
in
Section
III
of
these
comments,
including
accidents
and
malfunctions
within
the
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
107
exemption
is
the
most
straightforward
and
practical
approach
to
addressing
this
issue,
and
we
urge
EPA
to
take
this
approach.
(
p.
24)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
concerns
and
request
to
clarify
that
releases
from
control
devices
such
as
flares
are
not
considered
accidents
and
malfunctions.
EPA
agrees
that
this
administrative
exemption
for
NOx
releases
to
air
that
are
a
result
of
combustion
activities
should
not
include
the
qualifier,
"
unless
such
release
is
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction."
EPA
also
believes
that
exclusion
of
the
qualifier
should
eliminate
the
need
for
EPA
to
specifically
identify
"
flaring"
as
a
control
device
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
108
This
page
is
intentionally
left
blank.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
109
VI.
REQUESTS
FOR
BROADER
EXEMPTIONS
TO
INCLUDE
COMBUSTION
AND
NON­
COMBUSTION
PROCESSES
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
110
Commenter
Number:
0094.1
Response
Number:
1
Commenter
Name:
William
C.
Herz,
Director
Scientific
Programs,
The
Fertilizer
Institute
(
TFI)

NOx
Emitted
by
Nitric
Acid
Plants
Should
Qualify
for
the
Exemption
Although
Produced
by
Both
Combustion
and
Non­
Combustion
Processes
(
p.
2)

EPA
expressly
limits
the
proposed
NOx
Reporting
Exemption
to
releases
that
"
are
the
result
of
combustion
activities."
70
Fed.
Reg.
at
57,815.
Many
TFI
members
operate
nitric
acid
plants
in
the
production
of
fertilizer,
which
produce
NOx.
Although
the
NOx
produced
in
such
plants
is
originally
formed
as
a
product
of
combustion,
some
NOx
emissions
are
the
result
of
non­
combustion
processes.
It
is
impossible
to
identify
NOx
emissions
from
nitric
acid
plants
that
result
from
combustion
as
opposed
to
noncombustion
processes.
TFI
believes,
however,
that
all
NOx
emissions
from
nitric
acid
plants
should
qualify
for
the
proposed
exemption
as
releases
that
are
the
result
of
combustion
activities
because
all
NOx
at
such
plants
originates
as
a
product
of
combustion.
(
p.
2)

The
process
of
NOx
emissions
from
nitric
acid
plants
begins
with
mixing
ammonia
with
air
which
is
combusted
across
a
platinum/
rhodium
catalyst
creating
a
hot
NOx
gas,
primarily
NO.
The
hot
NOx
gas
is
cooled
through
a
series
of
heat
exchangers
and
most
of
the
NO
reacts
with
the
excess
oxygen
to
form
NO2.
The
NOx
gas
is
then
introduced
into
an
absorber,
where
it
interacts
with
a
weak
nitric
acid
solution
and
fresh
water,
resulting
in
a
series
of
over
38
chemical
reactions.
Generally,
NO2
is
absorbed
into
the
aqueous
phase
and
nitric
acid
is
formed.
As
a
result,
however,
NO
and
a
much
smaller
fraction
of
the
NO2
are
released
back
into
the
gas
phase.
Since
NO
is
produced
in
each
reaction
that
makes
nitric
acid,
extra
air
is
introduced
into
the
absorber
to
convert
the
NO
back
to
NO2.
The
NO2
is
reabsorbed
and
the
cycle
repeats
itself.
Since
NO
does
not
appreciably
absorb
into
the
aqueous
phase,
some
NO
ultimately
exits
the
top
of
the
column.
A
smaller
fraction
of
NO2
also
exits
the
column
due
to
the
kinetics
and
equilibrium
of
the
reactions.
The
gas
exiting
the
absorption
column
is
called
tail
gas.
At
this
point,
most
of
the
gas
is
again
NO.
The
tail
gas
is
heated
and
directed
through
an
air
pollution
control
device
to
control
NOx
emissions
to
the
atmosphere.
The
hot,
pressurized
tail
gas
is
then
sent
through
an
expander
to
generate
power
for
the
air
compressor,
and
finally
exits
out
the
stack.
(
p.
2)

In
summary,
the
NOx
released
from
nitric
acid
plants
is
originally
formed
as
a
product
of
NH3
combustion.
However,
nitric
acid
plants
also
produce
NOx
from
N2O4
in
an
aqueous
reaction.
It
is
impossible
to
determine
which
NOx
emissions
result
from
combustion
as
opposed
to
non
combustion
processes.
Nonetheless,
all
NOx
emissions
from
nitric
acid
plants
should
qualify
for
EPA's
proposed
NOx
reporting
exemption
as
releases
from
combustion
activities
because
all
NOx
released
from
nitric
acid
plants
originates
from
combustion
activities.
(
p.
2)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
111
EPA
Should
Expand
the
Exemption
to
Include
NOx
Emissions
From
Non­
Combustion
Processes
(
p.
3)

Even
if
EPA
believes
that
all
NOx
emissions
from
nitric
acid
plants
do
not
qualify
for
the
exemption
as
products
of
combustion
activities,
the
NOx
reporting
exemption
should
be
expanded
to
include
NOx
emissions
from
non­
combustion
processes.
Arbitrarily
limiting
the
exemption
to
NOx
emissions
from
combustion
processes
undermines
the
original
purpose
of
the
exemption,
which
is
to
eliminate
unnecessary
reporting
of
small
amounts
of
NOx
that
most
likely
will
not
result
in
a
federal
response.
There
is
no
logical
distinction
between
NOx
emissions
resulting
from
combustion
processes
as
opposed
to
non­
combustion
processes
on
this
point.
NOx
emissions
from
non­
combustion
activities
are
just
as
unlikely
as
those
produced
by
combustion
activities
to
result
in
a
federal
response.
Limiting
the
application
of
the
exemption
to
combustion
processes
merely
prevents
EPA
from
fulfilling
the
original
purpose
of
the
exemption.
(
p.
3)

EPA
recognized
as
early
as
2002
that
emissions
of
NOx
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
ten
pound
reportable
quantity
"
rarely
require
a
government
response."
67
Fed.
Reg.
18,900.
As
a
result,
EPA
stated
that
it
"
supports
the
proposal
of
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
certain
NO
and
NO2
air
releases
which
could
result
in
these
releases
not
being
required
to
be
reported
under
CERCLA
section
103
and
EPCRA
section
304."
67
Fed.
Reg.
18,900.
In
recognizing
the
need
for
an
administrative
exemption,
EPA
did
not
draw
a
distinction
between
combustion
processes
and
any
other
process
that
may
generate
NOx.
Rather,
EPA
noted
that
low
level
NOx
emissions,
regardless
of
their
origin,
"
rarely
require
a
government
response"
and
that
an
administrative
exemption
was
needed
to
eliminate
unnecessary
reporting.
Indeed,
the
need
for
a
government
response
is
not
determined
by
the
process
that
generated
the
NOx,
but
by
the
size
of
the
NOx
release,
atmospheric
conditions,
and
the
proximity
of
the
release
to
the
public
and
sensitive
ecosystems.
Thus,
limiting
the
proposed
exemption
to
NOx
released
by
combustion
activities
is
unnecessarily
restrictive.
(
p.
3)

EPA
supports
the
narrow
application
of
the
exemption
by
stressing
that
the
"
RQ
is
easily
met
by
those
facilities
that
release
NOx
to
the
air
...
especially
...
when
the
facility
processes
include
combustion
activities."
70
Fed.
Reg.
57,815.
The
RQ
is
just
as
easily
met
when
the
facility
processes
include
non­
combustion
activities.
There
is
no
logical
distinction
between
the
releases,
except
the
process
by
which
they
originate.
They
are
equally
benign
and
should
be
treated
equally
under
the
Exemption.
In
addition,
the
EPA
risk
analysis
that
supports
the
exemption
should
equally
apply
to
releases
of
a
similar
magnitude
that
cannot
be
attributed
without
doubt
to
combustion­
related
activities.
(
p.
3)

EPA's
observation
that
none
of
the
NOx
release
notifications
previously
submitted
from
any
source
resulted
in
a
response
action
being
taken,
"
unless
it
was
a
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction,"
further
supports
this
position.
70
Fed.
Reg.
57,818.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
112
This
fact
shows
that
NOx
from
non­
combustion
sources
are
equally
unlikely
to
result
in
a
Federal
response.
In
fact,
EPA
makes
clear
that
it
chose
an
exemption
level
of
1,000
pounds
per
24
hour
period
because
"
this
level
is
below
the
level
at
which
permits
are
required
under
the
CAA
for
NOx,
such
that
it
appears
`
infeasible'
that
any
response
would
be
undertaken."
70
Fed.
Reg.
57,818.
This
statement
clearly
shows
that
EPA
is
primarily
concerned
with
the
amount
rather
than
the
source
of
the
release.
Expanding
the
exemption
to
include
NOx
released
from
non­
combustion
sources
more
fully
resolves
EPA's
concerns
regarding
unnecessary
reporting.
Circumscribing
the
scope
of
the
exemption
to
releases
from
combustion
activities,
therefore,
is
arbitrary
and
serves
no
clear
purpose.
In
fact,
EPA
explains
that
the
goal
of
the
proposed
NOx
Reporting
exemption
is
to
achieve
the
"
same
outcome"
as
raising
the
RQ
for
NOx
without
actually
raising
the
RQ.
70
Fed.
Reg.
57,818.
EPA
failed
in
this
respect,
however,
to
the
extent
the
exemption
is
inapplicable
to
NOx
generated
by
non­
combustion
processes.
(
p.
3­
4)

Commenter
Number:
0109
Response
Number:
2
Commenter
Name:
Renu
Chhabra,
Waste
&
EPCRA
Systems
Manager,
INVISTA
INVISTA
requests
that
this
exemption
be
broadened
to
releases
of
NOx
from
non­
combustion
sources.
Potential
for
NOx
RQ
releases
from
non­
combustion
sources
exists
from
INVISTA's
nitric
acid
plant
process
equipment,
storage
tanks,
and
NOx
abatement
control
device,
and
from
Adipic
Acid
plant
manufacturing
areas
where
nitric
acid
is
used.
NO
and
NO2
are
present
in
nitric
acid,
and
a
release
of
nitric
acid
results
in
NOx
emissions
also.
(
p.
2)

IN
VISTA
agrees
that
the
need
and
likelihood
of
a
federal
response
to
a
release
of
NOx
below
1000
pounds
in
24
hours
is
negligible
and
therefore,
serves
no
useful
purpose.
However,
we
do
not
see
how
the
need
or
likelihood
of
a
response
would
be
different
for
a
NOx
release
of
less
than
1000
pounds
in
24
hours
from
a
combustion
source
versus
another
source.
We
would
expect
the
effects
on
human
health
or
an
eco
system
to
be
the
same
regardless
of
the
source
of
the
release.
(
p.
2)

By
specifying
that
only
emissions
from
combustion
sources
that
are
not
due
to
accidents
or
malfunctions
qualify
for
the
administrative
exemption,
the
proposal
has
the
unintended
consequence
of
making
reporting
needlessly
complicated.
The
time
needed
to
evaluate
reporting
would
be
increased
by
raising
questions
about
the
ultimate
source
of
the
release,
whether
the
unit
was
experiencing
an
accident,
or
malfunction,
whether
the
release
was
federally
permitted
and
then
whether
it
was
episodic
or
continuous.
To
further
the
intent
of
EPCRA
and
CERCLA
to
provide
emergency
planners
and
responders
with
timely
information
in
order
to
protect
the
public
and
the
environment,
release
reporting
should
not
be
unduly
complicated.
Delays
associated
with
defining
small
releases
would
be
eliminated
if
all
releases
of
NOx,
irrespective
of
the
source,
were
treated
equally.
(
p.
2)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
113
INVISTA
understands
that
EPA
is
interested
in
reducing
the
reporting
burden
of
minor
NOx
emissions.
We
request
clarification
of
EPA's
intentions
to
limit
the
exemption
to
emission
from
combustion
sources.
In
particular,
it
is
not
clear
if
EPA
is
proposing
to
exempt
NOx
emissions
from
control
devices
occurring
as
a
result
of
a
malfunction
in
an
upstream
process,
and
exclude
from
the
exemption
malfunctions
occurring
at
a
control
device.
Where
a
facility
experiences
unanticipated
problems
in
the
process
unit,
such
as
a
nitric
acid
plant
or
in
the
Adipic
Acid
manufacturing
process,
the
process
unit
may
route
emissions
to
a
control
device
that
is
functioning
properly.
These
emissions
do
not
come
from
an
upset
or
malfunction
of
the
control
device
and
should
be
covered
by
the
exemption
from
notification
if
less
than
1000
pounds
over
24
hours.
Again,
the
effects
on
human
health
or
an
eco
system
would
be
expected
to
be
the
same
regardless
of
the
source
of
the
release.
INVISTA
requests
that
EPA
clarify
that
emissions
from
properly
functioning
control
devices
are
exempt
under
the
proposed
rule,
including
when
there
has
been
an
upstream
upset
or
malfunction
in
the
process
unit.
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0095.1
Response
Number:
3
Commenter
Name:
James
D.
Schultz,
Vice
President,
Environment
&
Energy,
American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute
(
AISI)

Finally,
we
encourage
EPA
to
consider
exempting
all
NOx
emissions
from
EPCRA
and
CERCLA
reporting.
Nitrogen
oxides
are
criteria
air
pollutants
that
do
not
have
short­
term
acute
or
hazardous
effects
that
warrant
emergency
response
or
notification
within
the
intent
of
EPCRA
or
CERCLA.
NOx
emission
sources
are
regulated
under
numerous
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
As
such,
most
facilities
with
the
potential
to
emit
NOx
have
Title
V
operating
permits
with
NOx
limits
and
are
subject
to
start­
up,
shutdown
and
malfunction
provisions,
excess
emission
reporting,
and
other
monitoring,
testing,
and
reporting
obligations.
Additional
reporting
of
NOx
emissions
under
EPCRA
and
CERCLA
is
redundant
and
represents
an
unnecessary
burden.
For
this
reason,
we
believe
that
NOx
emissions
should
be
exempted
altogether
from
reporting
requirements
under
EPCRA
or
CERCLA.
If
there
is
demonstrable
evidence
of
environmental
harm
or
a
risk­
based
justification
for
not
exempting
NOx
releases
that
are
not
combustion­
related,
EPA
should
present
information
to
support
that
conclusion,
but
in
any
event
the
Agency
should
at
least
extend
the
exemption
to
all
combustion­
related
releases.
(
p.
2­
3)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
TFI
and
INVISTA's
requests
for
broader
exemptions
to
include
all
NOx
emissions
from
nitric
acid
plants
regardless
of
whether
they
were
a
direct
result
of
combustion
activities
and
from
Adipic
Acid
plant
manufacturing
areas
where
nitric
acid
is
used.

EPA
agrees
that
all
NOx
emissions
from
nitric
acid
plants
should
qualify
for
the
NOx
administrative
reporting
exemption
because
all
NOx
released
from
nitric
acid
plants
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
114
originates
from
combustion
activities.
In
addition,
similar
to
differentiating
between
accidental
and
malfunction
releases
of
NOx
during
combustion,
determining
where
in
the
production
process
(
combustion
or
non­
combustion
phase)
of
nitric
acid
that
NOx
is
released
would
present
an
unnecessary
burden
and
may
result
in
protective,
overreporting

Similarly,
where
nitric
acid
is
used
in
the
Adipic
Acid
manufacturing
process,
there
may
be
releases
of
NOx
from
control
devices
in
an
upstream
process.
To
the
extent
that
those
control
devices
are
functioning
properly
and
operate
as
combustion
devices,
the
resulting
NO
and
NO2
emissions
would
be
covered
under
this
administrative
reporting
exemption.

EPA
acknowledges
AISI's
request
that
the
Agency
extend
the
exemption
to
all
combustion­
related
releases.
EPA
agrees
that
the
Administrative
Reporting
Exemption
should
be
extended
to
include
all
combustion­
related
releases
of
NOx
(
NO
and
NO2).
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
115
VII.
INTERPRETATION
OF
CERCLA
PROVISIONS
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
116
A.
Legal
Authority
to
Include
NO
and
NO2
Resulting
from
Chemical
Reaction
Commenter
Number:
0085
Response
Number:
1
Commenter
Name:
John
S.
Hayden,
PD,
REM,
Vice
President,
Environmental
Services,
National
Stone,
Sand
&
Gravel
Association
(
NSSGA)

COMMENT:
Concerning
Proposed
40
CFR
Part
302,
Section
302.6,
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
Requirements
for
NO
and
NO2
are
appropriate
only
for
the
release
of
these
compounds
during
shipment
and
storage
and
entirely
inappropriate
when
applied
to
NOx
air
emissions
from
chemical
reactions
and/
or
combustion
processes.
(
p.
2)

NSSGA
does
not
oppose
the
exemptions
for
nitric
oxide
(
NO)
and
nitrogen
dioxide
(
NO2)
proposed
in
302
.6(
e)(
1)
and
(
e)(
2).
These
exemptions
clearly
minimize
the
administrative
burdens
associated
with
reports
for
which
agency
response
is
neither
appropriate
nor
feasible.
However,
these
exemptions
do
not
solve
the
fundamental
issue
concerning
the
legal
authority
for
including
pollutant
emissions
that
result
from
chemical
reactions
and/
or
combustion
processes
in
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
response
programs.
These
programs
are
intended
to
address
only
materials
released
to
the
environment
as
bulk
chemicals
during
accidents
or
equipment
malfunctions.
(
p.
2)

The
fundamental
purpose
of
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
response
programs
was
clearly
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
December
21,
1999
Federal
Register
Notice
concerning
the
CERCLA
Section
101(
10)(
H)
Federally
Permitted
Release
Definition.

"
The
immediate
and
continuous
release
notifications
provide
important
information
for
numerous
activities.
They
help
government
agencies
and
regulated
industries
to:

1.
Respond
to
releases;
2.
Assess
future
risks
and
cumulative
effects;
3.
Identify
chronic
problems;
4.
Develop
pollution
prevention
and
pollution
reduction
plans;
and
5.
Educate
local
communities
and
the
public."
December
21,
1999
Federal
Register
Notice
(
p.
2)

The
application
of
CERLA
and
EPCRA
requirements
to
the
release
of
NO
and
NO2
as
high
concentration
bulk
chemicals
during
shipment
and
storage
is
reasonable.
The
inclusion
of
NOx
air
emissions
formed
in
chemical
reactions
and/
or
combustion
processes
in
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
programs
is
not
technically
justifiable
or
consistent
with
EPA
rulemaking.
(
p.
2­
3)

NSSGA
has
determined
that
the
specific
basis
used
by
EPA
in
1985
to
promulgate
Reportable
Quantity
(
RQ)
values
of
10
pounds
per
day
for
nitric
oxide
(
NO)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
117
and
nitrogen
dioxide
(
NO2)
was
based
strictly
on
the
oxidizing
(
reactive­
ignitable)
characteristics
of
compressed
and/
or
liquefied
forms
of
NO
and
NO2
released
during
shipment
or
storage"
This
was
clearly
indicated
in
the
EPA
Technical
Support
Documents
supporting
the
proposed
and
promulgated
RQ
values
included
in
EPA
Docket
102RQ.
These
documents
also
demonstrated
that
in
listing
these
compounds
and
selecting
the
specific
RQs,
EPA
had
previously
concluded
that
NO
and
NO2
have
the
following
characteristics
during
releases.
(
p.
3)

 
They
enter
the
environment
during
releases
as
spills
of
high
concentration
compressed
gases
or
compressed
liquids.
 
They
have
a
localized
impact
at
the
specific
site
of
the
release.
 
They
are
ignitable
and
reactive
compounds
that
accelerate
the
combustion
of
materials
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
release.
(
p.
3)

The
proposed
and
promulgated
RQ
requirements
and
the
supporting
Technical
Support
Documents
prepared
under
EPA
sponsorship
are
entirely
silent
regarding
air
emissions
of
NOx.
This
is
appropriate
because
it
was
clearly
the
intent
of
these
regulations
to
regulate
NOx
air
emissions.
(
p.
3)

If
applied
to
NOx
air
emissions,
the
rationale
in
selecting
NO
and
NO2
for
inclusion
in
Table
302.4
and
in
setting
the
RQ
levels
for
these
compounds
is
technically
inappropriate.
The
three
attributes
listed
above
do
not,
in
any
way,
apply
to
NO
and
NO2
released
as
NOx
air
emissions
from
combustion
processes
or
other
types
of
NOx
air
emission
sources.
Specifically,
NOx
air
emissions
have
the
following
characteristics
that
are
quite
different
from
those
listed
above.
(
p.
3)

 
NOx
air
emissions
consist
primarily
of
a
mixture
of
NO
and
NO2.
 
The
NO
and
NO2
in
NOx
air
emissions
can
be
converted
from
one
form
to
the
other
due
to
in­
stack,
in­
plume,
or
atmospheric
reactions.
 
All
NOx
compounds
react
rapidly
in
the
atmosphere
to
form
other
chemical
compounds.
 
NOx
air
emissions
are
present
at
low
concentrations
(
i.
e.
less
than
0.1
volume
percent)
and
do
not
accelerate
the
oxidation
of
the
solids
or
liquids
near
the
point
of
release.
 
NOx
air
emissions
have
a
negligible
impact
near
the
site
of
release
and,
in
fact,
are
regulated
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
primarily
because
they
impact
the
formation
of
secondary
pollutants
such
as
ozone
that
forms
over
periods
of
hoursto
days
as
air
masses
move
hundreds
to
thousands
of
miles.
(
p.
3)

CERCLA
superfund
programs
and
EPCRA
right­
to­
know
requirements
are
not
intended
to
address
the
emissions
of
NOx
air
emissions
that
result
from
chemical
reactions
and/
or
combustion
processes.
There
is
no
logical
reason
to
require
the
reporting
of
the
"
releases
of
NOx
when
it
is
both
unnecessary
and
impossible
to
respond
to
these
"
releases."
Furthermore,
EPA's
regulatory
impact
analysis
and
economic
impact
analysis
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
118
are
relevant
only
to
the
spills
of
NO
and
NO2
shipped
or
stored
as
compressed
gas
and/
or
liquids.
(
p.
3)

If
EPA
decides
to
require
CERCLA­
EPCRA
reporting
of
NOx
air
emissions,
EPA
will
expand
these
programs
well
beyond
the
intent
of
Congress
and
cause
the
reporting
of
a
minimum
of
250,000
to
500,000
"
releases."
These
reporting
requirements
will
suddenly
apply
to
a
large
population
of
farmers
operating
irrigation
pumps,
state
and
local
agencies
operating
small
boilers,
operators
of
small
commercial
buildings
operating
small
boilers
or
incinerators,
operators
of
small
industrial
facilities
with
small
generators
and/
or
boilers,
construction
sites
blasting
for
road
building
and
building
foundations,
mine
sites,
as
well
as
numerous
other
sources.
The
quantity
of
NOx
addressed
by
the
improperly
applied
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
requirements
will
include
less
than
1%
of
the
total
NOx
emissions.
It
is
unclear
how
the
National
Response
Center
(
NRC)
will
handle
the
reporting
load.
It
is
equally
unclear
how
local
public
health
authorities
will
use
the
information
provided
by
this
avalanche
of
reports.
There
is
little
sense
in
reporting
a
"
release"
for
which
no
public
health
agency
or
authority
needs
to
respond
or
could
respond.
(
p.
4)

It
is
unclear
how
the
National
Response
Center
(
NRC)
will
handle
the
reporting
load.
It
is
equally
unclear
how
local
public
health
authorities
will
use
the
information
provided
by
this
avalanche
of
reports.
There
is
little
sense
in
reporting
a
"
release"
for
which
no
public
health
agency
or
authority
needs
to
respond
or
could
respond.
(
p.
4)

The
solution
to
this
potential
problem
is
simple
and
straightforward.
EPA
has
previously
listed
NO
and
NO2
as
hazardous
compounds
in
Table
302.4
and
has
promulgated
RQs
for
these
compounds.
EPA
should
simply
provide
a
clarification
note
in
this
table
that
these
listings
for
NO
and
NO2
apply
to
the
release
of
these
compounds
during
shipment
and/
or
storage
of
compressed
gas
or
compressed
liquefied
chemicals.
This
clarification
note
should
state
that
the
reporting
requirements
do
not
apply
to
NOx
air
emissions.
A
clarification
note
stating
the
inapplicability
of
reporting
requirements
to
emissions
of
NO
and
NO2
would
function
in
a
similar
manner
to
the
proposed
exemptions;
however,
the
clarification
is
more
consistent
with
the
legal
authority
underlying
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
programs.
(
p.
4)

RECOMMENDATION:
EPA
should
regulate
NO
and
NO2
under
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
programs
only
with
regard
to
their
possible
release
as
high
concentration
compressed
gases
or
compressed
liquids
during
shipment
or
storage.
EPA
should
clarify
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
requirements
by
stating
that
these
reporting
requirements
do
not
apply
to
NOx
air
emissions
resulting
from
chemical
reactions
and/
or
combustion
processes.
(
p.
4)

The
Original
Listing
of
NO
and
NO2
and
the
Associated
RQ
Levels
are
Appropriate
Only
for
the
Release
of
High
Concentration
Chemicals
During
Shipment
or
Storage.
(
p.
5)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
119
NSSGA
contends
that
the
EPA's
1983
proposed
regulation,
1985
promulgated
regulation,
and
the
associated
technical
support
documents
are
clear
that
the
listing
of
NO
and
NO2
applied
only
to
releases
of
high
concentration
chemicals,
not
the
air
emission
of
NO
and
NO2
present
as
NOx
from
air
sources.
EPA
has
not
completed
adequate
rulemaking
to
expand
the
NO
and
NO2
related
requirements
from
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
programs
to
include
NOx
air
emissions
resulting
from
chemical
reactions
and/
or
combustion
processes.
(
p.
5)

The
following
sections
of
the
NSSGA
Technical
Comments
describes
the
significant
differences
between
these
two
types
of
emissions.
(
p.
5)

1)
Origins
of
the
Table
302.4
NO
and
NO2
Designation
and
of
the
Associated
RQ
Levels
(
p.
5)

In
1983,
EPA
proposed
a
set
of
hazardous
chemicals
selected
from
a
list
of
candidate
compounds.
NO
and
NO2
were
included
in
this
list,
and
the
proposed
RQ
values
were
10
pounds
per
day.
EPA
documents
indicated
that
they
relied
on
the
following
six
primary
criteria
and
three
secondary
criteria
in
determining
the
RQ
levels
for
NO,
NO
and
the
numerous
other
compounds
reviewed.
(
p.
5)

Primary
Criteria
°
Aquatic
toxicity
°
Acute
Mammilian
toxicty
°
Chronic
toxicity
°
Ignitability
°
Reactivity
°
Potential
carcinogenicity
Secondary
Criteria
°
Photolysis
°
Hydrolysis
°
Biodegradation
It
is
apparent
from
the
1982
Technical
Support
Document
that
EPA
selected
RQ
values
for
NO
and
NO2
due
to
"
Ignitability
and
Reactivity".
The
1985
Technical
Support
Document
written
in
support
of
the
1985
promulgated
requirements
also
specified
"
Ignitability
and
Reactivity"
as
the
basis
for
the
10
pound
per
day
RQs
for
both
compounds.
In
fact,
the
1985
Technical
Support
Document
included
the
following
statement
regarding
nitrogen
dioxide.
(
p.
5)

"
The
final
RQ
level
of
Category
A
(
10
pounds)
is
based
on
the
fact
that
this
hazardous
substance
is
a
strong
oxidizer
and
can
readily
cause
fires."
(
p.
5)

As
defined
in
the
Technical
Support
Document
a
strong
oxidizer
is
a
"
compound
that
cause
fuel
materials
to
ignite,
and
support
combustion
once
they
are
ignited
(
page
4­
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
120
9)."
This
same
document
provided
the
following
statement
as
further
background
concerning
the
origin
of
this
rating
category.
(
p.
5)

"
The
starting
point
for
the
rating
scales
for
RQ
selection
based
on
the
parameters
of
ignitability
and
reactivity
have
their
origin
in
work
done
by
the
U.
S.
National
Academy
of
Sciences
for
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
in
1974
(
USCG­
D­
113­
74,
System
for
Evaluation
of
the
Hazards
of
Bulk
Water
Transportation
of
Industrial
Chemicals;
a
Report
to
the
Department
of
Transportation,
U.
S.
Coast
Guard.)"
(
p.
5)

NSSGA
does
not
challenge
this
RQ
level
as
applied
to
bulk
quantities
of
NO
and
NO2
released
as
high
concentration
compressed
gases
or
compressed
liquids
even
though
EPA's
documentation
of
the
oxidizing
capability
of
these
compounds
is
limited
and
is
not
entirely
consistent
with
the
main
hazard
classification
for
these
compounds
under
the
DOT
regulations
of
49
CFR
Parts
172
and
173.
(
p.
6)

In
the
case
of
gaseous
releases
of
NO
and
NO2
the
oxidizer
category
does
NOT
make
technical
sense.
NSSGA
is
not
aware
of
any
literature
whatsoever
that
indicates
that
the
emission
of
NO
and
NO2
as
NOx
in
the
concentration
range
of
0.01
to
more
than
0.2
volume
percent
(
100
to
2000
ppm
(
v/
v))
will
accelerate
the
combustion
of
solid
and/
or
liquid
materials.
The
"
oxidizer"
property
applies
only
when
the
material
is
spilled
as
a
compressed
gas
or
liquefied
chemical
and
enters
the
environment
at
concentrations
more
than
100
times
the
concentrations
present
in
NOx
air
emissions.
(
p.
6)

The
EPA
regulatory
impact
analyses
performed
in
1985
are
sufficient
only
if
applied
to
the
release
of
bulk
quantities
of
NO
and
NO2
during
shipment
or
storage.
(
p.
6)

EPA
has
included
regulatory
impact
analyses
and
economic
analyses
pertaining
to
reporting
of
hazardous
chemicals
included
in
Table
302.4.
It
is
clear
from
the
documents
included
in
Docket
102RQ
that
EPA
based
these
analyses
on
the
assumption
that
the
number
of
reports
filed
per
year
would
total
less
than
60,000.
It
is
also
clear
that
EPA
believed
that
the
total
number
of
releases
that
would
be
reported
would
be
related
to
the
quantities
of
bulk
chemicals
produced.
(
p.
6)

These
regulatory
impact
analyses
and
economic
impact
analyses
did
not
take
into
account
the
large
number
of
air
sources
such
as
(
1)
stationary
small
boilers,
(
2)
boilers
on
vessels,
(
3)
stationary
IC
engines,
(
4)
diesel
engines,
(
5)
irrigation
pumps,
(
6)
agricultural
controlled
burning
and
(
7)
blasting
at
construction
or
mining
sites.
EPA
documents
prepared
during
the
1980
to
1985
time
frame
indicate
that
there
are
a
minimum
of
250,000
and
probably
more
than
500,000
of
these
sources
that
would
have
NOx
air
emissions
above
the
RQ
levels.
But
remaining
silent
on
this
large
population
of
potentially
affected
sources
in
these
documents,
EPA
has
clearly
demonstrated
that
the
NOx
air
emissions
were
not
being
addressed
as
a
designed
hazardous
compound.
(
p.
6)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
121
2.
Regulation
of
Releases
of
Low
Concentrations
of
NO
and
NO2
as
NOx
Emissions
to
the
Atmosphere
Are
Not
Appropriate
Under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
(
p.
6)

NSSGA
contends
that
there
are
compelling
technical
reasons
why
NOx
emissions
WERE
NOT
and
SHOULD
NOT
be
regulated
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA.
(
p.
6)
NO
and
NO2
are
Emitted
as
Co­
pollutants
From
Combustion
Processes
and
Other
Traditional
Air
Emission
Sources
(
p.
6)

NO
and
NO2
form
in
a
variety
of
chemical
reactions
and
combustion
processes
due
to
the
combined
effect
of
thermal
and
fuel
NOx
formation
mechanisms.
Air
emission
measurements
have
established
that
the
emissions
at
the
stack
generally
consist
of
approximately
95%
NO
and
5%
NO2
However,
there
can
be
variability
in
the
relative
quantities
of
each
compound
in
the
NOx
emissions
from
different
types
of
sources
and
from
specific
facilities.
This
variability
in
relative
quantities
of
NO
and
NO2
is
due,
in
part,
to
on­
going
reactions
that
continue
to
convert
NO
to
NO2
as
the
effluent
gas
stream
exits
the
stack
and
disperses
into
the
atmosphere.
NOx
emissions
cannot
be
accurately
subdivided
into
the
portions
that
are
NO
and
NO2
upon
release
to
the
atmosphere.
(
p.
6)

Continuous
emission
monitors
used
to
measure
NOx
emissions
do
not,
in
the
majority
of
cases,
speciate
emissions.
Considering
that
approximately
95%
of
the
NOx
is
often
in
the
NO
form,
it
would
be
reasonable
to
presume
that
a
CEM
measurement
that
indicated
a
release
of
more
than
10
pounds
of
NOx
would
generally
indicate
that
there
has
been
a
reportable
release
of
NO.
However,
NO2
is
present
as
a
minor
(
and
highly
variable)
constituent
of
NOx,
and
operators
would
have
significant
difficulty
in
determining
the
level
of
NO2
release
that
is
associated
with
a
release
of
more
than
10
pounds
per
day
of
NOx.
(
p.
6­
7)

Rapid
Atmospheric
Conversion
of
NO
to
NO2
Occurs
in
the
Atmosphere.
(
p.
7)

There
is
clear
evidence
that
air
emissions
of
NO
to
the
atmosphere
rapidly
convert
to
NO2
and
other
reaction
products.
This
is
acknowledged
in
EPA's
recent
summary
document
concerning
NOx
behavior
and
environmental
impact.
(
p.
7)

"
Within
a
time
of
tens
to
hundreds
of
seconds,
a
substantial
portion
of
NO
has
reacted
with
atmospheric
03
to
produce
NO2."
(
p.
7)

This
fact
has
been
repeatedly
demonstrated
in
studies
of
NO
concentration
profiles
during
morning
rush
hours
in
urban
areas
and
in
numerous
smog
chamber
(
laboratory
scale)
studies
of
urban
atmospheric
reactions.
These
reactions
are
caused
by
a
complex
set
of
photochemically
initiated
free
radical
reactions
that
also
involve
organic
compounds
and
carbon
monoxide.
(
p.
7)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
122
Even
in
the
absence
of
light,
NO
reacts
rapidly
as
part
of
the
following
third
order
reaction.
This
reaction
can
rapidly
convert
NO
to
NO2
in
the
initial
portions
of
plumes
from
air
emission
sources.
(
p.
7)

2N0
+
02
< >
2N02
EPA
has
long
ago
taken
the
position
that
due
to
atmospheric
conversion,
all
NO
emissions
should
be
treated
as
NO2
for
the
purposes
of
calculating
NOx
mass
emissions.
It
is
extremely
difficult
for
an
operator
of
a
combustion
sources
to
determine
if
a
release
should
be
classified
as
NO,
the
dominant
form
at
the
stack
discharge
point,
or
as
NO2
the
dominant
form
in
air
masses
dispersed
several
miles
from
the
stack.
(
p.
7)

Reactions
of
NO2
Occur
During
Multi­
Day
Movement
of
Air
Masses
Over
Large
Regional
Areas.
(
p.
7)

NO2
and
its
reaction
products
continue
to
react
during
the
long­
range
transport
of
air
masses
over
long
distances.
As
a
result
of
these
conversions,
the
ambient
levels
of
NO
and
NO2
remain
at
levels
that
are
well
below
the
NO2
NAAQS.
In
fact,
these
reactions
are
the
reason
that
EPA
has
devoted
considerable
resources
to
the
regulation
of
NOx
emissions
to
attain
the
ozone
standards.
Furthermore,
NOx
control
is
being
actively
considered
for
the
control
of
fine
particulate
(
PM2.5)
and
regional
haze.
(
p.
7)

If
EPA
were
to
take
the
technical
position
that
NOx
air
emissions
do
have
a
local
impact
and
are,
therefore,
subject
to
local
agency
response,
this
position
would
substantially
undercut
the
technical
basis
EPA
has
claimed
with
regard
to
the
control
of
NOx
to
achieve
the
ozone
NAAQS,
PM
NAAQS,
and
the
regional
haze
requirements.
(
p.
7)

NO
is
Insoluble.
(
p.
7)

Solubility
data
for
NO
presented
in
various
chemical
properties
texts
clearly
indicate
the
NO
is
essentially
insoluble
in
water.
The
insolubility
of
NO
in
water
is
further
demonstrated
by
one
simple
fact:
NO
concentrations
in
boiler
gas
streams
are
essentially
unaffected
by
the
passage
through
the
wet
scrubber
systems
used
for
sulfur
dioxide
control.
(
p.
7)

The
insolubility
of
NO
in
water
is
important
because
it
demonstrates
that
it
is
difficult
for
NO
emitted
as
NOx
air
emissions
to
enter
the
environment
by
dissolution
or
water.
Gaseous
emissions
of
NO
as
part
of
NOx
remain
in
the
atmosphere
until
they
react
to
form
NO2.
The
only
way
for
NO
to
cause
aquatic
toxicity,
ignitability,
and
reactivity
problems
is
to
enter
the
environment
as
a
compressed
gas
or
compressed
liquid
released
during
shipment
or
storage.
(
p.
8)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
123
NO
and
NO2
Emissions
Potentially
Regulated
Under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
Represent
an
Extremely
Large
Number
of
Extremely
Small
Sources.
(
p.
8)

If
applied
to
NOx
air
emissions
from
chemical
reactions
and/
or
combustion
processes,
the
NO
and
NO2
RQ
levels
create
a
situation
where
a
very
large
number
of
very
small
NOx
sources
would
have
to
file
Continuous
Release
Reports.
To
put
the
total
NOx
emissions
in
perspective,
it
has
been
necessary
to
compare
the
magnitude
of
the
small
sources
with
the
well­
recognized
major
sources
of
NOx.
In
preparing
this
comparison,
NSSGA
has
relied
on
the
NOx
emission
inventory
data
in
the
document
titled,
"
Nitrogen
Oxides:
Impacts
on
Public
Health
and
the
Environment",
EPA­
452R­
97­
002,
dated
August
1997)
Similar
emissions
data
are
also
available
in
the
1998
EPA
compilation
of
emissions
available
on
the
web
based
EPA
Chief
database
This
report
summarizes
the
NOx
emissions
for
all
of
the
major
stationary
and
mobile
sources.
There
are
also
data
for
natural
biogenic
and
geogenic
(
i.
e.,
lightning,
volcanoes)
sources.
NSSGA
has
added
to
the
EPA
NOx
inventory
by
estimating
the
NOx
emissions
in
the
U.
S.
from
sources
that
would
be
subject
to
the
CRR
reports
if
NOx
air
emissions
are
included.
This
estimate
is
based
on
the
following
assumptions.
(
p.
8)

 
250,000
additional
facilities
required
under
CERCLA­
EPCRA
to
report
NOx
air
emissions
 
50
individual
NOx
air
"
releases"
per
facility
per
year
(
average
for
all
250,000
facilities)
 
25
pounds
(
2.5
times
RQ
level)
of
NO
and/
or
NO2
per
"
release"
(
p.
8)

The
250,000
additional
facilities
subject
to
reporting
requirements
due
to
the
inappropriate
inclusion
of
NOx
air
emissions
are
based
on
a
very
conservative
estimate
of
the
number
of
sources
such
as
small
boilers,
small
irrigation
pumps,
diesel
generators,
farms
using
controlled
burning,
national
park
prescribed
burns,
and
vessels
with
small
boilers.
The
actual
number
of
facilities
required
to
file
NOx
air
related
reports
might
substantially
exceed
500,000.
(
p.
8)

Based
on
the
conservative
estimate
of
250,000
facilities
with
small
NOx
air
emissions,
the
total
NOx
emissions
from
CRR
subject
sources
is
approximately
156,000
tons
per
year.
As
indicated
in
Table
1,
this
value
is
approximately
0.6%
of
the
total
U.
S.
NOx
emissions.
It
will
be
inherently
difficult
for
a
public
health
agency
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
a
multitude
of
widely
scattered
small
sources
contributing
a
total
of
0.6%
of
the
NOx
from
the
remaining
large
and
relatively
ubiquitous
sources
of
the
remaining
99.4%
of
the
NOx.
(
p.
8)

Table
1.
NOx
Emission
Inventory
 
[
see
table
in
original
public
comment]

To
put
these
estimated
NO
and
NO2
emission
values
in
perspective,
it
is
helpful
to
use
a
graph.
As
shown
in
Figure
1,
the
quantity
of
NO
and
NO2
as
NOx
that
will
be
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
124
regulated
by
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
if
there
are
250,000
facilities
(
i.
e.
industrial
firms,
state
or
local
office
buildings,
farms,
vessels)
amounts
to
an
extremely
small
portion
of
the
total
NOx
emissions.
(
p.
9)

It
is
unclear
how
a
local
agency
responsible
for
responding
to
the
release
reports
would
be
able
to
differentiate
between
the
small
amount
of
NO
and
NO2
emitted
in
the
air
from
the
"
release"
and
the
much
larger
amount
emitted
from
permitted
sources.
It
is
equally
unclear
why
EPA
would
want
the
National
Response
Center
and
agencies
responsible
for
public
health
on
a
local
level
to
handle
hundreds
of
thousands
of
release
reports
for
which
response
is
neither
necessary
nor
possible.
(
p.
9)

Figure
1.
Relative
Quantities
of
Permitted
NOx
Emissions
and
NOx
Emissions
Potentially
Subject
to
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
(
Based
on
EPA
NOx
Inventory
Data
1
997
and
Estimated
Number
of
CERCLA/
EPCRA
"
Release"
Source)
[
see
table
in
original
public
comment]
(
p.
10)

Another
way
of
adding
perspective
to
this
rule
is
to
compare
the
emissions
of
a
single
"
release"
reporting
site
with
that
of
other
NOx
air
emission
sources
that
are
also
close
to
sensitive
populations
such
as
schools,
hospitals,
and
nursing
homes.
(
p.
10)

 
The
assembly
of
more
than
500
people
driving
approximately
10
miles
to
attend
worship
services
 
Any
agricultural
controlled
burning
involving
more
than
one
acre
 
Any
irrigation
pump
with
a
rating
of
more
than
18
horsepower
using
diesel
fuel
and
operated
for
more
than
18
hours
 
Any
small
boiler
in
a
school,
prison,
hospital,
state
or
federal
office
building,
nursing
home,
commercial
office,
farm,
oil
and
gas
field,
small
business,
or
industrial
firm
 
Any
small
boiler
used
on
a
vessel
 
Any
prescribed
burning
in
a
national
forest
 
Blasting
using
ammonium
nitrate
and
fuel
oil
at
construction
or
mining
sites
(
p.
10)

There
are
a
large
number
of
other
sources
that
might
emit
more
than
the
present
RQ
levels.
If
EPA
chooses
to
enforce
these
very
low
RQ
levels,
they
might
be
forced
to
evaluate
some
of
these
other
sources:
(
p.
10)

 
Burning
of
construction
debris
 
The
emissions
from
a
single
charcoal
broiling
restaurant
over
twelve
hours
 
Welding
torches
used
in
major
construction
projects
 
Release
of
nitrogen
oxides
during
continuous
emission
monitoring
instrument
calibration
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
125
 
Release
of
nitrogen
oxides
from
laboratories
conducting
routine
sample
analyses
 
Crematoriums
 
Asphalt
plants
 
Hot
air
balloons
(
p.
10­
11)

The
large
number
of
reports
resulting
from
the
inclusion
of
NOx
air
emissions
would
result
in
a
substantial
burden
on
the
regulated
community,
the
NRC,
and
state
and
local
public
health
agencies.
(
p.
11)

These
EPA
analyses
clearly
did
not
anticipate
the
expected
submission
of
reports
from
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
organizations
operating
small
boilers,
farmers
operating
irrigation
pumps,
industrial
facilities
operating
small
stationary
IC
engines
or
diesel
generators,
or
the
numerous
other
potentially
affected
organizations
and
citizens.
Because
there
are
a
large
number
of
these
sources
and
because
their
air
emission
rates
of
NOx
were
well
known
in
the
1982
to
1985
time
frame
when
the
regulations
were
being
developed,
NSSGA
believes
the
lack
of
anticipation
of
these
reports
is
simply
due
to
the
fact
that
EPA
did
not
intend
for
these
requirements
to
apply
to
air
emissions
of
NOx.
(
p.
11)

3.
Small
NO
and
NO2
Sources
Should
Not
be
Subject
to
Reporting
Requirements.
(
p.
11)

The
lack
of
adequate
NOx
emission
factors
and
the
impracticality
of
emission
tests
for
very
small
sources
make
reporting
of
emissions
technically
infeasible.
(
p.
11)

For
example,
according
to
the
Georgia
Environmental
Protection
Division's
Guidelines
for
Modeling
of
Crushed
Stone
Operations
dated
September
21,
1999
(
page
4),
emissions
from
blasting
will
not
be
considered
in
either
air
quality
permit
reviews
or
modeling
due
to
a
current
lack
of
acceptable
emission
factors
or
evaluation
techniques.
(
p.
11)

COMMENT:
Without
a
clarification
of
inapplicability,
or
at
the
very
least
the
proposed
exemptions,
the
Required
Reporting
of
NO
and
NO2
from
small
sources
is
Flawed
by
the
Lack
of
Adequate
Emissions
Data.
(
p.
4)

EPA'
s
policy
of
requiring
reporting
of
emissions
that
are
otherwise
classified
as
exempt
or
deminimis
under
federally
enforceable
State
and
local
regulations
is
inherently
unreasonable.
There
can
be
significant
unit­
to­
unit
variability
in
emissions
from
small
equipment
such
as
pumps.
The
application
of
the
very
limited
emission
factors
for
such
equipment
might
incorrectly
indicate
compliance
or
noncompliance.
Separate
emission
tests
are
unreasonable
because
the
associated
testing
cost
would
be
a
significant
fraction
of
the
cost
of
the
emitting
unit
itself.
Accordingly,
an
operator
is
entirely
dependent
on
an
extremely
limited
emission
factor
database.
This
is
not
an
adequate
means
for
determining
if
a
"
release"
has
occurred.
(
p.
4)
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
126
Response
EPA
acknowledges
NSSGA's
position
that
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
were
intended
to
address
only
materials
released
to
the
environment
as
bulk
chemicals
during
accidents
or
equipment
malfunctions.
While
EPA
does
not
agree
that
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
had
such
a
narrow
intent,
the
Agency
will
investigate
further
the
contention
that
the
specific
basis
used
by
EPA
in
1985
to
promulgate
RQ
values
of
10
pounds
per
day
of
NO
and
NO2
was
the
oxidizing
characteristics
of
compressed
and/
or
liquefied
forms
of
NO
and
NO2
released
during
shipment
or
storage
and
therefore
should
not
apply
to
the
mixture
of
NO
and
NO2
(
aka
NOx)
that
is
released
during
combustion
activities
or
other
types
of
NOx
air
emission
sources.

EPA
also
acknowledges
NSSGA's
concern
that
emissions
that
are
otherwise
classified
as
exempt
or
deminimis
under
federally
enforceable
State
and
local
regulations
are
reportable
under
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
notification
requirements.
The
term
"
release"
found
in
CERCLA
section
101(
22),
excludes
under
paragraph
(
B)
emissions
from
the
engine
exhaust
of
a
motor
vehicle,
rolling
stock,
aircraft,
vessel,
or
pipeline
pumping
station
engine.
Small
equipment
such
as
pumps
would
be
included
in
this
administrative
reporting
exemption
if
the
pumps
operated
by
combustion.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
127
B.
Legal
Emissions
of
NOx
are
"
Federally
Permitted"

Commenter
Number:
0107,
0107.1
Response
Number:
2
Commenter
Name:
Pamela
A.
Lacey,
Senior
Managing
Counsel,
American
Gas
Association
(
AGA)

As
AGA
and
other
stakeholders
commented
in
April
2000,
operators
of
"
minor
source"
natural
gas
fired
engines,
turbines,
boilers,
and
residential
furnaces
that
are
legally
permitted
to
emit
nitrogen
oxides
at
levels
below
"
major
source"
levels
under
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act
should
not
be
required
to
report
their
NOx
emissions
under
CERCLA
§
103
of
or
EPCRA
§
304.
These
minor
sources
of
NOx
should
qualify
for
the
"
federally
permitted
release"
exemption
from
Superfund
reporting.
AGA's
Comments
dated
April
7,
2000
on
the
"
Interim
Guidance
on
the
...
Federally
Permitted
Release
Definition"
are
attached
to
and
incorporated
in
our
comments
today.
(
p.
1­
2)

Combustion
sources
typically
operate
under
minor
state
operating
air
permits
or
Title
V
air
permits.
Through
the
permitting
process,
the
permitting
agency
reviews
emissions
information
to
assure
that
the
emissions
are
not
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
Often
times
a
specific
pollutant,
such
as
NOx,
is
not
limited
in
the
permit
because
the
pollutant's
potential
to
emit
is
below
regulatory
thresholds
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
because
the
permitting
authority
has
determined
that
the
emissions
are
not
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
Thus
a
permit
may
not
explicitly
spell
out
a
pollutant­
specific
emissions
limit,
but
it
is
nevertheless
clear
that
the
emissions
unit
is
legally
permitted
to
emit
up
to
the
unit's
potential
to
emit.
(
p.
2)

Natural
gas
engines
and
other
combustion
equipment
can
have
long
useful
lives.
Some
of
this
equipment
was
installed
prior
to
state
permitting
or
PSD/
NANSR
permitting
requirements.
However,
they
can
still
be
evaluated
under
state
operating
and
Title
V
permit
programs.
These
emissions
have
been
reviewed
by
the
state
and/
or
federal
permitting
agency
and
are
also
legally
permitted
to
be
released.
(
p.
2)

If
emissions
are
permitted
by
federal
statute
or
regulation,
they
should
be
considered
"
federally
permitted."
(
p.
2)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
AGA's
concern
that
EPA
should
consider
emissions
permitted
by
federal
statute
or
regulation
as
"
federally
permitted."
EPA
directs
the
commenter
to
its
"
Guidance
on
the
CERCLA
Section
101(
10)(
H)
Federally
Permitted
Release
Definition
for
Certain
Air
Emissions,"
(
67
FR
18899)
for
further
clarification.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
128
C.
Proposed
Exemption
only
Applies
to
Emissions
not
Considered
Federally
Permitted
Commenter
Number:
0099.1
Response
Number:
3
Commenter
Name:
Robert
D.
Bessette,
President,
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
(
CIBO)

CIBO
supports
EPA's
proposed
1,000
lb/
24
hour
NOx
exemption
for
combustion,
but
suggests
clarification
of
the
exemption.
The
proposal
is
justified
under
applicable
law
and
will
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
(
p.
2)

EPA
should
clarify
in
the
regulation
that
federally
permitted
releases
are
already
exempt
from
reporting
under
CERCLA
§
101(
10)(
H)
and
that
the
1,000
lb
limit
applies
only
to
emissions
that
are
not
considered
federally
permitted
releases.
Because
the
existing
CERCLA
§
101(
10)
exemption
is
not
cited
in
the
existing
or
proposed
CERCLA
regulatory
exemptions,
sources
could
erroneously
conclude
that
they
need
to
add
permitted
or
controlled
emissions
to
any
non­
permitted
NOx
emissions
for
purposes
of
calculating
whether
they
meet
the
proposed
reporting
threshold.
This
could
lead
to
unnecessary
filing
of
reports
and
inappropriate
use
of
emergency
response
resources.
As
EPA
points
out,
numerous
permitted
and/
or
controlled
sources
emit
more
than
1,000
lb
per
day
of
NOx.
Clarification
could
prevent
unnecessary
reporting
by
sources
less
familiar
with
the
CERCLA
federally
permitted
release
exemption.
(
p.
2)

Under
CERCLA
§
101
(
10)
(
H),
a
federally
permitted
release
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
is:

any
emission
into
the
air
subject
to
a
permit
or
control
regulation
under
§
111[
],
§
112
[
],
Title
I
Part
C
[
],
Title
I
Part
D
[
],
or
State
implementation
plans
submitted
in
accordance
with
§
110
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
[
]
(
and
not
disapproved
by
the
Administrator
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency),
including
any
schedule
or
waiver
granted,
promulgated,
or
approved
under
these
sections...
(
p.
2)

In
addition,
EPA
Guidances
of
April
17,
2002
and
April
23,
2002
on
federally
permitted
releases
under
the
CAA,
further
clarify
when
reporting
under
CERCLA
is
not
required
for
releases
subject
to
permit
limits
or
control
requirements.
(
p.
2)

CIBO
members
operate
many
combustion
sources
including
boilers,
turbines
and
other
devices
that
emit
significant
quantities
of
NOx.
The
CERCLA
definition
of
federally
permitted
release
and
EPA's
2002
Guidances
make
clear
that
sources
subject
to
federal
permits
or
SIP
requirements,
such
as
the
NOx
SIP
call,
are
federally
permitted
releases
and
are
not
required
to
report
normal
process
emissions
of
NOx
under
CERCLA.
In
addition,
many
combustors
such
as
turbines
controlled
by
steam
injection
and
Selective
Catalytic
Reduction
(
SCR),
emit
higher
amounts
of
NOx
during
start­
up
and
shut­
down
operations
when
steam
is
not
yet
available.
In
many
cases,
SIP
rules
and/
or
permit
conditions
recognize
the
design
limitations
of
these
systems
and
set
short­
term
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
129
limits
for
normal
operation
but
allow
periods
of
higher
emissions
for
start­
ups
and
shutdowns
For
example,
even
though
permits
may
contain
no
short­
term
limits
during
the
start­
up
or
shut­
down
periods,
EPA
already
accounted
for
those
emissions
in
the
permit
and
SIP
development
process
and
they
are
federally
permitted.
(
p.
2­
3)

In
addition
to
this
scenario,
in
some
cases
permits
and
SIPS
may
not
address
emissions
from
start­
ups
and
shut­
downs
and
in
other
cases
emission
limits
have
been
set
for
normal
operations
and
emissions
during
start­
ups
may
exceed
permit
limits.
In
some
of
these
cases,
the
2002
Guidance
may
not
clearly
address
such
routine
increases
in
NOx
emissions
from
start­
ups
and
shut­
downs.
The
proposed
administrative
exemption
should
clearly
cover
these
emissions,
otherwise
many
unnecessary
reports
would
need
to
be
filed.
While
the
1,000
lb
exemption
may
be
sufficient
to
address
the
start­
up
and
shutdown
excess
emissions
for
many
of
these
operations,
the
1,000
lb
exemption
would
be
inadequate
if
sources
were
expected
to
include
permitted
emissions
from
combustion
sources
to
these
excess
emissions
from
start
ups.
(
p.
3)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
CIBO's
concern
that
EPA
should
clarify
in
the
regulation
that
federally
permitted
releases
are
already
exempt
from
reporting
under
CERCLA
§
101
(
10)(
H)
and
that
the
1,000
lb
limit
applies
only
to
emissions
that
are
not
considered
federally
permitted
releases.
EPA
makes
that
clarification
in
section
II.
F.
1
of
the
final
rule.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
130
D.
Provide
a
Definition
of
"
Excess
Emissions"
for
Reporting
NOx
Commenter
Number:
0087.1
Response
Number:
4
Commenter
Name:
Leslie
S.
Ritts,
Counsel
to
NEDA/
CAP,
The
National
Environmental
Development
Association's
Clean
Air
Project
(
NEDA/
CAP)

If
EPA
does
not
revise
the
proposed
NOx
release
notification
and
reporting
continuous
exemption
reporting
to
include
NOx
emissions
regardless
of
their
source
or
causation,
the
Agency
must
provide
a
definition
in
the
final
rule
of
"
excess
emissions"
for
reporting
NOx
that
occurs
as
a
result
of
combustion
malfunctions
in
the
final
rule.
NEDA/
CAP
urges
the
Agency
to
define
the
term
in
most
circumstances
as
those
emissions
in
excess
of
an
applicable
emission
limit,
in
excess
of
the
10
lb
NOx
RQ,
or
if
no
emission
standard
or
permit
exists,
those
emissions
in
excess
of
the
daily
emission
rate
when
the
unit
is
operating
correctly
and
at
its
maximum
design
rate.
(
p.
7­
8)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
NEDA/
CAP's
concern
that
the
Agency
must
provide
a
definition
in
the
final
rule
of
"
excess
emissions:
for
reporting
NOx
that
occurs
as
a
result
of
combustion
malfunctions.
EPA
will
not
include
the
qualifier,
"
unless
such
release
is
the
result
of
an
accident
or
malfunction"
to
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
for
releases
of
NO
and
NO2,
or
both,
to
air
that
are
the
result
of
combustion
or
combustionrelated
activities.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
providing
a
definition
of
"
excess
emissions"
in
the
final
rule
because
it
is
no
longer
necessary
without
the
"
accident
and
malfunction"
qualifier.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
131
E.
Provide
Guidance
on
Calculating
When
Releases
from
Minor
Sources
Exceed
a
Reporting
Threshold
Commenter
Number:
0090.1
Response
Number:
5
Commenter
Name:
Stephen
B.
Ellingson,
Ph.
D.,
Environmental
Compliance
Director,
Koch
Mineral
Services,
LLC
(
KMS)

Additionally,
KMS
requests
that
EPA
take
this
rulemaking
opportunity
to
clarify
reporting
threshold
calculations
by
addressing
the
ambiguity
created
by
EPA's
Federally
Permitted
Release
Guidance
[
Fed.
Reg.
18899
(
April
17,
2002)],
the
current
proposed
exemption,
and
the
decision
in
Mobil
Oil
Corp.,
S
EAD
490,
1994
WL
544260,
at
15
(
Sept.
29,
1994).
While
the
guidance,
the
current
proposal,
and
the
court
decision
provide
that
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
do
not
qualify
for
the
federally
permitted
release
(
FPR)
exemption
(
except
in
rare
instances),
the
Mobil
decision
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
only
releases
above
the
applicable
permit
limit
need
to
be
considered
in
making
EPCRA/
CERCLA
reporting
determinations.
Specifically,
KMS
requests
clarification
that
a
release
during
an
accident
or
malfunction
condition
is
only
subject
to
EPCRA/
CERCLA
reporting
if
the
quantity
released
is
above
the
reporting
threshold
as
calculated
using
the
source­
specific
federally
enforceable
limit
as
a
base,
such
as
is
in
a
permit
or
other
regulatory
control.
That
is,
KMS
seeks
clarification
that
EPA
intends
for
regulated
entities
to
use
the
permit
or
other
enforceable
limit
as
the
floor
for
beginning
an
RQ
calculation,
and
for
the
reporting
requirement
to
be
applicable
only
when
an
incident
involves
a
release
of
at
least
a
reportable
quantity
above
the
permit
or
other
enforceable
limit.
(
p.
2­
3)

KMS
also
requests
that
EPA
provide
guidance
on
calculating
when
releases
from
minor
sources
(
which
are
not
required
to
hold
a
permit)
exceed
a
reporting
threshold.
This
clarification
will
help
facilities
comply
with
the
proposed
exemption
if
it
is
promulgated.
For
example,
a
state's
SIP­
approved
permitting
program
may
include
a
permitting
exemption
for
equipment
or
facilities
with
a
potential
to
emit
below
a
threshold
(
e.
g.,
5
tons
per
year),
but
may
not
impose
a
specific
numerical
limit
(
e.
g.,
5
pounds
per
hour)
for
NOx.
Similarly,
an
issued
construction
or
operating
permit
may
not
contain
an
hourly
NOx
limit
because
the
permitting
authority
has
determined
that
emissions
below
a
threshold
do
not
need
such
limits.
In
this
case,
most
NOx
emissions
from
the
minor
source
would
be
exempt
as
federally
permitted
releases.
However,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
report
any
emissions
of
NOx
above
the
permit
limit
and
above
the
reporting
threshold.
KMS
is
seeking
clarification
as
to
how
a
facility
would
calculate
whether
the
reporting
threshold
has
been
exceeded.
KMS
suggests
that
a
reasonable
method
of
calculation
would
be
to:
i)
compare
the
release
to
the
state
permitting
threshold
level
divided
by
the
number
of
24­
hour
periods
in
a
year;
and
ii)
report
the
release
if
it
exceeds
this
calculated
value
by
1000
pounds
per
24
hours,
or
more.
(
p.
3)

Commenter
Number:
0109
Response
Number:
6
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
132
Commenter
Name:
Renu
Chhabra,
Waste
&
EPCRA
Systems
Manager,
INVISTA
Additionally,
IN
VISTA
requests
that
EPA
take
this
rulemaking
opportunity
to
clarify
reporting
threshold
calculations
by
addressing
the
ambiguity
created
by
EPA's
Federally
Permitted
Release
Guidance,
67
Fed.
Reg.
18899
(
April
17,
2002),
the
current
proposed
exemption,
and
the
decision
in
Mobil
Oil
Corp.,
5
EAD
490,
1994
WL
544260,
at
15
(
Sept.
29,
1994).
While
the
guidance,
the
current
proposal,
and
the
court
decision
provide
that
releases
resulting
from
accidents
and
malfunctions
do
not
qualify
for
the
federally
permitted
release
(
FPR)
exemption
(
except
in
rare
instances),
the
Mobil
decision
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
only
releases
above
the
applicable
permit
limit
need
to
be
considered
in
making
EPCRA/
CERCLA
reporting
determinations.
Specifically,
we
request
clarification
that
a
release
during
an
accident
or
malfunction
condition
is
only
subject
to
EPCRA/
CERCLA
reporting
if
the
quantity
released
is
above
the
reporting
threshold
as
calculated
using
the
source­
specific
federally
enforceable
limit
as
a
base,
such
as
is
in
a
permit
or
other
regulatory
control.
That
is,
we
seek
clarification
that
EPA
intends
for
regulated
entities
to
use
the
permit
or
other
enforceable
limit
as
the
floor
for
beginning
an
RQ
calculation,
and
for
the
reporting
requirement
to
be
applicable
only
when
an
incident
involves
a
release
of
at
least
a
reportable
quantity
above
the
permit
or
other
enforceable
limit.
(
p.
3)

INVISTA
also
requests
that
EPA
provide
guidance
on
calculating
when
releases
from
minor
sources
which
are
not
required
to
hold
a
permit
exceed
a
reporting
threshold.
This
clarification
will
help
facilities
comply
with
the
proposed
exemption
if
it
is
promulgated.
For
example,
a
State's
SIP­
approved
permitting
program
may
include
a
permitting
exemption
for
equipment
or
facilities
with
a
potential
to
emit
below
a
threshold
(
e.
g.,
5
tons
per
year),
but
may
not
impose
a
specific
numerical
limit
(
e.
g.,
5
lbs/
hour)
for
NOx.
Similarly,
an
issued
construction
or
operating
permit
may
not
contain
an
hourly
NOx
limit
because
the
permitting
authority
has
determined
that
emissions
below
a
threshold
do
not
need
such
limits.
In
this
case,
most
NOx
emissions
from
the
minor
source
would
be
exempt
as
federally
permitted
releases.
However,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
report
any
emissions
of
NOx
above
the
permit
limit
and
above
the
reporting
threshold.
INVISTA
is
seeking
clarification
as
to
how
a
facility
would
calculate
whether
the
reporting
threshold
has
been
exceeded.
INVISTA
suggests
that
a
reasonable
method
of
calculation
would
be
to:
i)
compare
the
release
to
the
state
permitting
threshold
level
divided
by
the
number
of
24
hour
periods
there
are
in
a
year,
and
ii)
report
the
release
if
it
exceeds
this
calculated
value
by
1000
pounds
per
24
hours,
or
more.
(
p.
3)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
KMS
and
INVISTA's
request
that
the
Agency
provide
clarification
as
to
how
a
facility
would
calculate
whether
the
reporting
threshold
has
been
exceeded.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
133
The
Agency
is
not
providing
guidance
on
calculating
when
releases
from
minor
sources
exceed
a
reporting
threshold
in
this
final
rule
because
to
do
so
would
require
additional
public
comment.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
134
F.
Apply
Exemption
to
Both
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
Reporting
Commenter
Number:
0090.1
Response
Number:
7
Commenter
Name:
Stephen
B.
Ellingson,
Ph.
D.,
Environmental
Compliance
Director,
Koch
Mineral
Services,
LLC
(
KMS)

KMS
generally
supports
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
from
reporting
of
releases
of
NOx
of
less
than
1000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period
that
result
from
combustion
activities
and
appreciates
EPA's
efforts
to
implement
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
more
efficiently
by
reducing
unnecessary
reporting.
As
EPA
states,
releases
below
this
level
have
not
necessitated
a
federal
response
nor
has
reporting
of
them
furthered
the
protection
of
human
health
or
the
environment.
Moreover,
because
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
regulates
NOx
at
levels
substantially
higher
than
10
pounds
the
current
CERCLA
Reportable
Quantity
(
RQ),
an
exemption
is
appropriate.
While
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
would
allow
facilities
and
response
agencies
to
forgo
submittal
and
review
of
individual
release
reports
for
emissions
less
than
1000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period,
it
does
not
change
permitting
requirements
or
quantification
and
reporting
of
these
releases
under
other
regulatory
programs
such
as
EPCRA
Form
R
reporting,
air
emission
inventory
reporting,
Title
V
deviation
reporting,
and
other
similar
state
programs
approved
under
State
Implementation
Plans
(
SIP).
Finally,
this
proposal
would
reduce
an
unnecessary
burden
on
the
part
of
the
regulated
community
as
well
as
on
EPA
and
emergency
planners
and
responders,
and
would
allow
resources
to
be
focused
on
releases
that
do
require
a
federal
response.
(
p.
1­
2)

For
example,
KMS
oversees
many
smaller
facilities
that
emit
NOx
at
levels
below
federal
and
state
permitting
and
control
requirements.
These
facilities
are
often
not
required
to
obtain
permits,
or
if
they
are,
the
permits
do
not
contain
specific
NOx
limits.
Where
these
emissions
are
not
considered
to
be
federally
permitted
releases,
the
facilities
may
then
be
required
to
submit
a
continuous
release
report
for
their
normal
process
emissions.
The
proposed
administrative
exemption
would
eliminate
the
need
to
file
many
of
these
continuous
release
reports
and
their
associated
on­
going
maintenance
for
NOx
emissions
less
than
1000
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period.
Larger
facilities
that
may
have
CAA
permits
that
do
not
regulate
the
facilities'
NOx
emissions
will
also
not
need
to
focus
compliance
resources
on
reporting
emissions
that
are
minimal
and
do
not
pose
a
hazard
to
health
or
the
environment.
(
p.
2)

The
proposed
rule
requests
comments
on
whether
the
exemption
should
apply
only
to
CERCLA
reporting
or
should
apply
to
both
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
reporting.
KMS
believes
that
the
exemption
should
apply
to
both
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
reporting.
Otherwise,
unnecessary
burdens
placed
on
the
regulated
community
and
emergency
planners
and
responders
would
continue
without
any
benefit
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
(
p.
2)

Response
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
135
KMS
states
that,
"
the
proposed
rule
requests
comments
on
whether
the
exemption
should
apply
only
to
CERCLA
reporting,
or
should
apply
to
both
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
reporting."
EPA
believes
that
there
is
a
misunderstanding
in
what
the
Agency
is
requesting.
EPA
is
requesting
comment
on
the
application
of
this
exemption
to
both
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
reporting,
not
that
the
exemption
only
apply
to
CERCLA
reporting.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
136
G.
Clarify
that
NOx
represents
NO
and
NO2
Interchangeably
Commenter
Number:
0098.1
Response
Number:
8
Commenter
Name:
Debra
D.
Lane,
Senior
Environmental
Consultant,
Corporate
Safety,
Health
and
Environment,
MeadWestvaco
Throughout
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
uses
the
term
NOx
to
represent
NO
and
NO2,
which
are
the
compounds
actually
listed
under
CERCLA.
MeadWestvaco
recommends
that
EPA
clarify
in
the
rule
that
the
terms
are
interchangeable.
Specifically,
EPA
should
note
that,
for
the
purpose
of
determining
whether
a
release
is
federally
permitted,
a
limit
on
NOx
emissions
can
be
considered
a
limit
on
NO
and
NO2
emissions,
and
a
regulation/
SIP
provision
which
refers
to
NOx
can
also
be
considered
to
limit
NO
and
NO2
emissions.
This
clarification
will
prevent
many
needless
release
reports.
(
p.
2)

In
addition
to
the
above
comments,
MeadWestvaco
also
specifically
supports
the
comments
of
the
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association,
the
American
Chemistry
Council,
and
the
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners.
(
p.
2)

Response
EPA
makes
the
appropriate
clarifications
in
section
II.
F.
2
of
the
final
rule.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
137
VIII.
ISSUES
RELATED
TO
RULEMAKING
PROCEDURE
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
138
Commenter
Number:
0101.1
Response
Number:
1
Commenter
Name:
Timothy
G.
Hunt,
Senior
Director,
Air
Quality
Programs,
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA)

The
preamble
states
that
the
proposed
administrative
exemption
applies
"
to
releases
of
less
than
1,000
pounds
of
nitrogen
oxide
and
nitrogen
dioxide
(
or
collectively
"
NOx") ."
70
Fed.
Reg.
57,813.
Footnote
2
at
page
57,815
further
states,
"
for
this
proposed
rule,
we
use
the
shorthand
convention
NOx
to
refer
to
both
NO
and
NO2
either
collectively
or
as
individual
hazardous
substances."
Neither
statement
clearly
reflects
the
proposed
rules,
which
establish
separate,
not
combined,
1000
pound
exemptions
for
nitrogen
oxide
and
nitrogen
dioxide.
See,
proposed
Sections
302.6(
e)(
1)
[
covering
nitrogen
oxide]
and
302.6(
e)(
2)
[
covering
nitrogen
dioxide],
70
Fed.
Reg.
57,822.
AF&
PA
suggests
that
EPA
conform
the
preamble
to
the
rules
actually
proposed
to
make
clear
that
the
administrative
exemption
affords
a
1000
pound
exemption
to
nitrogen
oxide
and
another
thousand
pound
exemption
to
nitrogen
dioxide.
(
p.
3)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
AF&
PA's
concern
that
the
Agency
makes
sure
that
the
administrative
exemption
affords
a
1000
pound
exemption
to
nitrogen
oxide
and
another
thousand
pound
exemption
to
nitrogen
dioxide.
EPA
makes
that
clarification
in
the
final
rule
and
in
section
II.
G.
of
its
preamble.
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
139
IX.
REQUEST
TO
RAISE
RQ
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
140
Commenter
Number:
0090.1
Response
Number:
1
Commenter
Name:
Stephen
B.
Ellingson,
Ph.
D.,
Environmental
Compliance
Director,
Koch
Mineral
Services,
LLC
(
KMS)

KMS
understands
EPA
rationale
for
proposing
a
reporting
exemption
for
releases
of
NOx
below
1000
pounds
in
a
24­
hour
period
on
the
basis
that
this
is
below
the
level
at
which
permits
are
required
under
the
CAA
for
NOx.
With
the
2002
Federally
Permitted
Release
guidance
EPA
demonstrates
that
its
intent
is
not
to
expect
reporting
of
these
emissions
because
they
are
not
a
threat
to
human
health
or
ecosystems.
EPA
asked
stakeholders
to
submit
human
health
and
ecological
risk
assessment
with
any
proposal
to
extend
the
exemption
beyond
1000
pounds
in
24
hours.
If
EPA
has
concluded
that
these
assessments
are
not
needed
for
releases
less
than
1000
pounds,
KMS
does
not
understand
why
the
overall
RQ
for
NOx
could
not
be
raised
as
well.
KMS
would
expect
receptors
to
respond
to
1000
pounds
per
day
of
NOx
in
the
same
way
whether
or
not
it
is
reported
to
EPA,
state
or
local
agencies.
(
p.
4­
5)

KMS,
like
many
other
companies,
holds
permits
that
allow
emissions
of
NOx
which
are
greater
than
the
proposed
1000
pounds
per
day
exemption
from
reporting.
The
issuance
of
these
permits
and
the
authorized
emissions
of
NOx
further
indicate
to
KMS
that
EPA
has
acknowledged
that
NOx
emissions
even
greater
than
the
proposed
exemption
do
not
pose
a
significant
health
effect.
For
this
reason,
while
KMS
believes
that
the
RQ
should
be
significantly
higher
than
1000
pounds,
KMS
requests
that
action
be
taken
to
raise
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
RQ
to
1000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
(
p.
5)

Commenter
Number:
0096.1
Response
Number:
2
Commenter
Name:
Roderick
T.
Dwyer,
Deputy
General
Counsel,
National
Mining
Association
(
NMA)

NMA
supports
the
approach
taken
by
the
agency
in
the
proposed
rule,
i.
e.,
the
granting
of
an
administrative
reporting
exemption.
(
p.
4)

The
record
evidence
noted
in
the
proposed
rule's
preamble
demonstrates
clearly
that
the
number
of
NOx
release
reports
is
rapidly
increasing.
These
reports
are
"
across
the
board,"
i.
e.,
they
are
not
confined
solely
to
releases
of
NOx
in
large
quantities
but
include
releases
at
levels
under
5,000
pounds.
This
in
turn
means
that
the
number
of
"
no
action"
NOx
release
reports
also
is
rapidly
increasing.
(
p.
4)

Response
authorities
can
continue
to
evaluate
each
NOx
release
and
make
"
no
action"
determinations.
That
kind
of
approach,
however,
continues
to
waste
limited
resources.
Indeed,
to
continue
such
needless
evaluations
is
to
divert
response
authorities
from
considering
other
releases
where
government
response
actions
might
be
more
likely
and
more
necessary.
(
p.
4)

If
EPA
were
to
choose
to
pursue
the
"
changed
RQ"
approach,
there
likely
would
be
a
protracted
rulemaking.
It
already
has
taken
many
years
to
reach
the
point
of
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
141
proposing
an
administrative
reporting
exemption.
It
is
difficult
to
see
the
value
in
an
additional,
lengthy
rulemaking
when
the
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
already
recognized
as
minimal
(
at
most).
The
agency
has
correctly
stated
that
these
kinds
of
NOx
release
reports
"
have
not
furthered
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment."
Id.
(
p.
4)

For
the
same
reasons,
requiring
reporting
of
these
NOx
releases
under
the
continuous
release
reporting
provisions
of
CERCLA
is
not
warranted.
At
first,
the
routine
anticipated
nature
of
the
releases
might
seem
to
argue
for
following
continuous
release
reporting
procedures.
On
further
consideration,
however,
using
continuous
release
reporting
procedures
still
contributes
to
a
waste
of
resources
on
the
part
of
the
authority
receiving
such
reports
as
well
as
the
reporting
facility.
EPA
has
already
recognized
that
these
NOx
releases
are
not
likely
to
warrant
any
response
action,
and
that
submitting
such
release
reports
adds
nothing
to
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Where
then
is
the
justification
for
requiring
such
reports,
even
under
the
continuous
release
reporting
provisions?
(
p.
4)

Commenter
Number:
0102.1,
0110
Response
Number:
3
Commenter
Name:
Pamela
F.
Faggert,
Vice
President
and
Chief
Environmental
Officer,
Dominion
Dominion
agrees
that
EPA
should
proceed
with
this
rulemaking
to
provide
an
administrative
exemption
for
NOx
releases
above
10
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
However,
EPA
should
not
abandon
the
need
to
revise
the
NOx
reportable
quantity
(
RQ)
under
40
CFR
302.5
of
the
CERCLA
regulations.
(
p.
1)

Dominion
agrees
with
EPA
that
an
administrative
exemption
for
NOx
releases
above
10
pounds
per
24­
hour
period
should
be
finalized.
The
reporting
threshold
of
10
pounds
of
NOx
per
24­
hour
period
was
set
entirely
too
low
and
we
urge
EPA
to
begin
the
process
of
establishing
a
revised
RQ
for
NOx
releases.
EPA
has
concluded
that
revising
the
RQ
for
NOx
releases
"
would
likely
take
a
number
of
years
to
develop
and
promulgate
through
rulemaking.
[
EPA]
believe[
s]
that
an
administrative
reporting
exemption
would
likely
provide
the
same
outcome
in
less
time."
Nevertheless,
we
urge
EPA
to
begin
the
process
of
revising
the
RQ
for
NOx
releases
along
a
parallel
path
with
the
rulemaking
to
finalize
the
administrative
exemption
that
is
the
subject
of
this
notice.
(
p.
1)

Dominion
supports
EPA's
decision
to
change
the
current
reporting
threshold
in
40
CFR
355.40
of
the
CERCLA
regulations
for
NOx
releases
above
10
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
The
threshold
is
too
low,
difficult
to
quantify
and
creates
an
unnecessary
reporting
burden
that
wastes
resources
of
regulatory
agencies
and
subject
facilities.
(
p.
1­
2)

The
10­
pound
RQ
can
be
routinely
exceeded
by
many
different
combustion
units
including
electric
utility
generating
units
and
natural
gas
compressor
facilities.
As
EPA
has
noted
in
the
proposal,
"
For
example,
an
80
million
BTU/
hr
natural
gas
boiler
will
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
142
exceed
the
RQ
for
NOx
after
2.5
hours
of
operation 
an
18
horsepower
engine
running
24
hours
will
exceed
the
RQ 
a
100
horsepower
engine
will
exceed
the
RQ
for
NOx
in
five
hours 
even
bakery
ovens
could
trigger
the
RQ "
(
p.
2)

Current
EPA
regulations
permit
NOx
emissions
several
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
the
current
RQ
for
NOx.
For
example,
the
most
recent
EPA
proposal
for
NSPS
(
New
Source
Performance
Standard)
for
NOx
emissions
from
large
coal­
fired
utility
boilers
is
0.11
pounds
per
million
Btu
of
heat
input.
A
5000
million
Btu
per
hour
boiler
would
emit
more
than
6
tons
per
24­
hour
period
and
fully
comply
with
the
latest,
most
stringent
proposal
for
the
NSPS.
Since
the
NSPS
are
designed
to
protect
human
health,
the
10­
pound
reporting
threshold
would
appear
to
have
little
correlation
to
protection
of
human
health.
(
p.
2)

Existing
monitoring
systems
are
designed
to
measure
NOx
in
terms
of
mass
emissions:
pounds
per
million
Btu,
tons
per
day,
tons
per
year.
The
current
state
of
the
art
monitoring
systems
may
lack
the
precision
needed
to
measure
such
small
levels
of
NOx
as
10
pounds
over
a
24­
hour
period.
(
p.
2)

The
existing
10­
pound
threshold
is
non­
productive
and
wastes
public
resources
at
the
federal,
state,
and
local
levels
and
the
resources
of
private
industry.
"
As
a
result
of
today's
proposal
industry
and
the
Federal
Government
would
be
better
able
to
focus
their
resources.
As
an
example 
NOx
release
notifications
submitted
between
1994
and
2004,
we
estimate
that
the
private
sector
and
Federal
Government
spent
about
3.7
man­
months
to
prepare
and
process
these
notifications."
(
p.
2)

Commenter
Number:
0109
Response
Number:
4
Commenter
Name:
Renu
Chhabra,
Waste
&
EPCRA
Systems
Manager,
INVISTA
INVISTA
understands
EPA's
rationale
for
proposing
a
reporting
exemption
for
releases
of
NOx
below
1000
pounds
in
a
24
hour
period
on
the
basis
that
this
is
below
the
level
at
which
permits
are
required
under
the
CAA
for
NOx.
With
the
2002
Federally
Permitted
Release
guidance,
EPA
demonstrates
that
its
intent
is
not
to
expect
reporting
of
these
emissions
because
they
are
not
a
threat
to
human
health
or
ecosystems.
EPA
asked
stakeholders
to
submit
human
health
and
ecological
risk
assessment
with
any
proposal
to
extend
the
exemption
beyond
1000
pounds
in
24
hours.
If
EPA
has
concluded
that
these
assessments
are
not
needed
for
releases
less
than
1000
pounds,
INVISTA
does
not
understand
why
the
overall
RQ
for
NOx
could
not
be
raised
as
well.
One
would
expect
the
equivalent
impact
to
receptors
if
exposed
to
1000
pounds
per
day
of
NOx
in
the
same
way
whether
it
is
reported
to
EPA,
state
or
local
agencies
or
not.
(
p.
4)

INVISTA,
like
many
other
companies,
holds
permits
at
some
of
its
facilities
that
allow
emissions
of
NOx
which
are
significantly
greater
than
the
proposed
1000
pound/
day
exemption
from
reporting.
The
issuance
of
these
permits
and
the
authorized
Failure
to
specifically
address
or
respond
to
any
particular
commenter
or
statement
made
by
any
commenter
should
not
be
construed
as
an
endorsement
or
acceptance
of
that
commenter's
statement.
143
emissions
of
NOx
further
indicate
to
INVISTA
that
EPA
has
acknowledged
that
NOx
emissions
even
greater
than
the
proposed
exemption
do
not
pose
a
significant
health
effect.
For
this
reason,
while
INVISTA
believes
that
the
RQ
should
be
significantly
higher
than
1000
pounds,
we
request
that
action
be
taken
to
raise
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
RQ
to
1000
pounds
per
24
hour
period.
(
p.
4)

Response
EPA
acknowledges
the
commenters'
desire
to
raise
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
RQ
to
1000
pounds
per
24­
hour
period.
EPA
has
determined
that
the
administrative
reporting
exemption
is
the
appropriate
mechanism
for
granting
relief
from
notification
requirements
of
CERCLA
and
EPCRA.
The
administrative
reporting
exemption
allows
the
Agency
to
maintain
its
long
established
methodology
for
assigning
one
RQ
to
a
hazardous
substance
regardless
of
the
media
affected.

With
respect
to
NMA's
question,
"[
w]
here
then
is
the
justification
for
requiring
such
reports,
even
under
the
continuous
release
reporting
provisions?
The
justification
for
requiring
the
reporting
of
releases
of
NO
and
NO2
are
the
CERCLA
and
EPCRA
statutes.