Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for the Site Remediation source category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the proposed determination that risks due to emissions of air toxics from site remediation sources are acceptable and that no revision to the standards is required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Based on the results of our technology review, we are promulgating the proposed changes to the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program. In addition, the EPA is finalizing amendments to revise regulatory provisions pertaining to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM), including finalizing work practice requirements for pressure relief devices (PRDs) and the 240-hour maintenance period for control devices on tanks. We are finalizing requirements for electronic submittal of semiannual reports and performance test results. Finally, we are making minor clarifications and corrections. The final revisions to the rule will increase the level of emissions control and environmental protection provided by the Site Remediation NESHAP.
This final rule is effective on July 10, 2020. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 10, 2020.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For questions about this final action, contact Matthew Witosky, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143–05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–2865; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and email address:
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action will also be available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at:
Additional information is available on the RTR website at
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) by September 8, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. “Major sources” are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them “as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)” no less frequently than every 8 years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(f).
The EPA promulgated the final Site Remediation NESHAP at 68 FR 58172 (October 8, 2003). The NESHAP applies to “remediation material.” Site remediation means one or more activities or processes used to remove, destroy, degrade, transform, immobilize, or otherwise manage remediation material. Monitoring or measuring of contamination levels in media, whether by using wells, sampling, or other means, is not considered to be a Site Remediation. The rule applies only to active remedial operations at sites that are major sources with affected facilities subject to another MACT standard. The Site Remediation NESHAP applies to various types of affected sources including process vents, remediation material management units, and equipment leaks. The affected source for process vents is the entire group of process vents associated with the in-situ and ex-situ remediation processes used at the site to remove, destroy, degrade, transform, or immobilize hazardous substances in the remediation material. Examples of process vents for in-situ remediation processes include the discharge vents to the atmosphere used for soil vapor extraction and underground bioremediation processes. Examples of process vents for ex-situ remediation processes include vents for thermal desorption, bioremediation, and stripping processes (air or steam stripping). The affected source for remediation material management units is the entire group of tanks, surface impoundments, containers, oil-water separators, and transfer systems used for the Site Remediation activities involving clean-up of remediation material. The affected source for equipment leaks is the entire group of remediation equipment components (pumps, valves, etc.) that is intended to operate for 300 hours or more during a calendar year in remediation material service and that contains or contacts remediation material having a concentration of regulated HAP equal to or greater than 10 percent by weight.
The Site Remediation MACT standards include a combination of equipment standards, work practice standards, operational standards, and performance standards for each of the
On September 3, 2019, the EPA published proposed amendments in the
• Revisions to the equipment leak requirements to require the use of the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for valves and pumps, rather than the thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT;
• Revisions to requirements related to emissions during periods of SSM;
• The addition of requirements for electronic submittal of semiannual reports and performance tests;
• Removal of the 240-hour exemption from control requirements for planned routine maintenance of emissions control systems;
• Clarifications to the “sealed” requirement of the provisions for open-ended lines (OELs);
• Addition of work practice and monitoring requirements for PRDs; and
• Several minor clarifications and corrections.
Within the RTR proposal, the EPA separately solicited comment on ways in which the Site Remediation NESHAP could be amended with respect to facilities currently exempt under 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(2) and (3), under a scenario where the EPA removes the exemption. The exemption applies to facilities subject to federally-enforceable oversight under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In particular, in light of comments received on our 2016 proposal to remove the exemption, the Agency sought additional comment regarding subcategorization or other methods of distinguishing among appropriate requirements for such sources. We explained our intention to use this opportunity to gather additional information in anticipation of addressing these issues through a separate action.
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the Site Remediation source category and amends the SR NESHAP based on those determinations. We are also finalizing other proposed changes to the NESHAP and other changes made in consideration of comments received during the public comment period for the proposed rulemaking. In the following subsections, we summarize the final amendments to the Site Remediation NESHAP.
We are not finalizing any changes at this time to the exemption from the Site Remediation NESHAP requirements available for federally-overseen Site Remediations under RCRA or CERCLA, pursuant to 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(2) and (3). The agency is continuing to review comments related to our solicitation on this issue in the RTR proposal, see 84 FR 46167–69 (September 3, 2019), and comments on the May 13, 2016, proposal regarding the exemption (81 FR 29812), and intends to address this issue in a separate action.
For the Site Remediation source category, we have determined that the current NESHAP reduces risk to an acceptable level, provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and prevents adverse environmental effects. Therefore, as we proposed, it is not necessary to revise the NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(f).
We have determined that there have been developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions to the Site Remediation NESHAP. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), and as we proposed, we are revising the NESHAP to require facilities to use the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for valves and pumps, rather than those of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. For other Site Remediation emissions sources, we have determined that, as we proposed, there are no viable developments in HAP emission reduction practices, processes, or control technologies to apply, considering the technical feasibility, estimated costs, and emission reductions of the options identified.
Consistent with the Court's ruling in
In response to comments received on the proposed rule, we are making two modifications to the proposed requirements and one change to the estimate of costs associated with PRD monitoring. One modification is to exclude PRDs on containers from the PRD work practice standards and monitoring requirements, and the other modification is to clarify when a PRD is subject to LDAR requirements and when a PRD is subject to the PRD actuation event work practice requirements. We have also revised the economic analysis for the adoption of the proposed PRD monitoring requirements to reflect the purchase of monitoring equipment for some facilities rather than assuming all facilities already have adequate monitoring systems.
With one exception, we are finalizing changes to the Site Remediation NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption as proposed. Consistent with
In response to comments received on the proposed rule, the EPA is making a change to the 240-hour annual control system bypass allowance for planned routine maintenance of a closed vent system or control device. Rather than remove this allowance for all control systems, the final rule will retain the allowance with the addition of a work practice requirement for storage tank control devices and closed vent systems.
This rule also finalizes revisions to several other Site Remediation NESHAP requirements. We describe the revisions in the following paragraphs.
To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility, we are finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that owners or operators of site remediation facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semi-annual compliance reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
As proposed, the EPA is not establishing emission standards for inorganic or metal HAP.
Based on comments received on the proposed provisions for OELs, we are not finalizing the proposed language in the Site Remediation NESHAP that OELs are “sealed” by a cap, blind flange, plug or second valve when instrument monitoring of the OEL conducted according to EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A indicates no readings of 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater. Since OELs are present at many facilities, additional consideration of the proposed change would be appropriate because there are multiple source categories that cross-reference the same equipment and operational requirements for OELs. We continue to believe it is important that the standard to seal the OEL includes a clear mechanism for a source to demonstrate compliance with that requirement. Therefore, the EPA intends to continue to evaluate appropriate means of compliance certainty for OELs, including the term “sealed,” and is not finalizing any revisions to the OEL standards applicable to Site Remediation in this action. The EPA emission estimates used in the risk modeling are based on reported emissions and we did not estimate HAP reductions from the proposed approach. For this reason, this decision not to finalize the OEL provisions does not alter our analysis of estimated emissions, risks, and decisions related to risk.
We are finalizing, as proposed, several miscellaneous minor changes to improve the clarity of the rule requirements.
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on July 10, 2020.
The compliance date for existing affected sources for the revised SSM requirements is 180 days after the effective date of the standard, January 6, 2021. The requirements for electronic reporting requirements, the revised routine maintenance provisions, the operating and pressure management requirements for PRDs, and the revised requirements regarding bypasses and closure devices on pressure tanks is 180 days after the effective date of the standard, January 6, 2021.
For electronic reporting, we have experience with similar industries shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more typically 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete the changes required to convert reporting mechanisms, including the installation of the necessary hardware and software, becoming familiar with the process of submitting performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, testing these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably employing electronic reporting, and converting the logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting parameters.
We are finalizing the 180-day compliance date for the other requirements listed above for existing affected sources because we are finalizing changes to the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet a standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan, as proposed. We have experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of SSM; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the revised requirements.
The compliance date for existing affected sources to comply with the new PRD actuation work practice standard, including monitoring requirement and actuation event reporting requirements, under 40 CFR 63.7923 is 18 months from the effective date of the final amendment, January 10, 2022. This time period will allow Site Remediation facility owners and operators to research equipment and vendors, and to purchase, install, test, and properly operate any necessary equipment by the compliance date.
For equipment leaks, the compliance date for existing affected sources is 1 year from the effective date of the standards, July 10, 2021. This time period is necessary to allow existing affected sources that are currently complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, adequate time to modify their existing LDAR programs to comply with the revised standards for pumps and valves.
New affected sources must comply with all of the standards and requirements of the amended rule immediately upon the effective date of the final amendments, July 10, 2020, or upon startup, whichever is later.
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary and response document available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833).
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk assessment for both affected sources and sources exempt from Site Remediation NESHAP requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 63.7881(b)(2) or (3) (
The results of the assessment for affected sources indicated that maximum inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed is 1-in-1 million based on actual and allowable emissions (actual emissions were assumed to equal allowable emissions), which is well below the presumptive limit of acceptability (
The results of the assessment for RCRA/CERCLA-exempt sources indicated that maximum inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed is 4-in-1 million based on actual emissions and allowable emissions (actual emissions were assumed to equal allowable emissions), which is well below the presumptive limit of acceptability (
We weighed all health risk factors for affected sources, including those shown in Table 2 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and proposed that the residual risks from the Site Remediation source category are acceptable (84 FR 46157; September 3, 2019).
We then considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG, provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. In considering whether the standards should be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered for our acceptability determination and also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce risk associated with emissions from the source category.
In our ample margin of safety analysis, we identified three control options that could further reduce HAP emissions from the source category. These control options included requiring a higher emissions reduction efficiency for process vents, requiring more stringent leak definition thresholds for certain equipment as part of the currently required LDAR program, and requiring connector monitoring as part of the currently required LDAR program. For these control options, we proposed that the costs were not reasonable in light of the minimal risk reduction that would be achieved, and these additional HAP emissions controls are not necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health (84 FR 46158; September 3, 2019).
We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment since the September 2019 proposal for this source category.
Most of the commenters on the proposed risk review supported our risk acceptability and ample margin of safety determinations for the Site Remediation NESHAP. Some commenters requested that we make changes to our residual risk review approach. However, we evaluated the comments and determined that no changes to our risk assessment methods or conclusions are warranted. A complete summary of these comments and responses are in the comment summary and response document, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833). The following is a summary of key comments we received regarding the risk review and our responses to those comments.
The EPA further disagrees that the sources cited by the commenter do not provide sound rationale for removing EtO as a site remediation pollutant. The EPA included two articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals in the docket for the proposed rule to substantiate its conclusion regarding EtO.
However, our discussion in the proposal preamble addresses the commenter's concern (See 84 FR 46143; September 3, 2019)—though providing this explanation is not intended to reopen our approach. The scope of the EPA's risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, where the EPA explained that “[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR [maximum individual risk] figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well as the impact on the
The EPA subsequently adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the Court upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See
The Court decision cited by the commenter,
The EPA did not contemplate an ample margin of safety analysis for RCRA/CERCLA-exempt sources because they are not subject to the emissions standards in the rule. The ample margin of safety portion of a CAA section 112(f) analysis necessarily entails an evaluation of control options. For the EPA to undertake an ample margin of safety analysis for the exempt sources, a final determination would first be needed to eliminate the exemption and evaluate control options. We have not yet concluded how these sources should be regulated under the Site Remediation NESHAP. While we requested comment on issues related to eliminating the exemption, we are not acting on the exemption in this RTR process. As noted in our separate request for comment on the exempt status of such facilities in the RTR proposal, the EPA continues to analyze the effect of removing the exemption in terms of designing appropriate regulatory provisions should the exemption be removed.
The EPA considered facility-wide risks and determined that Site Remediation emissions are not driving those risks. The risk at two facilities where facility-wide risk was greater than 100-in-1 million was driven by EtO, which, as explained at proposal, to the EPA's knowledge, is not emitted from Site Remediation activities. Also, as noted in the proposal, the EPA is separately addressing EtO emissions in response to the results of the latest National Air Toxics Assessment released in August 2018, which identified the chemical as a potential concern in several areas across the country.
The EPA disagrees that we did not provide the data for our whole-facility analysis. The data files were placed in the docket for public review upon publication (see Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833–0037).
As explained in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section 112(f)(2) using “a two-step standard setting approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand” (see 54 FR 38045; September 14, 1989). We weigh all health risk measures and factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum noncancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent and distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
In the second step of the approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health “in consideration of all health information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.”
Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the risks from the Site Remediation source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources in the Site Remediation source category. At proposal, we identified developments in practices, processes, or control technologies for process vents and equipment leaks.
For process vents, one potential control technology was identified at proposal, use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer, which could increase the emissions capture and control efficiency from 95 percent to 98 percent for those process vents that are currently controlled with a carbon adsorption system or other device achieving 95-percent control. We estimated the HAP emissions reduction beyond the current control requirements could range between 0.09 and 0.18 tpy for the source category, and the estimated costs would be $1 million to $2 million per ton of HAP emission reduction.
For equipment leaks, we identified the more stringent leak definitions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU over those of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT as a development in practices, processes, or control technologies at proposal. Two options were identified: Option 1—requiring the use of the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, for valves and pumps; Option 2—requiring the use of the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU for valves and pumps and also requiring connector monitoring under 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU. For Option 1, we estimated an additional HAP emission reduction of up to 4.7 tpy and estimated the costs would be $2,000 per ton of HAP emission reduction. For Option 2, we estimated the HAP emission reduction incremental to Option 1 would be approximately 5 tpy and the incremental cost effectiveness between Option 1 and Option 2 would be $35,000 per ton of HAP emission reduction.
Based on the costs and the emission reductions that would be achieved with the identified developments, we proposed to revise the MACT standard pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require facilities to use the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, for valves and pumps, without the subpart UU requirements for connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service. We proposed that it was not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) to require 98-percent control for process vents, based on the use of a regenerative thermal oxidizer. More information concerning our technology review can be found in the memorandum titled
The technology review has not changed from proposal to this final action. As explained below, the comments received were generally supportive of the revisions to the equipment leak requirements to require the use of the leak detection thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU, for valves and pumps, to not require connector monitoring for equipment leaks, and to not require changes to the NESHAP for process vents.
Most of the commenters on the proposed technology review supported our proposed revised standards for equipment leaks and our determination that revised standards for process vents are not necessary for the Site Remediation NESHAP. One commenter requested that we consider additional elements in our technology review, including incorporating exempt sources in our analysis of the cost effectiveness of connector monitoring, considering leakless equipment in our review of the equipment leak standards, and considering a different threshold for cost effectiveness. A complete summary of these and other comments and responses are in the comment summary and response document, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833). The following is a summary of key comments we received regarding the technology review and our responses to those comments.
The EPA's decision to consider regulation of these pollutants in this rulemaking is not governed by or mandated by CAA section 112(d)(6). That provision requires the EPA to review and revise, as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated under this section. We do not agree with the commenter's assertion that the EPA must establish new standards for unregulated emission points or pollutants as part of a technology review of the existing standards. The EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(6) as a limited provision requiring the Agency to, at least every 8 years, review the emission standards already promulgated in the NESHAP and to revise those standards as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies. Nothing in CAA section 112(d)(6) directs the Agency to develop new emission standards to address HAP or emission points for which standards were not previously promulgated as part of or in conjunction with the mandatory 8-year technology review.
When the EPA establishes standards for previously unregulated emissions, we would establish the standards under one of the provisions that govern initial standard setting—CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) or, if the prerequisites are met, CAA section 112(d)(4) or CAA section 112(h). Establishing emissions standards under these provisions of the CAA involves a different analytical approach from reviewing emissions standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
While we did not consider establishing standards for these HAP under CAA section 112(d)(6), we did investigate these HAP to determine whether standards should be established under CAA section 112(d)(2) or (3). In our review of the data for affected sources, we found that metal HAP are not emitted. Therefore, standards are not required for these pollutants (see 84 FR 46161; September 3, 2019) and our discussion of this issue in section D.1.a of this document.) This analysis satisfies the investigation into these pollutants that the EPA said it intended to undertake for these HAP in response to Sierra Club's petition for reconsideration of the initial NESHAP rulemaking.
The EPA disagrees that, for this action, an analysis that relies on a cost-per-ton basis “does not make sense” when different HAP have different toxicities. We note that when assessing the cost effectiveness of more stringent standards under consideration, we have discretion to express emission reductions that would result from such standards in any reasonable format, such as costs per ton of emissions reduced. In this case, as explained at proposal, the risk for the Site Remediation source category was low, using both the quantity and toxicity of emitted pollutants to arrive at this conclusion. The EPA also adds that a cost-per-ton basis may not be the only economic consideration when deliberating on whether to adopt controls. The EPA also looks, where appropriate, at the broader economic impact a given control technique may have on the category of sources when deciding whether to adopt a given standard.
With respect to the role of cost in our decisions under the technology review, we note that courts have not required the EPA to demonstrate that a technology is “cost-prohibitive” in order not to require adopting a new technology under CAA section 112(d)(6); a simple finding that a control is not cost effective is enough. See
Based on our analysis for equipment leaks, we have determined the costs of Option 1 are reasonable, given the level of HAP emissions reduction that would be achieved with this control option. We do not believe the costs of Option 2 are reasonable, given the level of HAP emissions reduction Option 2 would achieve relative to a much higher incremental cost- per-ton above Option 1. Therefore, as a result of the technology review, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing our proposed determination to revise the Site Remediation NESHAP to require existing and new affected sources to comply with the 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU leak detection thresholds for pumps and valves rather than leak thresholds of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, for those components.
For the reasons discussed above and in the preamble to the proposed rule, we have determined that it is not necessary, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), to revise the Site Remediation NESHAP to require additional HAP emission controls for process vents or any other equipment or processes at Site Remediation facilities.
We proposed to add a work practice standard pursuant to CAA section 112(h)(2)(B), in conjunction with CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), for PRDs. PRDs are valves, rupture disks, or other equipment designed to remain closed during normal operation but that “actuate” (
To ensure a standard continuously applies during malfunctions that result in emissions from a PRD actuation event, we proposed work practices and other provisions for PRDs and bypass lines on closed vent systems. We explained that a work practice standard is warranted under CAA section 112(h) because the application of measurement technology to this class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. See 84 FR 46153 (September 3, 2019). Modeling the work practice standard on the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR (80 FR 75178; December 1, 2015), we proposed to add work practice requirements that consist of conducting an analysis of the cause of a PRD actuation event and the implementation of corrective measures for PRDs that emit directly to the atmosphere. In addition, we proposed criteria for what constitutes a deviation from the work practice requirements. For PRDs that vent emissions from actuation events directly to the atmosphere, we proposed it would be a deviation of the work practice standard for a single PRD to have two releases within a 3-year period due to the same cause; for a single PRD to have three releases within a 3-year period for any reason; and for any PRD to have a release for which the cause was determined to be operator error or poor maintenance. We also proposed that “force majeure” events, which we proposed to define as events resulting from natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism, or external power curtailment beyond the facility's control (as demonstrated to the satisfaction of the EPA Administrator), would not be included when counting the number of releases. We proposed that certain PRDs would not be subject to the work practice requirements due to their low potential to emit substantial quantities of HAP. These PRDs included the following: (1) PRDs designed and operated to route all pressure releases through a closed vent system to a drain system, fuel gas system, process or control device; (2) PRDs in heavy liquid service; (3) PRDs that are designed solely to release due to liquid thermal expansion; and (4) pilot-operated and balanced bellows PRDs if the primary release valve associated with the PRD is vented through a control system.
To ensure compliance with these provisions, we also proposed that facilities subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP monitor PRDs in remediation material service that release to the atmosphere by using a device or system that is capable of identifying and recording the time and duration of each actuation event and notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is occurring. We further proposed to require owners or operators to keep records and report any actuation event and the amount of HAP released to the atmosphere with the next periodic report. In addition, to add clarity to these provisions, we proposed to add definitions for “bypass,” “force majeure event,” “pressure release,” and “pressure relief device or valve” to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG. We also proposed to remove the definition of “safety device” and the provisions related to safety devices from 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG, which would overlap with and be redundant of parts of the proposed definition of “pressure relief device or valve” and the provisions related to these devices.
For purposes of estimating the costs of the proposed requirement to monitor HAP releases to the atmosphere from PRDs, we assumed that operators would already have monitoring systems capable of identifying and recording the time and duration of each pressure release.
In the proposed rule, we removed the exemption from emissions standards for periods of SSM in accordance with a decision of the Court,
We have made two revisions to the proposed work practice and associated monitoring requirements and also revised the estimate of costs associated with PRD monitoring. The revisions to the proposed work practice and monitoring requirements include adding PRDs to the list of Site Remediation equipment in 40 CFR 63.7882 to help clarify when a PRD is subject to equipment leak requirements and when it is subject to the PRD actuation event work practice requirements. We are also revising the proposed PRD provisions to exclude PRDs on “containers” (as defined at 40 CFR 63.7957) from the PRD work practice standards and monitoring requirements. Additionally, we have revised the economic analysis for the adoption of the proposed PRD monitoring requirements to reflect the purchase of monitoring equipment for some facilities rather than assuming all facilities already have adequate monitoring systems.
One commenter also recommended that the EPA include an exemption for PRDs that do not have the potential to emit 72 pounds (lbs)/day or more of volatile organic compounds (VOC) based on the valve diameter, the set release pressure, and the equipment contents, similar to the exemption in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(5)(v). The commenter stated that the EPA's logic for that exemption, which is that it was consistent with the treatment of miscellaneous process vents and consistent with the two California rules (Bay Area and South Coast) that served as the MACT floor for the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP, also applies to this rule.
The EPA disagrees that it is appropriate to exempt PRDs that do not have the potential to emit 72 lbs./day or more of VOC based on the valve diameter from the PRD work practice. The commenter suggests the provisions should be adopted because the exemption is also found in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.648(j)(5)(v). The exemption to which the commenter refers is refinery-specific and applies to “Group 1 process vents,” as defined in the Petroleum Refineries NESHAP.
The EPA disagrees with the comments regarding force majeure events. Force majeure events, which result in pressure release actuation events, must be accounted for under 40 CFR 63.7923(c). The definition of force majeure narrows the scope of such events to natural disasters; acts of war or terrorism; loss of a utility external to the Site Remediation unit (
The EPA disagrees with the comments regarding the exemption for certain types of PRDs identified in 40 CFR 63.7923(e). We modeled the applicability of the PRD provisions after the Petroleum Refinery rule, 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. That “beyond-the-floor” analysis determined that it was not cost effective to include control of these PRDs as part of the work practice standard for PRDs, and we do not have information to conclude that this analysis would be any different for Site Remediation sources. However, these PRDs may be regulated under other provisions of the MACT. We note that, if the PRD is on any equipment subject to the equipment leaks requirements at 40 CFR 63.7920–7922, then the PRD is also subject to those same requirements, and owners and operators are still required to monitor the PRD after the release to verify the device is operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm. Such PRDs are subject to repair requirements if a leak is found.
The commenter is correct that a PRD as a member of the set of equipment subject to 40 CFR 63.7882(a)(3) would not be subject to LDAR requirements for “equipment leaks” if the PRD “at rest” (meaning not in actuation) meets either of the criteria in 40 CFR 63.7882(a)(3), that is, either: (1) The HAP content of the remediation material is less than 10 percent by weight; or (2) the equipment in question is used less than 300 hours per year. The applicable requirements to ensure a PRD has been repaired or re-sets properly after actuation are found in 40 CFR 63.7923(a)(1) and (2). The corresponding recordkeeping for such PRDs that are exempt from LDAR while at rest but subject to PRD work practices in activation are found at 40 CFR 63.7950(b)(11).
One commenter expressed that the EPA has not included time for facilities to develop procedures to estimate and report the amount of excess emissions when a deviation from the new requirements of 40 CFR 63.7951(b) occurs or to develop procedures for the new deviation recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 63.7952.
Regarding deviation recordkeeping and reporting, we are providing additional time to develop emissions estimation and reporting procedures. The compliance date for existing affected sources for the revised SSM requirements other than General Provisions, 40 CFR 63.6(e) and (f)(1), is 180 days after the effective date of the standard. The requirements for electronic reporting requirements, the revised routine maintenance provisions, the operating and pressure management requirements for PRDs, and the revised requirements regarding bypasses and closure devices on pressure tanks is 180 days after the effective date of the standard.
To ensure a standard continuously applies during malfunctions that result in emissions from a PRD actuation event, we proposed work practices and other provisions for PRDs and bypass lines on closed vent systems. Based on comments received on the proposed provisions, we have revised the proposed work practice and associated monitoring requirements for PRDs. For the reasons provided in the responses to comments above, we have revised the proposed PRD provisions to exclude PRDs on containers from the PRD work practice standards and monitoring requirements and added language to 40 CFR 63.7882 to help clarify when a PRD is subject to equipment leak requirements and when it is subject to the PRD actuation event work practice requirements. Additionally, based on information provided by commenters, we have revised the economic analysis for the adoption of the proposed PRD monitoring requirements to reflect the purchase of monitoring equipment for some facilities rather than assuming all facilities already have adequate monitoring systems.
In the May 13, 2016, proposal on reconsideration, the EPA stated that it would consider the issue of regulating metals and inorganic HAP emissions during the risk review (81 FR 29824). In the September 3, 2019, proposal, the EPA proposed to not set standards for metals and inorganic HAP from Site Remediation sources subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP because the Agency did not have data indicating that site remediation sources subject to the rule emit these pollutants. The EPA requested data demonstrating whether or not any affected Site Remediation sources emit inorganic or metal HAP.
In this final action, we have not made any changes to the proposed decision related to inorganic HAP and metal emissions standards.
Of the affected sources, the EPA did not find any affected facilities that reported Site Remediation emissions of metals and found only one facility that emitted any other inorganic HAP, which
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that exempt facilities emit substantial quantities of inorganic HAP and metals. The emissions reported in the NEI for exempt facilities shows a total of 0.04 tpy of HAP metal emissions, all of which are from one facility, and 1.3 tpy of other inorganic HAP emissions, with 97 percent of these emissions from one facility. Thus, while some exempt facilities emit limited quantities of metal and inorganic HAP, the nature of Site Remediations, which are highly site-specific and vary widely in remediation materials treated, treatment methods and equipment, and emissions, does not suggest that emissions of metal and inorganic HAP are common in Site Remediations, are emitted in large quantities, or would be expected from affected facilities. Therefore, without further evidence to support the existence of metal or inorganic HAP emission from affected facilities, the EPA has determined it is not necessary to develop emissions standards for these pollutants for this source category.
We agree with commenters that the risk assessment, which used a model approach to attribute emissions to the Site Remediation portion of a facility where the NEI did not include Site Remediation emissions, likely overstates the emissions of some HAP from the Site Remediation portions of the facilities. Where this is true, risk from those HAP would be overstated in the risk assessment results.
As we stated at proposal, to address the limited data on Site Remediation emissions for these 96 facilities, the EPA developed a model plant approach for its risk assessment. A model plant approach is commonly used in other EPA actions. The EPA developed a profile of Site Remediation emissions for each facility by applying an emissions factor based on emissions from the entire facility, including its non-category emissions from primary processes. Some of these non-category emission sources emit metal and inorganic HAP, thus leading to an attribution of a fraction of those emissions at a facility to the Site Remediation category by virtue of the use of the emissions factor. Thus, the model plant data used for modeling risk reflect metal and inorganic emissions solely because they are emitted by
For the reasons provided above and in the preamble for the proposed rule, we are finalizing the proposed decision to not set standards for metals and inorganic HAP from Site Remediation sources.
We proposed amendments to the Site Remediation NESHAP to remove or revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the standards apply at all times.
For SSM, the Site Remediation NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.7925(b)(1) allows a facility to bypass control devices for up to 240 hours per year to perform planned routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or control device in situations when the routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that the control device is shut down. To ensure that emissions standards apply at all times, we proposed to revise 40 CFR 63.7925(b)(1) to require the control device to be operating whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are vented through the closed-vent system to the control device. Based on comments received regarding these requirements, we have revised these proposed requirements as they apply to storage tanks. The revised requirements will allow a facility to bypass control devices on storage tanks for up to 240 hours per year to perform planned routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or control device in situations when the routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that the control device is shut down, and they are restricted from filling the tank for those 240 hours. More information concerning SSM is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 46161; September 3, 2019). We also are clarifying the compliance dates for changes in the SSM provisions. See section III.F of this preamble for compliance dates.
We received several comments regarding SSM. We received one comment that HAP concentrations may be higher in remediation material at the startup of remediation activities, one comment that the removal of the SSM exemption is not necessary to be consistent with the
While emissions from most equipment can be eliminated completely during routine maintenance of a control device, simply by not operating the process during those times, the same is not true for a tank. For a fixed roof tank complying with the NESHAP by routing emissions through a closed vent system to a control device, the stored material in the tank will continue to emit volatile compounds when the control device is not operating. The only ways for these tanks to avoid such emissions are to empty and degas the tank prior to the maintenance activity. It is possible that emptying and degassing a tank could result in greater emissions than would result from emissions from the tank during a 240-hour period. At proposal, we did not consider this emissions potential. Taking this factor into account, we decided to examine whether separate MACT standards should be established for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof tank at a new or existing source.
We began our examination by reviewing the title V permits for each facility subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP. In this review, we searched for facilities that had tanks subject to the emissions standards of the Site Remediation NESHAP and for any permit requirements pertaining to periods of routine maintenance of a control device for a tank. From this review, several facilities were found to have tanks subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP emission standards. While the current provisions of the Site Remediation NESHAP minimize emissions by limiting the duration of the bypass of a control device for planned routine maintenance to 240 hours per year, no additional permit conditions were found for these facilities for periods of time when the tank control device was not operating. We also reviewed other NESHAP to examine the requirements that apply to similar tanks. From the review of these NESHAP, we found that the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) and several other NESHAP, including, but not limited to, those for Group I Polymers and Resins, Group IV Polymers and Resins, OSWRO, Pharmaceuticals Production, and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production with similar vapor pressure and threshold capacities have provisions that minimize HAP emissions during periods of planned routine maintenance. These provisions minimize HAP emissions by limiting the duration of planned routine maintenance to 240 hours per year. The Pharmaceuticals Production and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP also allow a facility to request an extension of up to an additional 120 hours per year on the condition that no material is added to the tank during such requested extension period. The Amino and Phenolic Resins NESHAP includes the 240-hour provision described above and also prohibits sources from increasing the level of material in tanks during that time to minimize emissions. With these provisions, fixed roof tanks' emissions are limited to breathing losses, and the tanks do not need to be emptied and degassed to perform routine maintenance. Based on our review of these permits and NESHAP, we have determined that the MACT floor level of control for fixed roof tank vents at existing Site Remediation sources is the minimization of emissions by limiting the duration of planned routine maintenance periods in which the control device may be bypassed to 240 hours per year. Also based on this review, we identified one above-the-floor option, which is to add a work practice to prohibit the addition of material to the tank during the planned routine maintenance period when the tank control device is bypassed.
We evaluated the impacts of the identified beyond-the-floor control option. We estimate that there are one to 10 facilities in the category that would need to control one or more tanks during periods when the primary emission control system is undergoing planned routine maintenance. We have assumed an equal distribution of one to five tanks at 10 facilities, for a total of 30 tanks in the source category. To comply with the work practice of not adding material to the tank during planned routine maintenance periods when the tank control device is bypassed, we anticipate no additional equipment would be needed and no additional costs would be incurred. We estimate this option would reduce emissions by up 76 lbs./year per tank and 2,280 lbs./year (1.1 tpy) for the source category (
Based on our analysis, the identified beyond-the-floor option is reasonable, given the level of HAP emissions reduction that would be achieved with this work practice and the absence of additional costs. Accordingly, we are revising the Site Remediation MACT standards to allow owners or operators of fixed roof vessels at new and existing affected Site Remediation facilities to perform planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for up to 240 hours per year, provided there are no working losses from the tank during that time.
This work practice standard is being established in accordance with CAA section 112(h). We note that the tank requirements in this rule were originally promulgated as CAA section 112(h) standards, which established two control options. One option is for the installation of a floating roof pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. This option is a combination of design, equipment, work practice, and operational standards. The other option is to install a conveyance system (pursuant to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD) and route the emissions to a control device that achieves a 95-percent reduction in HAP emissions or that achieves a specific outlet HAP concentration. This second option is a combination of design standards, equipment standards, operational standards, and a percent reduction or outlet concentration. See the preamble to the original rulemaking for 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG at 67 FR 49398 (July 30, 2002). The work practice requirement added in this action also fulfills the purposes of section 112(h)(1) of the CAA, which calls on the Administrator to include requirements in work practice standards sufficient to assure the proper operation and
With one exception, we are finalizing the provisions for periods of SSM provisions as proposed. The SSM-related provision regarding planned routine maintenance of control systems for storage tanks has been revised since proposal based on consideration of comments received during the public comment period. As explained in the comment response above in section 2.c, we reviewed available Site Remediation permits and the conditions of other NESHAP with similar provisions, and we determined that it is appropriate to adopt a work practice standard to allow owners or operators of fixed roof vessels at new and existing affected Site Remediation facilities to perform planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for up to 240 hours per year, provided there are no working losses from the tank during that time.
As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, to facilitate the demonstration and determination of compliance and simplify data entry, the EPA proposed to require owners and operators of Site Remediation facilities to submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semi-annual compliance reports through the EPA's CDX using CEDRI. The EPA identified at proposal two broad circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. These situations include outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI and force majeure events.
Additionally, for semi-annual summary compliance reports, the proposed rule required that owners and operators use a spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. The EPA provided a draft version of the template for this report in the docket for the proposed rulemaking and requested comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the template.
Regarding electronic reporting, the proposed requirements to submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semi-annual compliance reports have not changed. However, we have made a few corrections and clarifications to the draft spreadsheet template provided at proposal for use in submitting semi-annual summary compliance reports to CEDRI.
We are finalizing the proposed provisions regarding electronic reporting, however, the final spreadsheet template to be used in submitting semi-annual summary compliance reports to CEDRI has been revised based on comments received during the public comment period.
We proposed to add a paragraph to 40 CFR 63.7920(b) to clarify what “seal the open end” means for OELs under the Site Remediation NESHAP. This clarification was intended to reduce uncertainty for the owner or operator as to whether compliance is being achieved. The proposed clarification explained that, for the purpose of
We also proposed that OELs that are in an emergency shutdown system, and which are designed to open automatically, be equipped with either a flow indicator or a seal or locking device since 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT and UU exempt these OELs from the requirements to be equipped with a cap, blind flange, plug, or second valve that seals the open end. Additionally, we proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these OELs.
The EPA is not finalizing the proposed provisions related to OELs. These requirements include those of proposed 40 CFR 63.7920(b)(3)(i) that were intended to clarify what “seal the open end” means for OELs; the proposed requirements of 40 CFR 63.7920(b)(3)(ii), which specified that certain OELS in an emergency shutdown system be equipped with either a flow indicator or a seal or locking device; and the related proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these OELs.
Some commenters added that this “clarification” in the Site Remediation NESHAP would appear to be a clarification to all equipment leak rules and permits containing similar language. The commenters noted that this proposal does not notify other industries subject to 40 CFR part 63, subparts TT and UU of this change. In order to impose this new standard, one commenter stated that the EPA should identify the CAA authority for this action, propose amendments to all rules referencing 40 CFR subparts TT and UU (or propose amendments to subparts TT and UU, instead) and provide cost burden and emission impact estimates for this change for all impacted rules.
Considering comments received during the public comment period, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed provisions for OELs. These proposed provisions were intended to clarify what “seal the open end” means for OELs, would have required certain OELS in an emergency shutdown system to be equipped with a flow indicator or a seal or locking device, and would have
Since OELs are present at many facilities, additional consideration of the proposed change is appropriate because there are multiple source categories that cross-reference the same equipment and operational requirements for OELs. We continue to believe it is important that the standard to seal the OEL includes a clear mechanism for a source to demonstrate compliance with that requirement. Therefore, the EPA intends to continue to evaluate appropriate means of compliance certainty for OELs, including the term “sealed,” and is not finalizing any revisions to the OEL standards applicable to Site Remediation in this action.
The EPA emission estimates are based on reported emissions, and we did not estimate HAP reductions from the proposed approach that we are not finalizing. For this reason, the decision to not finalize the OEL provisions has no impact on estimated emissions, risks, or decisions related to risk.
We proposed several miscellaneous minor changes to improve the clarity of the Site Remediation NESHAP requirements. These proposed changes included:
• Adding citations in 40 CFR 63.14 to 40 CFR 63.7944 for the two following consensus standards: American Petroleum Institute (API) Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss From External Floating-Roof Tanks, and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method D2879–83.
• Correcting citation errors. These include correcting the reference in 40 CFR 63.7942 to be 40 CFR 63.7(a)(3) rather than 40 CFR 63.7(3); correcting the reference in 40 CFR 63.7941 to be 40 CFR 7890(b) rather than 40 CFR 63.7980(a)(1)(i); and correcting the references in 40 CFR 63.7901(a) and (b)(1), and 40 CFR 63.7903(a) and (b) to be 40 CFR 63.7900 rather than 40 CFR 63.7990.
We have not made any changes to the proposed technical corrections. However, we have added other technical corrections to the final rule. These include the following:
• The reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.7951(b)(10)(i) did not specify which information should be reported with respect to a leak found under the PRD provisions. The EPA has specified that sources should report the number of times that a leak is detected during the reporting period.
• The reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.7951(b)(10)(ii) was revised to clarify that the source is required to include a notation that the required monitoring was performed.
• The reporting requirement in 40 CFR 63.7951(b)(10)(iii)(B) was revised to require that the source report total HAP, rather than each HAP, to be consistent with the provisions in 40 CFR 63.7923(d).
• The reference to the requirement to submit a Notification of Compliance Status in 40 CFR 63.7951 at proposal has been revised for clarity.
These corrections have been made to correct errors, provide consistency of terms and add clarity to the rule.
We estimate that there are approximately 63 major source Site Remediation facilities. Based on available permit information, 33 facilities are expected to be subject to a limited set of the rule requirements under 40 CFR 63.7881(c) due to the low annual quantity of HAP contained in the remediation material excavated, extracted, pumped, or otherwise removed during the Site Remediations conducted at the facilities. These facilities are only required to prepare and maintain written documentation to support the determination that the total annual quantity of the HAP contained in the remediation material excavated, extracted, pumped, or otherwise removed at the facility is less than 1 megagram per year. They are not subject to any other emissions limits, work practices, monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. While new Site Remediations are likely to be conducted in the future, we are currently not aware of any specific new Site Remediation facilities that will be subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP.
For equipment leaks, we are revising the equipment leak thresholds for pumps and valves for facilities complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. We estimate the HAP emission reduction for this change to be approximately 4.7 tpy. We anticipate a reduction of up to 1.1 tpy of HAP emissions from the revised requirements for planned routine maintenance, which eliminate the routine maintenance exemption for all affected units, and, for storage tank emissions control systems only, provide a work practice standard. We do not anticipate any HAP emission reduction from the requirement to electronically report the results of emissions testing. For the revisions to the MACT standards establishing a work practice standard for actuation of PRDs in remediation material service, we were not able to quantify the possible emission reductions, so none are included in our assessment of air quality impacts. Therefore, the total HAP emission reductions for the final rule revisions for the Site Remediation source category are estimated to be 5.8 tpy.
For equipment leaks, we are revising the equipment leak thresholds for pumps and valves for facilities complying with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $26,000 and the annual costs to be $10,000. We do not anticipate any quantifiable capital or annual costs for our requirements to electronically report the results of emissions testing. For the
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a rule and the distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to a rule. The total capital costs associated with this rule are estimated to be approximately $188,000, and the estimated annualized cost is approximately $60,000. We expect these costs to be borne by 30 facilities, with an average annualized cost of approximately $2,000 per facility per year. These costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
We have estimated that this action will achieve HAP emissions reductions of 5.8 tpy. The revised standards will result in reductions in the actual and MACT-allowable emissions of HAP and may reduce the actual and potential cancer risks and noncancer health effects due to emissions of HAP from this source category, as discussed in the proposal preamble (See 84 FR 46158; September 3, 2019). We have not quantified the monetary benefits associated with these reductions; however, these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduced negative health effects associated with exposure to air pollution from these emissions.
The EPA is making environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA has established policies regarding the integration of environmental justice into the Agency's rulemaking efforts, including recommendations for the consideration and conduct of analyses to evaluate potential environmental justice concerns during the development of a rule.
Following these recommendations, to gain a better understanding of the source category and near source populations, the EPA conducted a demographic analysis for Site Remediation facilities to identify any overrepresentation of minority, low income, or indigenous populations. This analysis only gives an indication of the prevalence of sub-populations that may be exposed to air pollution from the sources; it does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations. Additionally, the final changes to the NESHAP increase the level of environmental protection for all affected populations by reducing emissions from equipment leaks and from storage tanks during periods of planned routine maintenance of emissions control systems, and these revisions do not cause any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations. Further details concerning the demographic analysis are presented in the memorandum titled,
As part of the health and risk assessments, as well as the demographic analysis conducted for this action, risks to infants and children were assessed. These analyses are documented in the
The results of the demographic analysis show that the average percentage of children 17 years and younger in close proximity to Site Remediation facilities is approximately the same as the percentage of the national population in this age group. Consistent with the EPA's Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children, we conducted inhalation and multipathway risk assessments for the Site Remediation source category, considering risk to infants and children.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2062.09. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are chemical and refining companies. The Agency has determined that two small entities, representing approximately 7 percent of the total number of entities subject to the rule, may experience an impact of less than 0.1 percent of revenues. Details of this analysis are presented in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0833).
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). There are no Site Remediation facilities that are owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action involves technical standards. The EPA is formalizing the incorporation of two technical standards that were included in the October 2003 rule for which the EPA had previously not formally requested the Office of the Federal Register to include in 40 CFR 63.14 with a reference back to the sections in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGGG. These two standards were already incorporated in 40 CFR 63.14 and were formally requested for other rules. These standards are API Publication 2517, “Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks,” Third Edition, February 1989, and ASTM D2879–83, “Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope.” Sources subject to the Site Remediation NESHAP must determine the average total VOHAP concentration of a remediation material using either direct measurement or by knowledge of the material. These methods may be used to determine the average VOHAP concentration of remediation material. These analyses are used to determine control requirements for compliance with applicable standards. While the API Publication 2517 is used to determine emissions from floating roof tanks, an important component in determining these emissions is the vapor pressure of the material stored in the tank. Therefore, this publication includes widely used methods for determining the maximum true vapor pressure of HAP in liquids stored at ambient temperature and is available to the public for purchase from the reseller IHS Markit Standards Store through their website at
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low income, or indigenous populations. The results of the demographic analysis completed by the EPA are presented in the memorandum titled
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(1) API Publication 2517, Evaporative Loss from External Floating-Roof Tanks, Third Edition, February 1989, IBR approved for §§ 63.111, 63.1402, 63.2406 and 63.7944.
API Publication 2517 available through reseller HIS Markit at
(h) * * *
(31) ASTM D2879–83, Standard Method for Vapor Pressure-Temperature Relationship and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope, Approved November 28, 1983, IBR approved for §§ 63.111, 63.1402, 63.2406, 63.7944, and 63.12005.
(a) This subpart applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing affected source for your Site Remediation as designated by paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(4)
(a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later than October 9, 2006, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) If you have a new affected source that manages remediation material other than a radioactive mixed waste as defined in § 63.7957, then you must meet the compliance date specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable to your affected source, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
(c) If you have a new affected source that manages remediation material that is a radioactive mixed waste as defined in § 63.7957, then you must meet the compliance date specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable to your affected source, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
(d) If your facility is an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP as defined in § 63.2, then you must meet the compliance dates specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
(f) If the affected source's initial startup date is on or before September 3, 2019, you must comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section by the dates specified in those paragraphs. If the affected source's initial startup date is after September 3, 2019, you must comply with all of the applicable requirements of this subpart upon initial startup or July 10, 2020, whichever is later.
(1) You must comply with the equipment leak requirements of § 63.7920(b)(3), (d), and (e) on or before July 10, 2021.
(2) You must comply with the pressure relief device requirements of § 63.7923(a) on or before January 6, 2021.
(3) You must comply with the pressure relief device requirements of § 63.7923(b) through (f) on or before January 10, 2022.
(4) You must comply with the pressure tank closure device reporting and recordkeeping requirements of §§ 63.7951(b)(11) and 63.7952(a)(7) on or before January 6, 2021.
(5) You must comply with the electronic reporting requirements of § 63.7951(e) through (h) on or before January 6, 2021.
(c) If you use Tank Level 1 controls, you must install and operate a fixed roof according to the requirements in § 63.902, with the exceptions specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. As an alternative to using this fixed roof, you may choose to use one of Tank Level 2 controls in paragraph (d) of this section.
(1) Where § 63.902(c)(2) provides an exception for a spring-loaded pressure-vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, or similar type of pressure relief device which vents to the atmosphere, for any source for the purposes of this subpart, only a conservation vent is eligible for the exception after January 6, 2021. If your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019, the exception for a spring-loaded pressure-vacuum relief valve, conservation vent, or similar type of pressure relief device does not apply, with the exception of a conservation vent, for the purposes of this subpart after July 10, 2020.
(2) The provisions of § 63.902(c)(3) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; for any source the provisions of § 63.902(c)(3) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart after January 6, 2021.
(c) * * *
(1) Each tank using Tank Level 1 controls is equipped with a fixed roof and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.902(b) and (c), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7895(c)(1) and (2), and you have records documenting the design.
(3) You will operate the fixed roof and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.902, with the exceptions specified in § 63.7895(c)(1) and (2).
(f) * * *
(1) Each tank is equipped with a fixed roof and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.685(g), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7895(c)(1) and (2), and you have records documenting the design.
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the fixed roof and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.902(c), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7895(c)(1) and (2).
(b) * * *
(1) If the design capacity of your container is less than or equal to 0.46 m
(2) If the design capacity of your container is greater than 0.46 m3, then you must use controls according to the standards for Container Level 2 controls as specified in § 63.923 except as provided for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. § 63.923(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.923(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
(3) As an alternative to meeting the standards in paragraph (b)(2) of this section for containers with a capacity greater than 0.46 m3, if you determine that either of the conditions in paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (ii) apply to the remediation material placed in your container, then you may use controls according to the standards for Container Level 1 controls as specified in § 63.922. § 63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.922(d)(4) and (5) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
(c) At times when a container having a design capacity greater than 0.1 m3 is used for treatment of a remediation material by a waste stabilization process as defined in § 63.7957, you must control air emissions from the container during the process whenever the remediation material in the container is exposed to the atmosphere according to the standards for Container Level 3 controls as specified in § 63.924. You must meet the emissions limitations and work practice standards in § 63.7925 that apply to your closed vent system and control device. § 63.924(d) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.924(d) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
(d) As an alternative to meeting the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, you may choose to use controls on your container according to the standards for Container Level 3 controls as specified in § 63.924. You must meet the emissions limitations and work practice standards in § 63.7925 that apply to your closed vent system and control device. § 63.924(d) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.924(d) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with the emissions limitations and work practice standards in § 63.7900 that apply to your affected containers by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, as applicable to your containers.
(b) * * *
(1) You have determined the applicable container control levels specified in § 63.7900 for the containers to be used for your Site Remediation.
(c) * * *
(2) You will operate each container cover and closure device according to the requirements in § 63.922(d), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7900(b)(1).
(d) * * *
(3) You will operate and maintain the container covers and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.923(d), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7900(b)(2).
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions limitations and work practice standards in § 63.7900 applicable to your affected containers by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(b) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the requirement to determine the applicable container control level specified in § 63.7900(b) for each affected tank by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining covers for each container according to the requirements in § 63.922(d), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7900(b)(1).
(d) * * *
(2) Operating and maintaining container covers according to the requirements in § 63.923(d), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7900(b)(2).
(b) * * *
(1) Install and operate a floating membrane cover according to the requirements in § 63.942. § 63.942(c)(2) and (3) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.942(c)(2) and (3) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021; or
(2) Install and operate a cover vented through a closed vent system to a control device according to the requirements in § 63.943. You must meet the emissions limitations and work practice standards in § 63.7925 that apply to your closed vent system and control device. § 63.943(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.943(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
(b) * * *
(2) You will operate the cover and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.942(c), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7905(b)(1).
(c) * * *
(2) You will operate the cover and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.943(c), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7905(b)(2).
(b) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the floating membrane cover and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.942(c), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7905(b)(1).
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the floating membrane cover and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.943(c), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7905(b)(2).
(b) * * *
(1) Install and operate a floating roof according to the requirements in § 63.1043. For portions of the separator where it is infeasible to install and operate a floating roof, such as over a weir mechanism, you must comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. § 63.1043(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.1043(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
(2) Install and operate a fixed roof vented through a closed vent system to a control device according to the requirements in § 63.1044. You must meet the emissions limitations and work practice standards in § 63.7925 that apply to your closed vent system and control device. § 63.1044(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.1044(c)(2) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
(3) Install and operate a pressurized separator according to the requirements in § 63.1045. § 63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.1045(b)(3)(i) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
(b) * * *
(2) You will operate the floating roof and closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.1043(c), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7910(b)(1).
(c) * * *
(2) You will operate the fixed roof and its closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.1042(c). § 63.1042(c)(3) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart if your initial date is after September 3, 2019; § 63.1042(c)(3) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart for any source after January 6, 2021.
(d) * * *
(2) You will operate the pressurized separator as a closed system according to the requirements in § 63.1045(b)(3), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7910(b)(3).
(c) If you use a pressurized separator that operates as a closed system according to § 63.7910(b)(3), you must visually inspect each pressurized separator and closure devices for defects at least annually to ensure they are operating according to the design requirements in § 63.1045(b), with the exceptions specified in § 63.7910(b)(3).
(c) * * *
(1) Operating and maintaining the fixed roof and its closure devices according to the requirements in § 63.1042, with the exceptions specified in § 63.7911(c)(2).
(d) * * *
(1) Operating the pressurized separator at all times according to the requirements in § 63.1045, with the exceptions specified in § 63.7910(b)(3).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) Control equipment leaks according to all applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT—National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks—Control Level 1, with the differences noted in paragraph (b)(3) of this section for the purposes of this subpart; or
(3)(i) For the purpose of complying with the requirements of § 63.1006(b)(2), the instrument reading that defines a leak is 500 parts per million or greater.
(ii) For the purpose of complying with the requirements of § 63.1007(b)(2), the instrument reading that defines a leak is 5,000 parts per million or greater for pumps handling polymerizing monomers; 2,000 parts per million or greater for pumps in food/medical service; and 1,000 parts per million or greater for all other pumps.
(d) For the purposes of this subpart, the requirements of § 63.7920(e) of this subpart apply rather than those of § 63.1030 or of § 63.1011, as applicable, for pressure relief devices in gas and vapor service. The requirements of § 63.7920(e) of this subpart apply rather than those of § 63.1029 or of § 63.1010, as applicable, for pressure relief devices in liquid service.
(e) Operate each pressure relief device under normal operating conditions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above the background level as detected by the method specified in § 63.1004(b) or § 63.1023(b), as applicable.
(a) For each pressure relief device in remediation material service, you must
(1) If the pressure relief device does not consist of or include a rupture disk, return the pressure relief device to the normal operating conditions specified in § 63.7920(e) as soon as practicable and conduct instrument monitoring by the method specified in § 63.1004(b) or § 63.1023(b), as applicable, no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release device returns to remediation material service following a pressure release actuation event, except as provided in § 63.1024(d) or of § 63.1005(c), as applicable.
(2) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a rupture disk, except as provided in § 63.1024(d) or § 63.1005(c), as applicable, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure release actuation event.
(b) Except for the pressure relief devices described in paragraph (e) of this section, you must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section for each pressure relief device in remediation material service.
(c) Equip each pressure relief device in remediation material service with a device(s) or use a monitoring system sufficient to indicate a pressure release to the atmosphere. The device or monitoring system may be either specific to the pressure release device itself or may be associated with the process system or piping. Examples of these types of devices or monitoring systems include, but are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator, magnetic sensor, motion detector on the pressure relief valve stem, flow monitor, pressure monitor, or parametric monitoring system. The device(s) or monitoring systems must be capable of meeting the requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Identifying the pressure release;
(2) Recording the time and duration of each pressure release; and
(3) Notifying operators immediately that a pressure release is occurring.
(d) If any pressure relief device in remediation material service releases directly to the atmosphere as a result of a pressure release actuation event, follow the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Calculate the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart released during each pressure release actuation event. Calculations may be based on data from the pressure relief device monitoring alone or in combination with process parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
(2) Determine the total number of pressure release actuation events that occurred during the calendar year for each pressure relief device.
(3) Determine the total number of pressure release actuation events for each pressure relief device for which the analysis conducted as required by paragraph (d)(4) of this section concluded that the pressure release was due to a force majeure event, as defined in § 63.7957.
(4) Complete an analysis to determine the source, nature and cause of each pressure release actuation event as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 days after a pressure release actuation event.
(5) Identify corrective measures to prevent future such pressure release actuation events as soon as practicable, but no later than 45 days after a pressure release actuation event.
(6) Implement the corrective measure(s) identified as required by paragraph (d)(5) of this section within 45 days of the pressure release actuation event or as soon thereafter as practicable. For corrective measures that cannot be fully implemented within 45 days following the pressure release actuation event, you must record the corrective measure(s) completed to date, and, for measure(s) not already completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed commencement and completion dates, no later than 45 days following the pressure release actuation event.
(e) The pressure relief devices listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (6) are not subject to the requirements in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.
(1) Pressure relief devices designed and operated to route all pressure releases through a closed vent system to a drain system meeting the requirements of §§ 63.7915–63.7918, or to a fuel gas system, process or control device meeting the requirements of §§ 63.7925 through 63.7928.
(2) Pressure relief devices in heavy liquid service, as defined in § 63.1001 or § 63.1020, as applicable.
(3) Thermal expansion relief valves.
(4) Pilot-operated pressure relief devices where the primary release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control device or back into the process, to the fuel gas system, or to a drain system.
(5) Balanced bellows pressure relief devices where the primary release valve is routed through a closed vent system to a control device or back into the process, to the fuel gas system, or to a drain system.
(6) Pressure relief devices on containers, as defined in § 63.7957.
(f) Except for the pressure relief devices described in paragraph (e) of this section, it is a violation of the requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section for any pressure relief device in remediation material service to release directly to the atmosphere as a result of a pressure release actuation event(s) described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Any pressure release actuation event for which the cause of the event determined as required by paragraph (d)(4) of this section was determined to be operator error or poor maintenance.
(2) A second pressure release actuation event, not including force majeure events, from a single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar-year period for the same cause for the same equipment.
(3) A third pressure release actuation event, not including force majeure events, from a single pressure relief device in a 3 calendar-year period for any reason.
(b) You must comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply, if your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019. If your initial startup date was on or before September 3, 2019, you must comply with paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section until January 7, 2021, and after that date, you must comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply.
(1) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are vented through the closed-vent system to the control device, the control device must be operating except at those times listed in either paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) The control device may be bypassed for the purpose of performing planned routine maintenance of the closed-vent system or control device in situations when the routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that the emission point vented to the control device is shutdown. On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance must not exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
(ii) The control device may be bypassed for the purpose of correcting a malfunction of the closed-vent system or control device. You must perform the
(2) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are vented through the closed-vent system to the control device, the control device must be operating, except that the control device on a tank may be bypassed for the purpose of performing planned routine maintenance of the control device. When the tank control device is bypassed, the owner or operator must comply with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The control device may only be bypassed when the planned routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that tank emissions are vented to the control device.
(ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance must not exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
(iii) The level of material in the tank must not be increased during periods that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform planned routine maintenance.
(a) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, you must be in compliance with the emissions limitations (including operating limits) and the work practice standards in this subpart at all times, except, until January 6, 2021, during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. If your initial startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources, after January 6, 2021, you must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) and the work practice standards in this subpart at all times.
(b) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, then until January 6, 2021, you must operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(1)(i). If your initial startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, at all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
(c) If your initial startup date was on or before September 3, 2019, then until January 6, 2021, you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6(e)(3), and a SSMP is not required after January 6, 2021. No SSMP is required for any source for which the initial startup date is after September 3, 2019.
(e) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each emissions limitation and each operating limit that applies to you. You must also report each instance in which you did not meet the requirements for work practice standards that apply to you. These instances are deviations from the emissions limitations and work practice standards in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.7951.
(f) If your initial start date was on or before September 3, 2019, consistent with §§ 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), then until January 6, 2021, deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1). We will determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6(e). If your initial startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, you must be in compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart at all times (unless a longer timeframe for compliance is expressly provided in this subpart), and we will determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations according to the provisions in § 63.7935(a) and (b).
(g) * * *
(4) Continuous monitoring system (CMS) operation and maintenance requirements in accordance with § 63.7945.
(5) CMS data collection in accordance with § 63.7946.
(h) * * *
(1) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, then until January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and (8). If your initial startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing O&M procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and (c)(7) and (8).
(2) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, then until January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d). If your initial startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d) except for the requirements related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans referenced in § 63.8(d)(3). The owner or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator shall keep previous (
(3) If your initial startup was on or before September 3, 2019, then until January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). If your initial startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, you must address ongoing recordkeeping and reporting
(b) * * *
(2) If your initial startup date was on or before September 3, 2019, then until January 6, 2021, you must conduct each performance test under representative conditions according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1). If your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, you must conduct each performance test under conditions representative of normal operations. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
(4) Follow the procedures in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section to determine compliance with the facility-wide total organic mass emissions rate in § 63.7890(b).
For non-flare control devices, you must conduct performance tests at any time the EPA requires you to according to § 63.7(a)(3).
(d) In the event that you and we disagree on a determination using knowledge of the average total VOHAP concentration for a remediation material, then the results from a determination of VOHAP concentration using direct measurement by EPA Method 305 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, will be used to determine compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart. We may perform or require that you perform this determination using direct measurement.
The revision reads as follows:
(d) In the event that you and us disagree on a determination using knowledge of the maximum HAP vapor pressure of the remediation material, then the results from a determination of maximum HAP vapor pressure using direct measurement by EPA Method 25E in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, will be used to determine compliance with the applicable requirements of this subpart. We may perform or require that you perform this determination using direct measurement.
(d) Failure to meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section is a deviation and must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.7951(b)(7).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(6) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service subject to the requirements of § 63.7923, submit a description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented, including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be monitored, and a description of the alarms or other methods by which operators will be notified of a pressure release. If your initial startup date was on or before September 3, 2019, then this information must be submitted with the next semi-annual periodic compliance report. If your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019, this information must be submitted in the first periodic compliance report. The information must be updated in subsequent reports if changes are made.
(7) Semi-annual compliance reports must be submitted according to paragraph (f) of this section.
(b) * * *
(4) If your initial startup date was on or before September 3, 2019, then until January 6, 2021, if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). If your initial startup date is after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, an SSMP and the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i) is not required.
(7) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit) that occurs at an affected source for which you are not using a continuous monitoring system (including a CPMS or CEMS) to comply with an emissions limitation or work practice standard required in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(ii) Information on the number of deviations. For each deviation, include the date, time, and duration, a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, the actions taken to minimize emissions, the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause), as applicable, and the corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(8) For each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit) or work practice standard occurring at an affected source
(i) Information on the number of deviations. For each deviation, include the date, time, and duration, a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, the actions taken to minimize emissions, the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause), as applicable, and the corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(iv) For each deviation caused when the daily average value of a monitored operating parameter is less than the minimum operating parameter limit (or, if applicable, greater than the maximum operating parameter limit), the report must include the daily average values of the monitored parameter, the applicable operating parameter limit, and the date and duration of the period that the deviation occurred. For each deviation caused by lack of monitoring data, the report must include the date and duration of period when the monitoring data were not collected and the reason why the data were not collected.
(vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and unknown causes.
(10) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service, compliance reports must include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(10)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service subject to § 63.7920(e), report the number of occurrences of an instrument reading of 500 ppm above the background level or greater, if detected more than 5 days after a pressure release.
(ii) For pressure relief devices in remediation service subject to § 63.7923(c), report confirmation, yes or no, that the monitoring required to show compliance was conducted during the reporting period.
(iii) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service subject to § 63.7923(d), report each pressure release to the atmosphere, including the following information:
(A) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release actuation event.
(B) An estimate of the mass quantity of total HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart emitted during the pressure release actuation event and the method used for determining this quantity.
(C) The source, nature and cause of the pressure release actuation event.
(D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release actuation event.
(E) The measures implemented during the reporting period to prevent future such pressure release actuation events, and, if applicable, the implementation schedule for planned corrective actions to be implemented subsequent to the reporting period.
(11) Pressure tank closure device or bypass deviation information. Compliance reports must include the information specified in paragraph (b)(11)(iv) of this section when any of the conditions in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this section are met.
(i) Any pressure tank closure device, as specified in specified in § 63.7895(d)(4), has released to the atmosphere.
(ii) Any closed vent system that includes bypass devices that could divert a vent a stream away from the control device and into the atmosphere, as specified in § 63.7927(a)(2), has released directly to the atmosphere.
(iii) Any open-ended valve or line in an emergency shutdown system which is designed to open automatically in the event of a process upset, as specified in § 63.1014(c) or § 63.1033(c), has released directly to the atmosphere.
(iv) The compliance report must include the information specified in paragraphs (b)(11)(iv)(A) through (E) of this section.
(A) The source, nature and cause of the release.
(B) The date, time and duration of the discharge.
(C) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart emitted during the release and the method used for determining this quantity.
(D) The actions taken to prevent this release.
(E) The measures adopted to prevent future such releases.
(c)
(e)
(1)
(2)
(f)
(g)
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(h)
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature (
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after the force majeure event occurs.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(2) If your initial startup date is on or before September 3, 2019, you must continue to keep any records specified in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) If your initial startup was after September 3, 2019, then as of July 10, 2020, and for all sources after January 6, 2021, for each deviation from an emissions limitation (including an operating limit) or work practice standard occurring at an affected source, you must record information on the number of deviations. For each deviation, include the date, time, and duration, a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, a description of the method used to estimate the emissions, the actions taken to minimize emissions, the cause of the deviation (including unknown cause), as applicable, and the corrective actions taken to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(4) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service, keep records of the information specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices that are not subject to the requirements of § 63.7923(c) and (d) under the provisions of § 63.7923(e).
(ii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices subject to the requirements of § 63.7923(a), (c), and (d) that do not consist of or include a rupture disk.
(iii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices subject to the requirements of § 63.7923(a), (c), and (d) equipped with rupture disks.
(5) For pressure relief devices in remediation material service subject to § 63.7923(d), keep records of each pressure release event to the atmosphere as specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i)The date, time, and duration of the pressure release event.
(ii) The dates and results of the EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, monitoring following a pressure release event, if applicable. The results of each monitoring event shall include the measured background level and the maximum instrument reading measured at each pressure relief device.
(iii) The dates replacement rupture disks were installed following a pressure release event, if applicable.
(iv) An estimate of the mass quantity of total HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart emitted during the pressure release event and the method used for determining this quantity.
(v) The source, nature and cause of the pressure release event, including an identification of the affected pressure relief device(s) and a statement noting whether the event resulted from the same cause(s) identified following a previous pressure release event.
(vi) The corrective measures identified to prevent future such pressure release events, or an explanation of why corrective measures are not necessary.
(vii) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release event.
(viii) Records of the corrective measures implemented, including a description of the corrective measure(s) completed within the first 45 days following a pressure release event, and, if applicable, the implementation schedule for planned corrective measures to be implemented subsequent to the first 45 days following the pressure release event, including proposed commencement and completion dates. (6) Records of the number of pressure release events during each calendar year and the number of those events for which the cause was determined to be a force majeure event. Keep these records for the current calendar year and the past 5 calendar years.
(7)(i) For pressure tank closure devices, as specified in § 63.7895(d)(4), keep records of each release to the atmosphere, including the information specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(iii)(A) through (G) of this section.
(ii) For each closed vent system that includes bypass devices that could divert a stream away from the control device and into the atmosphere, as specified in § 63.7927(a)(2), and each open-ended valve or line in an emergency shutdown system which is designed to open automatically in the event of a process upset, as specified in § 63.1014(c) or § 63.1033(c), keep records of each release to the atmosphere, including the information specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(iii)(A) though (G) of this section.
(iii)(A) The source, nature, and cause of the release.
(B) The date, time, and duration of the release.
(C) An estimate of the quantity of HAP listed in Table 1 of this subpart emitted during the release and the calculations used for determining this quantity.
(D) The actions taken to prevent this release.
(E) The measures adopted to prevent future such release.
(F) Hourly records of whether the bypass flow indicator specified under § 63.7927(a)(2)(i) was operating and whether a diversion was detected at any time during the hour, as well as records of the times of all periods when the vent stream is diverted from the control device or the flow indicator is not operating.
(G) Where a seal mechanism is used to comply with § 63.7927(a)(2)(ii), hourly records of flow are not required. In such cases, you must record that the monthly visual inspection of the seals or closure mechanism has been done and record the duration of all periods when the seal mechanism is broken, the bypass line valve position has changed, or the key for a lock-and-key type lock has been checked out, and records of any car-seal that has broken.
(8) A record of the fluid level at the beginning and end of each maintenance period during which the tank is subject to § 63.7925(b)(3).
(e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
30. Section 63.7956 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the EPA required by this subpart.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation (including any operating limit), or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation, (including any operating limit), or work practice standard in this subpart regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
As stated in § 63.7940, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table: