Anda di halaman 1dari 26

Wednesday,

June 14, 2006

Part II

Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic
Hazardous Air Pollutants From the
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34422 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and would satisfy the requirements of submit an electronic comment, EPA
AGENCY section 112(d)(6). Under this option, we recommends that you include your
are proposing that the compliance name and other contact information in
40 CFR Part 63 deadlines for additional promulgated the body of your comment with a disk
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0475; FRL–8181–3] requirements would be one to three or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot
years from the date of promulgation. read your comment due to technical
RIN 2060–AK14 DATES: Comments. Written comments difficulties and cannot contact you for
must be received on or before August clarification, EPA may not be able to
National Emission Standards for consider your comment. Electronic files
14, 2006.
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Organic should avoid the use of special
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
Hazardous Air Pollutants From the characters, any form of encryption, and
EPA by July 5, 2006 requesting to speak
Synthetic Organic Chemical be free of any defects or viruses.
at a public hearing, a public hearing will
Manufacturing Industry
be held on July 14, 2006. Docket: All documents in the docket
AGENCY: Environmental Protection ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, are listed in the http://
Agency (EPA). identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– www.regulations.gov index. Although
ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. OAR–2005–0475, by one of the listed in the index, some information is
following methods: not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
SUMMARY: In 1994, EPA promulgated • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// information whose disclosure is
National Emission Standards for www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line restricted by statute. Certain other
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for instructions for submitting comments. material, such as copyrighted material,
the synthetic organic chemical • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. will be publicly available only in hard
manufacturing industry (SOCMI). This • Fax: (202) 566–1741. copy. Publicly available docket
rule is commonly known as the • Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation materials are available either
hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) and Docket, Environmental Protection electronically in http://
established maximum achievable Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
control technology (MACT) standards to NW., Room B–108, Washington, DC the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC,
regulate the emissions of organic 20014. Such deliveries are accepted EPA West, Room B102, 1301
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from only during the Docket’s normal hours Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
production processes that are located at of operation and special arrangements DC. The Public Reading Room is open
major sources. should be made for deliveries of boxed from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
The Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA information. through Friday, excluding legal
to assess the risk remaining (residual • Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), holidays. The telephone number for the
risk) after the application of the MACT Environmental Protection Agency, Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
standards and to promulgate additional Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania and the telephone number for the Air
standards if required to provide an Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1742.
ample margin of safety to protect public Please include a total of two copies. Public Hearing: If a public hearing is
health or prevent adverse environmental We request that a separate copy also be held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the
effect. The CAA also requires us to sent to the contact person identified Environmental Research Center
review and revise MACT standards, as below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
necessary, every eight years, taking into CONTACT). NC, or at an alternate site nearby.
account developments in practices, Instructions: Direct your comments to
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
processes, and control technologies that Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–
questions about the proposed rule,
have occurred during that time. 0475. EPA’s policy is that all comments
contact Mr. Randy McDonald, EPA,
Based on our findings from the received will be included in the public
Office of Air Quality Planning and
residual risk and technology review, we docket without change and may be Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
are proposing two options (to be made available online at http:// Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group
considered with equal weight) for www.regulations.gov including any (E143–01), Research Triangle Park, NC
emissions standards for new and personal information provided, unless 27711; telephone number (919) 541–
existing SOCMI process units. The first the comment includes information 5402; fax number (919) 541–0246; e-
proposed option would impose no claimed to be Confidential Business mail address: mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.
further controls, proposing to find that Information (CBI) or other information
For questions on the residual risk
the existing standards protect public whose disclosure is restricted by statute. analysis, contact Mr. Mark Morris, EPA,
health with an ample margin of safety Do not submit information that you Office of Air Quality Planning and
and prevent adverse environmental consider to be CBI or otherwise
Standards, Health and Environmental
impacts, as required by section 112(f)(2) protected through http://
Impacts Division, Sector Based
of the CAA and would satisfy the www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The Assessment Group (C404–01), Research
requirements of section 112(d)(6). The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone
second proposed option would provide an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which number (919) 541–5416; fax number
further reductions of organic HAP at means EPA will not know your identity (919) 541–0840; e-mail address:
certain process units by applying or contact information unless you morris.mark@epa.gov.
additional controls for equipment leaks provide it in the body of your comment.
and by controlling some storage vessels If you send an e-mail comment directly SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

and process vents that are uncontrolled to EPA without going through http:// Entities. Categories and entities
under the current rule. This option www.regulations.gov, your e-mail potentially regulated by the proposed
would also protect public health with address will be automatically captured rule are SOCMI facilities that are major
an ample margin of safety and prevent and included as part of the comment sources of HAP emissions. The
adverse environmental impacts, as that is placed in the public docket and proposed rule would affect the
required by section 112(f)(2) of the CAA made available on the Internet. If you following categories of sources:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34423

Example of of the proposed rule will be posted on a rate of 10 tons or more per year or any
NAICS 1
Category code potentially regulated the TTN’s policy and guidance page for combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons
entities newly proposed or promulgated rules at or more per year, these technology-
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN based standards must reflect the
Industry ... 325 Chemical manufac-
turing facilities.
provides information and technology maximum reductions of HAP achievable
exchange in various areas of air (after considering cost, energy
1 North American Industrial Classification
pollution control. requirements, and non-air health and
Code. Organization of this Document. The environmental impacts) and are
This table is not intended to be information presented in this preamble commonly referred to as MACT
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide is organized as follows: standards. We published the MACT
for readers regarding entities likely to be I. Background standards for SOCMI on April 22, 1994
regulated by the proposed rule. To A. What is the statutory authority for at 59 FR 19402 (codified at 40 CFR part
determine whether your facility would regulating hazardous air pollutants? 63, subparts F, G, and H). The EPA is
be regulated by the proposed rule, you B. What are SOCMI facilities? then required to review these
should carefully examine the C. What are the health effects of HAP
technology-based standards and to
emitted from SOCMI facilities?
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.100 D. What does the HON require? revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into
of the rule. If you have any questions II. Summary of Proposed Revised Standards account developments in practices,
regarding the applicability of the III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule processes and control technologies)’’ no
proposed rule to a particular entity, A. What is our approach for developing less frequently than every eight years,
contact the person listed in the residual risk standards? under CAA section 112(d)(6).
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION B. How did we estimate residual risk?
C. What are the residual risks from HON The second stage in standard-setting
CONTACT section.
CMPUs? is described in CAA section 112(f). This
Submitting CBI. Do not submit this D. What is our proposed decision on provision requires, first, that EPA
information to EPA through http:// acceptable risk? prepare a Report to Congress discussing
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly E. What is our proposed decision on ample (among other things) methods of
mark the part or all of the information margin of safety? calculating risk posed (or potentially
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI F. What is EPA proposing pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6)? posed) by sources after implementation
information on a disk or CD–ROM that of the MACT standards, the public
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the IV. Solicitation of Public Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation health significance of those risks, the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then B. Specific Comment and Data means and costs of controlling them,
identify electronically within the disk or Solicitations actual health effects to persons in
CD–ROM the specific information that V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews proximity to emitting sources, and
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
recommendations as to legislation
complete version of the comment that Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act regarding such remaining risk. The EPA
includes information claimed as CBI, a
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act prepared and submitted this report
copy of the comment that does not
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA–
contain the information claimed as CBI
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 453/R–99–001) in March 1999. The
must be submitted for inclusion in the F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Congress did not act on any of the
public docket. Information so marked and Coordination with Indian Tribal recommendations in the report, thereby
will not be disclosed except in Governments
accordance with procedures set forth in triggering the second stage of the
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
40 CFR part 2. Children From Environmental Health
standard-setting process, the residual
Public Hearing. Persons interested in and Safety Risks risk phase.
presenting oral testimony or inquiring H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Section 112(f)(2) requires us to
as to whether a hearing is to be held Concerning Regulations That determine for source categories subject
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, to certain section 112(d) standards
should contact Randy McDonald, Distribution, or Use
Coatings and Chemicals Group, Sector I. National Technology Transfer whether the emissions limitations
Policies and Programs Division (Mail Advancement Act protect public health with an ample
Code C504–04), U.S. EPA, Research J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions margin of safety. If the MACT standards
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, to Address Environmental Justice in for HAP ‘‘classified as a known,
telephone number (919) 541–5402, Minority Populations and Low-Income probable, or possible human carcinogen
electronic mail address Populations do not reduce lifetime excess cancer
mcdonald.randy@epa.gov, at least two I. Background risks to the individual most exposed to
days in advance of the potential date of emissions from a source in the category
the public hearing. Persons interested in A. What is the statutory authority for or subcategory to less than 1-in-1
attending the public hearing also must regulating hazardous air pollutants? million,’’ EPA must promulgate residual
call Mr. Randy McDonald to verify the Section 112 of the CAA establishes a risk standards for the source category (or
time, date, and location of the hearing. two-stage regulatory process to address subcategory) as necessary to provide an
A public hearing will provide interested emissions of HAP from stationary ample margin of safety to protect public
parties the opportunity to present data, sources. In the first stage, after EPA has health. The EPA must also adopt more
views, or arguments concerning the identified categories of sources emitting stringent standards if necessary to
proposed amendments. one or more of the HAP listed in section prevent adverse environmental effect
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) calls (defined in section 112(a)(7) as ‘‘any
to being available in the docket, an for us to promulgate national significant and widespread adverse
electronic copy of the proposed rule is performance or technology-based effect * * * to wildlife, aquatic life, or
also available on the WWW through the emission standards for those sources. natural resources * * *.’’), but must
Technology Transfer Network Web site For ‘‘major sources’’ that emit or have consider cost, energy, safety, and other
(TTN Web). Following signature, a copy the potential to emit any single HAP at relevant factors in doing so.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34424 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

B. What are SOCMI facilities? Enforcement and Compliance include distillation operations. The
The SOCMI is a segment of the Assurance, EPA Regional Offices, and HON applies only to process vents that
chemical manufacturing industry that the American Chemistry Council (ACC). are associated with continuous (non-
The five kinds of HAP emission batch) air oxidation, other reactor
includes the production of many high-
points that are currently regulated by processes, or distillation unit operations
volume organic chemicals. The products
the HON are storage vessels, process within a SOCMI process unit.
of SOCMI are derived from
vents, wastewater collection and
approximately 10 petrochemical 3. Process Wastewater
treatment operations, transfer
feedstocks. Of the hundreds of organic For some synthetic organic chemicals,
operations, and equipment leaks. Each
chemicals that are produced by the the manufacturing process generates
emission source type is briefly
SOCMI, some are final products and wastewater streams that contain HAP.
described below.
some are the feedstocks for production Sources of wastewater include: Water
of other non-SOCMI chemicals or 1. Storage Vessels
formed during the chemical reaction or
synthetic products such as plastics, Storage vessels contain chemical raw used as a reactant in a process; water
fibers, surfactants, pharmaceuticals, materials, products, and co-products. used to wash impurities from organic
synthetic rubber, dyes, and pesticides. Different types of vessels are used to products or reactants; water used to cool
Production of such non-SOCMI end store various types of chemicals. Gases organic vapor streams; and condensed
products is not considered to be part of (chemicals with vapor pressures greater steam from vacuum vessels containing
SOCMI production and, as a result, the than 14.7 pounds per square inch organics. Organic compounds in the
current MACT standards do not (and the absolute (psia)) are stored in pressurized wastewater can volatilize and be
proposed standards would not) apply to vessels that are not vented to the emitted to the atmosphere from
downstream synthetic products atmosphere during normal operations. wastewater collection and treatment
industries, such as rubber production or Liquids (chemicals with vapor pressures units if these units are open or vented
polymers production, that use of 14.7 psia or less) are stored in to the atmosphere. Potential sources of
chemicals produced by SOCMI horizontal, fixed roof, or floating roof HAP emissions associated with
processes. tanks, depending on chemical wastewater collection and treatment
The HON currently applies to properties and volumes to be stored. systems include drains, manholes,
chemical manufacturing process units Liquids with vapor pressures greater trenches, surface impoundments, oil/
(CMPUs) that: (1) Are part of a major than 11 psia are typically stored in fixed water separators, storage and treatment
source as defined in CAA section 112; roof tanks that are vented to a control tanks, junction boxes, sumps, basins,
(2) produce as a primary product a device. Volatile chemicals with vapor and biological treatment systems.
SOCMI chemical listed in table 1 of 40 pressures up to 11 psia are usually
CFR part 63, subpart F; and (3) use as stored in floating roof tanks because 4. Transfer Operations
a reactant or manufacture as a product, such vessels have lower emission rates Synthetic organic chemical products
by-product, or co-product one or more than fixed roof tanks within this vapor are often transported by railcars or tank
of the organic HAP listed in table 2 of pressure range. trucks. Chemicals are transferred to
40 CFR part 63, subpart F. Emissions from storage vessels these vehicles through a loading rack,
The HON defines a CMPU as the typically occur as working losses. As a which can have multiple loading arms
equipment assembled and connected by storage vessel is filled with chemicals, for connection to several transport
pipes or ducts to process raw materials HAP-laden vapors inside the tank vehicles. Emissions can occur during
and to manufacture an intended become displaced and can be emitted to loading operations when residual
product. For purposes of the HON, a the atmosphere. Also, diurnal vapors in transport vehicles and transfer
CMPU includes air oxidation reactors temperature changes result in breathing piping are displaced by chemicals being
and their associated product separators losses of organic HAP-laden vapors from loaded.
and recovery devices; reactors and their storage vessels.
associated product separators and 5. Equipment Leaks
recovery devices; distillation units and 2. Process Vents
Equipment leaks are fugitive releases
their associated distillate receivers and Many unit operations at SOCMI of process fluid or vapor from process
recovery devices; associated unit facilities generate gaseous streams that equipment. These releases occur
operations; and any feed, intermediate contain HAP. These streams may be primarily at the interface between
and product storage vessels, product routed to other unit operations for connected components of equipment.
transfer racks, and connected ducts and additional processing (i.e., a gas stream The basic equipment components that
piping. A CMPU includes pumps, from a reactor that is routed to a are prone to develop leaks include
compressors, agitators, pressure relief distillation unit for separation) or may pumps, compressors, process valves,
devices, sampling connection systems, be vented to the atmosphere. Process pressure relief devices, open-ended
open-ended valves or lines, valves, vents emit gasses to the atmosphere, lines, sampling connections, flanges and
connectors, instrumentation systems, either directly or after passing through other connectors, agitators, product
and control devices or systems. recovery and/or control devices. The accumulator vessels, and
A SOCMI plant site can have several primary unit operations in a SOCMI instrumentation systems.
CMPUs, which could produce totally unit from which process vents originate
separate and non-related products. In are reactor and air oxidation process C. What are the health effects of HAP
the background information document units, and from the associated product emitted from SOCMI facilities?
for the HON, it was estimated that there recovery and product purification Of the 131 organic HAP regulated by
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

were 729 CMPUs nationwide. Two devices. Product recovery devices the HON (table 2 to subpart F of part
hundred thirty-eight facilities have been include condensers, absorbers, and 63), EPA lists four as known
identified as subject to the HON. These adsorbers used to recover products or carcinogens, 33 as probable carcinogens,
HON facilities were identified after co-products for use in a subsequent and 15 as possible carcinogens. The
extensive review of facility lists process, for use as recycle feed, or for EPA classified agents as carcinogens
compiled by the EPA’s Office of sale. Product purification devices based on the weight of evidence in long-

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34425

term human studies of the association D. What does the HON require? 3. Process Wastewater
between cancer incidence and exposure The HON was proposed December 31, The HON requires that Group 1
to the agent and in animal studies 1992 (57 FR 62608), and the final rule wastewater streams be treated to reduce
conducted under controlled laboratory was published April 22, 1994 (59 FR the HAP mass in the streams. Group 1
conditions. After evaluating the 19402). Subsequently, several revisions wastewater streams are streams that
evidence, the agents were placed into to the rule have been issued: the first meet one of several minimum flow and
one of the following five categories: A— HAP concentration criteria in the rule.
dated September 20, 1994 (59 FR 48175)
human carcinogen, B—probable human The required mass removals are HAP-
and the last dated December 23, 2004
carcinogen, C—possible human specific and range from 31 percent (e.g.,
(69 FR 76859).
carcinogen, D—not classifiable as to for methanol) to 99 percent (e.g., for
The HON regulates organic HAP
human carcinogenicity, and E— benzene). Emissions from collection and
emissions from five types of emission
evidence of noncarcinogenicity for management units must be suppressed
points: Storage vessels, process vents,
humans. Category B is divided into two from the point of generation to the
wastewater collection and treatment
subcategories: B1—indicates limited treatment device. Air emissions from
systems, transfer operations, and
human evidence and B2—indicates treatment systems (except for open
equipment leaks. For storage vessels,
sufficient evidence in animals and biological treatment systems which have
inadequate or no evidence in humans. process vents, process wastewater
streams, and transfer operations, the different requirements) must be
With the March 2005 publication of collected in a closed vent system and
revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk HON establishes applicability criteria to
distinguish between Group 1 emission conveyed to a control device that
Assessment, EPA no longer uses the reduces HAP emissions by 95 percent
‘‘known, possible, probable’’ points and Group 2 emission points.
Controls are required only for emission (or achieves an outlet concentration of
nomenclature for classifying the weight 20 ppmv or less for combustion
of evidence for carcinogenicity of points meeting the Group 1 criteria.
Group 2 emission points are subject to devices).
chemical compounds. Instead, EPA
provides narrative descriptions of the recordkeeping requirements only. 4. Transfer Operations
weight of evidence for carcinogenicity, Before implementation of the HON, total
The HON requires control of Group 1
as well as the classifications HAP emissions were estimated to be
transfer racks to achieve a 98 percent
‘‘carcinogenic to humans,’’ ‘‘likely to be 570,000 tons per year (tpy). We
reduction of organic HAP or an outlet
carcinogenic,’’ ‘‘suggestive evidence of estimated that after implementation of
concentration of 20 ppmv.
carcinogenic potential,’’ ‘‘inadequate the HON, total HAP emissions would be
Alternatively, facilities can use vapor
information,’’ and ‘‘not likely.’’ In time, 66,000 tpy.
balancing systems. A Group 1 transfer
the older classification scheme The HON provides many different rack is a transfer rack that annually
described above will be replaced. control options, but the primary control loads greater than or equal to 0.17
The International Agency for Research requirements are summarized below. million gallons of liquid products that
on Cancer (IARC) also classifies 1. Storage Vessels contain organic HAP with a rack
carcinogens based on the ‘‘strength of weighted average vapor pressure greater
the evidence for carcinogenicity arising The HON requires that Group 1
than or equal to 1.5 psia.
from human and experimental animal vessels be equipped and operated with
data.’’ There are four groups under the an internal or an external floating roof, 5. Equipment Leaks
IARC classification system: Group 1— or reduce organic HAP emissions by at The HON requires equipment and
the agent is carcinogenic to humans, least 95 percent. A Group 1 vessel has work practice standards (in the form of
Group 2A—the agent is probably a capacity greater than or equal to a leak detection and repair program) to
carcinogenic to humans, Group 2B—the 40,000 gallons and contains a HAP with reduce equipment leak emissions. The
agent is possibly carcinogenic to a vapor pressure greater than or equal to equipment leak provisions apply to all
humans, Group 3—the agent is not 0.75 psia. A vessel is also Group 1 if it equipment components that are
classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to has a capacity greater than or equal to associated with a process subject to the
humans, and Group 4—the agent is 20,000 gallons and less than 40,000 HON and that are in organic HAP
probably not carcinogenic to humans. gallons and contains a HAP with a service for 300 hours per year or more.
Of the 51 HON HAP classified by IARC, vapor pressure greater than or equal to The HON requires valves to be
four are Group 1, 33 are Group 2, and 1.9 psia. monitored once per month (or
14 are Group 3. 2. Process Vents implementation of a quality
Additionally, many of the HAP improvement program) at each process
regulated by the HON may result in The HON requires that the organic unit with two percent or greater leaking
noncarcinogenic effects at sufficient HAP emissions from Group 1 process valves. The monitoring frequency may
exposures. There is a wide range of vent streams be reduced by at least 98 be decreased as the percentage of
effects due to chronic exposures to HON percent by weight or achieve an outlet leakers decreases or if the equipment
HAP, such as the degeneration of concentration of 20 parts per million by leaks standards are met over
olfactory epithelium, peripheral nervous volume (ppmv) or less. A Group 1 consecutive periods.
system dysfunction, and developmental process vent stream has a total organic
toxicity. Effects from acute exposures HAP concentration of greater than or II. Summary of Proposed Revised
range from mild to severe, and include equal to 50 ppmv and a total resource Standards
skin, eye, and respiratory system effectiveness (TRE) of less than or equal This proposal provides two options
irritation. More detail on the health to 1.0. Facilities also have the option of that we expect to choose between for
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

effects of individual HON HAP may be sending the process vent to a flare or revising the HON rule. The first option
found in numerous sources, including maintaining a TRE index greater than is to retain the current HON rule. The
http://www.epa.gov/iris.html, http:// 1.0. The TRE index is a measure of how second option is to revise subparts F, G,
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html, and costly a particular process vent is to and H to require more stringent
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/acute_rels/ control (the higher the TRE index, the standards for process vents, storage
index.html. more costly the control). vessels, and equipment leaks that emit

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34426 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

or store certain HAP. As explained revise applicability criteria to require storage vessels and process vents would
below, we propose that either option currently uncontrolled storage vessels continue to apply. After the rule
would meet the requirements of both and process vents to control emissions, becomes effective, an additional
section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). Their nor would we reduce the percentage of criterion would be added. The
difference results from how we weigh leaking valves. additional criterion would apply only to
certain risk factors (specifically, emission points that emit maleic
B. Summary of Option 2
maximum individual lifetime cancer anhydride, methyl bromide, acrolein,
risk versus cancer incidence, and their Under this option, the control
and any HAP for which inhalation
relative relationship to costs) within our requirements of 40 CFR subpart G
cancer unit risk estimates (UREs) have
determination of what is necessary to would remain the same as under the
current rule, but the applicability been developed.1 A list of these HAP is
protect public health with an ample
criteria for Group 1 storage vessels and given in proposed table 38 of 40 CFR,
margin of safety under section 112(f)(2),
process vents would be revised so that part 63, subpart G. This list may be
and of what changes are necessary
under section 112(d)(6). additional emission points would be amended over time as more information
required to control emissions. For indicates that some HAP should be
A. Summary of Option 1 equipment leaks, the first option would added or removed.
Under this option, the control reduce, in subpart H, the percentage of The proposed changes to the
requirements of 40 CFR subpart F, G, leaking valves. standards, based on the second control
and H would remain the same as under The existing applicability criteria for option, are summarized below:
the current rule, and we would not equipment leaks and Group 1 criteria for

Emission source Proposed changes to standards (Option 2)

Storage vessels .................... A group 1 storage vessel means a Group 1 storage vessel as currently defined in § 63.111 to subpart G of part
63. On or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a group 1 storage
vessel also includes storage vessels that store one or more HAP listed in table 38 to subpart G of part 63, and
have a combined HAP emission rate greater than 4.54 megagrams per year (5.0 tons HAP per year) on a roll-
ing 12-month average.
Process vents ....................... A group 1 process vent means a Group 1 process vent as currently defined in § 63.111 to subpart G of part 63.
On or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a group 1 process vent
also includes process vents for which the vent stream emits one or more HAP listed in table 38 to subpart G of
part 63, and the TRE index value is less than or equal to 4.0.
Equipment leaks ................... For CMPUs containing at least one HAP listed in table 38 to subpart G of part 63, on or after [DATE THE FINAL
RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], monthly monitoring of equipment components is re-
quired until the process unit has fewer than 0.5 percent leaking valves in gas/vapor service and in light liquid
service.

For storage vessels, emissions would 112(f)(4) that in certain respects are Under sections 112(e)(10) and 112(f)(3),
be computed using the procedures in redundant or conflict with the new any section 112(d)(6) emission
§ 63.150. Group 2 storage vessels that compliance deadline provisions. These standards and any residual risk
contain table 38 HAP would be required provisions also fail to accommodate the emission standards shall become
to maintain records of rolling 12-month new State-administered air operating effective upon promulgation. This
average HAP emissions. For equipment permit program added in title V of the means generally that a new source that
leaks, the frequency of monitoring could amended CAA. is constructed or reconstructed after this
be reduced to quarterly, semi-annually, For new sources, section 112(i)(1) proposed rule is published must comply
and annually if successive monitoring requires that after the effective date of with the final standard, when
periods show that facilities are able to ‘‘any emission standard, limitation, or promulgated, immediately upon the
maintain less than 0.5 percent leakers. regulation under subsection (d), (f) or rule’s effective date or upon the source’s
Monthly monitoring would be required (h), no person may construct any new start-up date, whichever is later.
if the percent leakers exceeds 0.5 major source or reconstruct any existing
percent. major source subject to such emission There are some exceptions to this
Under Option 2, we are also standard, regulation or limitation unless general rule. First, section 112(i)(7)
proposing compliance dates for sources the Administrator (or State with a provides that a source for which
subject to the proposed revised permit program approved under title V) construction or reconstruction is
standards pursuant to section 112(i) of determines that such source, if properly commenced after the date an emission
the CAA. When Congress amended the constructed, reconstructed and standard is proposed pursuant to
CAA in 1990, it established a new, operated, will comply with the subsection (d) but before the date a
comprehensive set of provisions standard, regulation or limitation.’’ revised emission standard is proposed
regarding compliance deadlines for Section 112(a)(4) defines a ‘‘new under subsection (f) shall not be
sources subject to emissions standards source’’ as ‘‘a stationary source the required to comply with the revised
and work practice requirements that construction or reconstruction of which standard until 10 years after the date
EPA promulgates under section 112. is commenced after the Administrator construction or reconstruction
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

However, as discussed later in this first proposes regulations under this commenced. This provision ensures that
section of this preamble, Congress also section establishing an emission new sources that are built in compliance
left in place other provisions in section standard applicable to such sources.’’ with MACT will not be forced to
1 The URE is the upper-bound excess lifetime microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) in air. For to develop per 1,000,000 people if exposed daily for
cancer risk estimated to result from continuous example, if a URE of 1.5 × 10¥6 per µg/m3 is a lifetime to 1 ug of the chemical in 1 cubic meter
exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 reported, then 1.5 excess cancer cases are expected of air.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34427

undergo modifications to comply with a the enacted CAA also included compliance deadlines for section 112
residual risk rule unreasonably early. provisions in section 112(f), leftover rules in several respects. First, the 90-
In addition, sections 112(i)(2)(A) and from the previous version of the Act, day compliance deadline for existing
(B) provide that a new source which that apply compliance deadlines for sources in section 112(f)(4)(A) directly
commences construction or sources subject to residual risk rules. conflicts with the up-to-3-year deadline
reconstruction after a standard is These deadlines differ in some ways in section 112(i)(3)(A) allowed for
proposed, and before the standard is from the provisions of section 112(i). existing sources subject to ‘‘any’’ rule
promulgated, shall not be required to First, section 112(f)(4) provides that no under section 112. Second, the section
comply with the promulgated standard air pollutant to which a standard ‘‘under 112(f)(4)(A) deadline results in
until three years after the rule’s effective this subsection applies may be emitted providing a shorter deadline for
date, if the promulgated standard is from any stationary source in violation ordinary existing sources to comply
more stringent than the proposed of such standard * * *’’ For new with residual risk standards than would
standard and the source complies with sources, this is a redundant provision, apply under section 112(i)(2) to new
the proposed standard during the three- since the new provisions added by sources that are built after a residual
year period immediately after Congress in sections 112(i)(1), (2), (3), risk standard is proposed but a more
promulgation. This provision essentially and (7)—which explicitly reach stringent version is promulgated. Third,
treats such new sources as if they are standards established under section while both section 112(i)(1), for new
existing sources in giving them a 112(f)—already impose this prohibition sources subject to any section 112(d), (f),
consistent amount of time to convert with respect to new sources and provide or (h) standard, and section 112(i)(3), for
their operations to comply with the for the allowable exceptions to it. In existing sources subject to any section
more stringent final rule after having contrast, for new sources, the 112(d) standard, refer to and rely upon
already been designed and built prohibition in section 112(f)(4) provides the new title V permit program added in
according to the proposed rule. for no exception for a new source built 1990 and explicitly provide for State
For existing sources, section shortly before a residual risk standard is permitting authorities to make relevant
112(i)(3)(A) provides that after the proposed, makes no reference to the decisions regarding compliance and the
effective date of ‘‘any emission new title V program as an need for any compliance extensions,
standard, limitation or regulation implementation mechanism, and, where section 112(f)(4)(B) still reflects the pre-
promulgated under this section and promulgated standards are more 1990 statutory scheme in which only
applicable to a source, no person may stringent than their proposed versions, the Administrator is referred to as a
operate such source in violation of such makes no effort to align compliance decision-making entity, notwithstanding
standard, limitation or regulation deadlines for new sources with those the fact that even residual risk standards
except, in the case of an existing source, that apply for existing sources. From the under section 112(f) are likely to be
the Administrator shall establish a
plain language of section 112(i), it is delegated to States for their
compliance date or dates * * * which
clear that Congress intended in the 1990 implementation, and will be reflected in
shall provide for compliance as
amendments to comprehensively sources’ title V permits and need to rely
expeditiously as practicable, but in no
address the compliance deadlines for upon the title V permit process for
event later than 3 years after the
new sources subject to any standard memorializing any compliance
effective date of such standard[.]’’ This
under either subsections 112(d), (f), or extensions for those standards.
potential 3-year compliance period for
(h), and to do so in a way that While we appreciate the fact that
existing sources under section 112(i)(3)
accommodates both the new title V section 112(i)(3)(B) refers specifically
matches the 3-year compliance period
program added in 1990 and the fact that only to standards under subsection
provided for new sources subject to
section 112(d), (f), or (h) standards that where circumstances justify treating a 112(d), which some might argue means
are promulgated to be more stringent new source as if it were an existing that subsection 112(i)(3), in general,
than they were proposed, as provided in source, a substantially longer applies only to existing sources subject
sections 112(i)(1) and (2). compliance period than would to section 112(d) standards, we believe
As for new sources, there are otherwise apply is necessary and that Congress inadvertently limited its
exceptions to the general rule for appropriate. It is equally clear that the scope and created a statutory conflict in
existing sources under section 112(i)(3), language in section 112(f)(4) fails on all need of our resolution. Notwithstanding
the most relevant being section these fronts for new sources. the language of subparagraph (B),
112(i)(3)(B) allowance that EPA or a In addition, for existing sources, section 112(i)(3)(A) by its terms applies
State title V permitting authority may section 112(f)(4)(A) provides that a to ‘‘any’’ standard promulgated under
issue a permit granting a source an residual risk standard and the ‘‘section’’ 112, which includes those
additional one year to comply with prohibition against emitting HAP in under subsection 112(f), in allowing up
standards ‘‘under subsection (d)’’ if such violation thereof ‘‘shall not apply until to a three year compliance period for
additional period is necessary for the 90 days after its effective date[.]’’ existing sources. Moreover, Congress
installation of controls. As explained However, section 112(f)(4)(B) states that clearly intended the section 112(i)
below, EPA now believes that this EPA ‘‘may grant a waiver permitting provisions applicable to new sources to
reference to only subsection 112(d), such source a period up to two years govern compliance deadlines under
rather than to section 112 in general, after the effective date of a standard to section 112(f) rules, notwithstanding the
was accidental on Congress’ part and comply with the standard if the language of section 112(f)(4). This is
presents a conflict with the rest of the Administrator finds that such period is because sections 112(i)(1) and (2)
statutory scheme Congress enacted in necessary for the installation of controls explicitly reach standards under section
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

1990 to govern compliance deadlines and that steps will be taken during the 112(f). To read section 112(i)(3)(B)
under the amended section 112. period of the waiver to assure that the literally as reaching only section 112(d)
Even though, in 1990, Congress health of persons will be protected from standards, with section 112(f)(4)(B)
amended section 112 to include the imminent endangerment.’’ These reaching section 112(f) standards, leaves
comprehensive provisions in subsection provisions are at odds with the rest of the question as to whether there can be
112(i) regarding compliance deadlines, the statutory scheme governing compliance extensions for section

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34428 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

112(h) standards completely III. Rationale for the Proposed Rule a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be
unaddressed by the statute, even though an important measure of the health risk
A. What is our approach for developing
it may in fact be necessary in complying to the exposed population. Incidence
residual risk standards?
with a section 112(h) work practice measures the extent of health risk to the
standard to install equipment or Following our initial determination exposed population as a whole, by
controls. A narrow reading of the scope that the individual most exposed to providing an estimate of the occurrence
of section 112(i)(3) also ignores the fact emissions from the category considered of cancer or other serious health effects
that in many cases, including that of exceeds a 1-in-1 million individual in the exposed population.’’ The Agency
this proposed rule, the governing lifetime cancer risk, our approach to went on to conclude that ‘‘estimated
statutory authority will be both section developing residual risk standards is incidence would be weighed along with
112(f)(2) and section 112(d)(6)—the only based on a two-step determination of other health risk information in judging
reasonable way to avoid a conflict in acceptable risk and ample margin of acceptability.2’’ As explained more fully
provisions controlling compliance safety. The first step is the consideration in our Residual Risk Report to Congress,
deadlines for existing sources in these of acceptable risk. The second step EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line[s] of
situations is to read the more specific determines an ample margin of safety to acceptability,’’ but considers rather
and comprehensive set of provisions, protect public health, which is the level broad objectives to be weighed with a
those of section 112(i), as governing at which the standards are set (unless a series of other health measures and
both aspects of the regulation. more stringent standard is required to factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11).
Nothing in the legislative history prevent adverse environmental effect
suggests that Congress knowingly after the consideration of costs, energy, B. How did we estimate residual risk?
intended to enact separate schemes for safety, and other relevant factors). The Residual Risk Report to Congress
compliance deadlines for residual risk The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ provides the general framework for
standards and all other standards ‘‘acceptable level,’’ and ‘‘ample margin conducting risk assessments to support
adopted under section 112. Rather, of safety’’ are not specifically defined in decisions made under the residual risk
comparing the competing Senate and the CAA. However, CAA section program. As acknowledged by the
House Bills shows that each bill 112(f)(2)(B) refers positively to the report, the design of each risk
contained its own general and/or interpretation of these terms in our 1989 assessment would have some common
specific versions of compliance rulemaking (54 FR 38044, September 14, elements, including a problem
deadline provisions, and that when the 1989), ‘‘National Emission Standards for formulation phase, an analysis phase,
bills were reconciled in conference the Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene and the risk characterization phase.
two schemes were both accidentally Emissions from Maleic Anhydride The primary risk assessment for the
enacted, without fully modifying the Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, SOCMI source category focused on
various compliance deadline provisions Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene inhalation exposures, both chronic and
in accord with the modifications Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product acute, to HAP emissions from CMPUs
otherwise made to the section 112 Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP),’’ that are subject to the HON. The
amendments in conference. essentially directing us to use the primary risk assessment was reviewed
We recognize that our existing interpretation set out in that notice. See by Agency scientists before being used
regulations in the part 63 General also ‘‘A Legislative History of the Clean for this proposed rulemaking. The
Provisions currently reflect the dual Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ volume emissions estimates used in the primary
scheme presented by sections 112(f)(4) 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on Conference risk assessment represented actual
and 112(i) (See 40 CFR 63.6(c)(2), Report). We notified Congress in a emissions that remain after the
63.6(i)(4)(ii)). In the near future, we report on residual risk that we intended application of MACT, not emissions at
intend to revise those regulations to to utilize the Benzene NESHAP the rate allowed by the HON
comport with our interpretation, as approach in making CAA section 112(f) requirements (‘‘allowable’’ emissions)
explained above, to avoid confusion and residual risk determinations (see that may be higher than actual
situations where a rule incorporates Residual Risk Report to Congress, March emissions. Some of the emission points
those provisions by reference such that 1999, EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). subject to the HON may be controlled to
compliance deadlines are inconsistent In the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR a higher level than required by the rules
with our interpretation. In the 38044, September 14, 1989), we stated and some Group 2 points may be
meantime, notwithstanding the part 63 as an overall objective: * * * in controlled even though the rule does not
General Provisions, we are proposing a protecting public health with an ample require them to be. This may be due to
compliance deadline for existing margin of safety, we strive to provide some State or local rules that are more
sources, under Option 2, of three years maximum feasible protection against stringent than the HON, or because
for process vents and storage vessels risks to health from hazardous air some facilities may reduce emissions for
and one year for equipment leaks. The pollutants by (1) protecting the greatest reasons other than regulatory
proposed compliance deadline for number of persons possible to an requirements. This means that the
existing sources of three years for individual lifetime risk level no higher
process vents and storage vessels is than approximately 1-in-1 million; and 2 In the benzene decision, the Agency considered

realistic for any affected facility that has (2) limiting to no higher than the same risk measures in the ‘‘acceptability’’
analysis as in the ‘‘margin of safety’’ analysis,
to plan their control strategy, purchase approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., stating: ‘‘In the ample margin decision, the Agency
and install the control device(s), and 100-in-1 million] the estimated risk that again considers all of the health risk and other
bring the control device online. Less a person living near a facility would health information considered in the first step.
Beyond that information, additional factors relating
time is required for compliance with the have if he or she were exposed to the
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

to the appropriate level of control will also be


new equipment leak requirements, but maximum pollutant concentrations for considered, including costs and economic impacts
plants will have to identify affected 70 years.’’ of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties,
equipment and modify their existing The Agency also stated that, ‘‘The and any other relevant factors. Considering all of
these factors, the Agency will establish the standard
leak detection and repair program to EPA also considers incidence (the a level that provides an ample margin of safety to
meet the new requirements for number of persons estimated to suffer protect the public health, as required by section
monitoring frequency. cancer or other serious health effects as 112.’’

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34429

estimated risks based on allowable allowable emissions, we have no choice residual risk analysis is representative
emissions would be higher than the but to rely upon the best available of the CMPUs for the entire industry.
risks estimated using actual emissions. alternative information for assessing We recognize that the 1999 survey
For some HON emission points, we remaining risks after application of data have some uncertainties regarding
could estimate allowable emissions; for MACT, industry supplied actual the sources responding to a voluntary
others, it is nearly impossible. For emissions data. Uncertainty in the use data request and the emissions reported.
equipment leaks, because the standards of this data can be considered in the It is unclear the amount of bias that may
are work practice standards the actual selection of the standards as exist in the data and the extent to which
emissions and allowable emissions are appropriate. the 104 facilities in the survey are
likely the same for equipment in the Screening level assessments were also representative of the risks posed by the
leak detection and repair program conducted to examine human health remaining facilities (see section III.C.1.
required by the HON. More frequent and ecological risk due to multipathway of this preamble for additional
monitoring of equipment components exposure and to examine the risks from discussion). However, the 1999 survey
(for example, monthly instead of entire plant sites (i.e., HON CMPUs and data are still the most detailed and
quarterly) could result in actual other HAP-emitting processes). A full comprehensive data available, and we
emissions being lower than allowable discussion of the primary and screening conclude that the data are appropriate
emissions, but few, if any, sources level assessments is provided in the risk for use in conducting this residual risk
monitor more frequently than required characterization document in the public assessment. Uncertainty in the use of
by the HON. For wastewater and docket. this data can be considered in the
process vents, if a facility chooses to selection of the standards as
control an emission point (to the level 1. How did we estimate the atmospheric appropriate.
required in the HON), there is no dispersion of HAP emitted from HON Some inorganic HAP, such as
requirement to determine whether the CMPU sources? hydrochloric acid and chlorine, may be
point is actually required to be emitted from HON sources. However,
To estimate the dispersion of HAP
controlled. A requirement to determine these compounds were not considered
emitted from HON CMPUs for the
the applicability of controls for such in this risk assessment because data
inhalation and multipathway
emission points was intentionally not were not available to characterize
assessments, we used the Human
included in the HON because it was emissions of those HAP. The HON
Exposure Model, version 3 (HEM–3),
seen as an unnecessary burden for regulates emissions of organic HAP only
which incorporated the Industrial
points that would be controlled anyway. and the 1999 ACC data provided
Source Complex Short-term model,
Consequently, there are some emission information on organic HAP emissions
version 3 (ISCST–3). The ISCST3 only. As discussed below in III.B.4, an
points for which there is no readily
dispersion model is one of EPA’s additional analysis was conducted using
available data that can be used to
recommended models for assessing information in the National Emissions
determine the applicability of control
pollutant concentrations from industrial Inventory (NEI) to estimate the risk from
requirements. Without such data, there
facilities. The ISCST3 model handles a the entire plant site at which the HON
is no accurate way to determine
wide range of different source types that CMPU are located. The NEI information
allowable emissions under the current
may be associated with an industrial contained information on both organic
rule. In addition, HAP emissions from
source complex, including stack and inorganic HAP emitted from each
wastewater sources are likely controlled
to a greater extent than the rules require, sources, area sources, volume sources, facility. A comparison between the
but this overcontrol is impossible to and open pit sources. analyses using the two different data
estimate. Emissions from transfer Inputs to the HEM–3 include source sets showed that there were no cases
operations are small relative to the data to characterize the emissions from where the concentration of an inorganic
emissions from other points, with the facility, the emission sources at the HAP emitted from a HON CMPU
emissions from controlled points facility, and the location of the facility. exceeded its reference value. Therefore,
nationally accounting for less than one For the inhalation and multipathway we concluded that not including
percent of total HON HAP emissions. assessments, we used site-specific inorganic HAP in the primary risk
Given the small contribution to total information for the base year 1999 for assessment does not affect the results of
emissions from transfer operations, any 104 of the 238 existing HON facilities. the analysis and that no further
differences between actual and These data were collected by the ACC assessment of inorganic HAP emissions
allowable emissions would not be through a voluntary survey and is necessary.
significant relative to the total emissions provided to EPA. These data consisted
of organic HAP emissions from five 2. How did we assess public health risk
from all HON emission points.
types of emission points subject to the associated with HAP emitted from HON
While we acknowledge that there is
some uncertainty regarding the HON and included stack parameters, CMPUs?
differences between actual and emission rates, and location The primary tool used to estimate
allowable emissions, we believe that coordinates. Data were provided for 271 individual and population exposures in
there is neither a substantial amount of HON CMPUs in the 1999 data the inhalation and multipathway
overcontrol of Group 1 sources nor collection. When scaled to 238 HON assessments was the Human Exposure
control of Group 2 sources so that actual facilities, 732 HON CMPUs would be Model, Version 3 (HEM–3). The HEM–
emissions are a reasonable estimated for the industry. In the 3 incorporates the ISCST3 air dispersion
approximation of allowable emissions. background information for the HON, it model and 2000 Census data, along with
Basing this analysis on actual emissions was estimated that there were 729 HON HAP dose response and reference
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

provides an acceptable approach to CMPUs nationwide. The similarities in values, to estimate chronic and acute
determining the remaining risks to the structure of the industry indicate human health risks and population
public health and the environment after that the 1999 collected data provide a exposure. This model is considerably
application of the MACT standards. reasonable picture of post-compliance more sophisticated, and less
Indeed, in this case, given the emissions of organic HAP, and that the conservative, than tools traditionally
impossibility of definitively estimating process unit information used in the associated with scoping-type analyses

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34430 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

(such as use of the Human Exposure 3. How did we assess multipathway plant site. In addition, we were
Model, version 1.5). More information impacts of HAP emissions from HON interested in learning how well the
on HEM–3 is available from the HEM– CMPUs? HON CMPU data, available for
3 User’s Guide. The HON CMPUs at six of the 238 approximately half of the industry,
The HEM–3 performs detailed represented the entire industry.
facilities emit HAP that are of concern
analyses of acute and chronic air Therefore, an additional analysis was
for potential adverse health impacts
pollution risks for populations located conducted to estimate the risk from all
from pathways other than inhalation
near industrial emission sources. The HAP emitting processes at the entire
(e.g., soil or fish ingestion). These HAP
HEM–3 performs three main operations: plant site.
are often termed persistent
dispersion modeling, estimation of This analysis was conducted for 226
bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs). When
human health risks, and estimation of facilities where CMPUs subject to the
deposited into soil and water, PBT may
population exposure. In order to HON are located. The 1999 data
perform these calculations, HEM–3 be taken up by organisms and passed
along the food chain. The concentration submitted by the ACC that were used in
draws on three data libraries provided the CMPU analysis described in section
with the model: A library of of PBT in tissues can increase beyond
the concentration of the surrounding B.1 could not be used for this plant-
meteorological data for over 60 stations, level analysis because data were
a library of census block internal point environment from one link in a food
chain to another (i.e., bioaccumulation provided only on HON CMPUs.
locations, populations, and elevations to However, the 1999 NEI contained
provide the basis for human exposure and biomagnification). The
multipathway assessments estimated information on HAP emissions from the
calculations, and a library of pollutant entire facility and was used for the
unit risk factors and reference both human health and ecological
adverse impacts. Ecological impacts analysis (hereafter referred to as the NEI
concentrations used to calculate risks. Assessment). On the other hand, the NEI
In our assessment of public health increase with PBTs because plants and
wildlife are exposed to pollutants in data were not used for the primary risk
risk associated with HAP emitted from assessment because of the difficulty in
HON CMPUs, we considered risks of soil, water, and the food chain, in
addition to the air. apportioning emissions to only HON
cancer and other health effects. Cancer CMPUs.
risks associated with inhalation Modeling the fate and transport of the
PBTs through air, soil and the food The NEI Assessment considered only
exposure were assessed using lifetime chronic cancer and noncancer risk (not
cancer risk estimates (i.e., assuming 70 chain, and watersheds is a more
complex and uncertain task than acute risk) because focusing only on
years of exposure 24 hours a day for all chronic risk is adequate to compare the
individuals in a given location). The estimating air transport for the
inhalation pathway. Because of the risk posed by the HON CMPUs to the
noncancer risks were characterized risk posed by the entire plant site. Also,
through the use of hazard quotient (HQ) complexity and increased level of effort
in both time and resources and because without additional information, it
and hazard index (HI) estimates. The would be difficult to characterize short-
HQ and HI also assume continuous gas phase compounds emitted from
HON CMPUs are not transferred to other term emissions of sources that are not
lifetime exposures. An HQ compares an affected by the HON. Whereas the HON
estimated chemical intake (dose) with a media to any appreciable degree, we
conducted a simplified screening level CMPUs at a facility are typically
reference level below which adverse continuous and assumptions can be
health effects are unlikely to occur. approach to estimating media
concentrations of the PBTs. Due to the made about the temporal variability of
Within the context of inhalation risk, emissions, other processes may not be
EPA uses a ‘‘Reference Concentration wide variety of species of plants and
animals potentially exposed, we needed continuous and characterizing the short-
(RfC)’’. An RfC is an estimate (with term emissions would be difficult.
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order to simplify fate and transport inputs and
The HEM–3 model was used to
of magnitude) of a continuous methods through a health-protective,
estimate the maximum individual
inhalation exposure to the human screening level approach and screening
lifetime cancer risks and lifetime
population (including sensitive level dose-response values.
noncancer HI values estimated to result
subgroups) that is likely to be without Adverse impacts on individuals of the
from emissions at each of these
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects most sensitive species potentially
facilities. In addition, a brief analysis
during a lifetime. It can be derived from exposed for each exposure pathway and
was conducted to compare how the
a NOAEL, LOAEL, or benchmark HAP were first estimated to indicate
HON CMPUs contributed to the
concentration, with uncertainty factors whether there is a potential problem to
situations where there is substantial co-
generally applied to reflect limitations the ecosystem. If no adverse impacts to
location of SOCMI process units with
of the data used. An HQ is calculated as the most sensitive species are predicted,
other HAP-emitting processes
the ratio of the exposure concentration no adverse ecosystem impacts would be
of a pollutant to its health-based expected. If risks are estimated to C. What are the residual risks from HON
reference concentration. If the HQ is exceed a level of concern in the CMPUs?
calculated to be less than 1, then no screening assessment, more refined
adverse health effects are expected as a 1. Health Risks From Chronic Inhalation
inputs and modeling techniques would
result of the exposure. However, an HQ Exposure
be employed in further assessments.
exceeding 1 does not translate to a Table 1 of this preamble shows the
probability that adverse effects will 4. How did we assess risks for the entire estimated maximum individual lifetime
occur. Rather, it suggests the possibility plant site? cancer risk, maximum HI resulting from
that adverse health effects may occur. Due to the substantial co-location of lifetime exposure, population risk, and
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

An HI is the sum of HQ for pollutants HON CMPUs with other HAP-emitting cancer incidence associated with HON
that target the same organ or system. As processes, we also characterized how CMPUs at 104 of the 238 existing
with the HQ, values that are below 1.0 the risks resulting from emissions from facilities for which emissions data were
are considered to represent exposure HON CMPUs relate to the risks resulting available. The size of the population at
levels with no significant risk of adverse from emissions from all processes (HON risk and cancer incidence estimated to
health effects. and non-HON processes) at the entire be associated with HON CMPUs were

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34431

extrapolated to the entire source The maximum individual lifetime chronic noncancer effects, HON CMPUs
category of 238 existing facilities with cancer risk associated with any source at two facilities have a maximum
HON CMPUs using the ratio of 2.3 (238/ in the category is estimated to be respiratory HI that barely exceeds 1,
104). An inherent assumption in using approximately 100-in-1 million. This with only 20 people estimated to be
the simple 238/104 ratio is that the estimate characterizes the lifetime risk exposed to HI levels greater than 1. As
population densities around the plants of developing cancer for the individual noted earlier, even an HI of 1 does not
not assessed are similar to those of the facing the highest estimated exposure necessarily suggest a likelihood of
104 plants that were assessed. over a 70-year lifetime. With respect to adverse effects.

TABLE 1.—RISK ESTIMATES DUE TO HAP EXPOSURE BASED ON 70-YEAR EXPOSURE DURATION
Results
Results for 104 sur-
Parameter extrapolated to all
veyed facilities 238 facilities

Maximum individual lifetime cancer risk (in a million) ............................................................................. 100 100
* Maximum hazard index (chronic respiratory effects) ............................................................................ 1 1
Estimated size of population at risk from all HON CMPUs:
>1-in-1 million ................................................................................................................................... 850,000 2,000,000
>10-in-1 million ................................................................................................................................. 4,000 9,000
>100-in-1 million ............................................................................................................................... 0 0
Annual cancer incidence (No. of cases) ................................................................................................. 0.06 0.1
* An HQ exceeding 1 does not translate to a probability that adverse effects will occur. Rather, it suggests the possibility that adverse effects
may occur.

We compared the highest risks in the range of 100-in-1 million. In guidance provides guidance for
(maximum individual lifetime cancer addition, the magnitude of the risks adjusting the slope of the dose response
risk and maximum chronic HI) from the two studies is relatively close, curve by applying ‘‘age-dependent
estimated for HON CMPUs at facilities considering the health-protective nature adjustment factors’’ (which translates
in the source category to the highest of the NEI Assessment. Therefore, we into a factor of 1.6 for lifetime
estimated risks from the NEI determined it was appropriate to use the exposures) to incorporate the potential
Assessment. In the HON CMPU estimated risks from the HON CMPU for increased risk due to early-life
assessment conducted on the 104 assessment, which represents about half exposures to chemicals that are thought
facilities, HON CMPUs at one facility of the facilities in the industry, to to be carcinogenic by a mutagenic mode
were estimated to have a maximum represent the risks from the entire of action.
individual lifetime cancer risk of 100-in- industry. Nevertheless, we acknowledge Some evidence indicates that several
1 million. Extrapolating this result to that the risks associated with HON HAP that are emitted from HON CMPUs
the rest of the industry (i.e., 238 facilities not specifically included in and that dominate the risks in our
facilities) suggests that HON CMPUs at this assessment may be higher or lower assessment may be carcinogenic by a
two facilities are likely to be associated than those assessed. Uncertainty in the mutagenic mode of action, although for
with a cancer risk of 100-in-1 million. use of this data can be considered in the most carcinogenic HAP the formal
In the NEI Assessment, three facilities selection of the standards as determination of mode of action has not
were estimated to have a maximum appropriate. yet been made. Thus, we did not apply
individual lifetime cancer risk greater EPA toxicological assessments are age-dependent adjustment factors to the
than 100-in-1 million where the risk currently underway for several HAP cancer risk estimates in our residual risk
was driven by HAP emissions from a emitted from HON CMPUs. For assessment for HON CMPUs.
HON CMPU. The maximum individual example, the cancer inhalation URE for
ethylene oxide is under review. 2. Health Risks From Acute Inhalation
lifetime cancer risk estimated for the
Ethylene oxide is one of the HAP that Exposure
NEI Assessment was 300-in-1 million.
For noncancer effects, the HON contributes significantly to the cancer In addition to chronic cancer and
CMPUs at one of the 104 facilities were risks for several HON CMPUs. EPA has noncancer effects, acute effects were
estimated to have an HI of 1 in the HON not yet completed a full evaluation of also assessed. We used the ratio
CMPU assessment. Extrapolating these the data on which it will determine a analogous to the HQ in which we
results to the rest of the industry cancer URE for ethylene oxide. The compared the maximum 1-hour average
suggests HON CMPUs at two facilities schedule for the ethylene oxide review air concentration for each HAP emitted
are estimated to have an HI of 1 for and the reviews of other HAP can be from HON CMPUs at each facility with
chronic respiratory effects. In the NEI found at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/iristrac. the lowest (i.e., most health protective)
Assessment, five facilities were Under section 112(o)(7) of the CAA, of the available acute reference values
estimated to have a maximum HI greater we are required to issue revised cancer for that HAP. In this analysis, exposure
than 1 where risk was driven by HAP guidelines prior to the promulgation of estimates for 10 HAP exceeded at least
emissions from HON CMPUs. The the first residual risk rule under section one acute reference value for HON
maximum estimated HI from the NEI 112(f) (an implication being that we CMPUs in at least one facility. However,
Assessment was 6. should consider these revisions in the for eight of those HAP (acrylonitrile,
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

In comparing the two risk various residual risk rules). We have benzene, chloroform, ethylene glycol,
assessments, the extrapolated results issued revised cancer guidelines and formaldehyde, methyl bromide, methyl
from the HON CMPU assessment are also supplemental guidance that chloride, and toluene) the estimated
relatively consistent with the NEI specifically address the potential added exceedances were only for no-effect
Assessment in terms of the number of susceptibility from early-life exposure to reference values. All estimated
facilities where HON CMPUs pose risks carcinogens. The supplemental exposures were lower than available

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34432 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

mild-effect reference values. Given the D. What is our proposed decision on maximum individual lifetime cancer
protective nature of these no-effect acceptable risk? risk as a metric for determining
reference values, and the fact that the Section 112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA states acceptability, we acknowledged in the
estimated exposures to which they were that if the MACT standards applicable 1989 Benzene NESHAP that
compared are the highest expected for to a category of sources emitting a: ‘‘consideration of maximum individual
any 1-hour period in five years, we ‘‘* * * known, probable, or possible risk * * * must take into account the
concluded that the eight HAP do not human carcinogen do not reduce strengths and weaknesses of this
pose a significant health threat by acute lifetime excess cancer risks to the measure of risk.’’ Consequently, the
inhalation. individual most exposed to emissions presumptive risk level of 100-in-1
Estimated exposures to the other two million provides a benchmark for
from a source in the category * * * to
HAP, acrolein and ethyl acrylate, judging the acceptability of maximum
less than 1-in-1 million, the
exceeded a mild-effect reference value individual lifetime cancer risk, but does
Administrator shall promulgate
at a single facility with a HON CMPU. not constitute a rigid line for making
[residual risk] standards * * * for such
The estimated acrolein exposure of 100 that determination. In establishing a
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) source category.’’ Processes that would
presumption for the acceptability of
exceeded the acute exposure guideline be subject to the proposed amendments
maximum risk, rather than a rigid line
level of 69 µg/m3, and the estimated under our first proposed option emit
for acceptability, we explained in the
ethyl acrylate exposure of 50 µg/m3 known, probable, and possible human
1989 Benzene NESHAP that risk levels
exceeded the emergency response carcinogens, and, as shown in table 1 of
should also be weighed with a series of
planning guideline value of 41 µg/m3. this preamble, we estimate that the
other health measures and factors,
Both exposure estimates were well maximum individual lifetime cancer
including the following:
below corresponding reference values risk (discussed below) associated with • The numbers of persons exposed
for more severe effects. Because these the standards of the 1994 HON is 100- within each individual lifetime risk
estimated 1-hour exposures reflect the in-1 million. Since the maximum range and associated incidence within,
highest 1-hour concentrations near the individual lifetime cancer risk is greater typically, a 50 kilometer (km) (about 30
facility in a 5-year period and would at than 1 in a million, we are required to miles) exposure radius around facilities;
worst cause only mild, reversible consider (residual risk) standards. • The science policy assumptions and
effects, EPA does not consider them to As discussed in section IV.A of this estimation uncertainties associated with
pose a significant health threat. preamble, we used a two-step process in the risk measures;
For 15 HAP, no mild-effects reference establishing residual risk standards. The • Weight of the scientific evidence for
values were available, and the lowest first step is the determination of human health effects;
acute reference values for emergency acceptability (i.e., are the estimated • Other quantified or unquantified
planning uses are associated with severe risks due to emissions from these health effects;
health effects. For these HAP, the 1-hour facilities ‘‘acceptable’’). This • Effects due to co-location of
exposure estimates were compared to determination is based on health facilities and co-emission of pollutants;
these severe effects reference values. considerations only. The determination and
The highest acute HQ is 0.02, suggesting of what represents an ‘‘acceptable’’ risk • The overall incidence of cancer or
that these HAP also are very unlikely to is based on a judgment of ‘‘what risks other serious health effects within the
pose health threats by acute inhalation are acceptable in the world in which we exposed population.
exposure. live’’ (54 FR 38045, quoting the Vinyl In some cases, these health measures
Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165) and factors taken together may provide
3. Multipathway Risks recognizing that our world is not risk- a more realistic description of the
The lifetime cancer risk and free. magnitude of risk in the exposed
noncancer adverse health impacts In the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, we population than that provided by
estimated to result from multipathway stated that a maximum individual maximum individual lifetime cancer
exposure are well below levels generally lifetime cancer risk of approximately risk alone.
held to be of concern. Only two HAP 100-in-1 million should ordinarily be Based upon the criteria identified
emitted by HON CMPUs, the upper end of the range of acceptable above, for purposes of both of our
hexachlorobenzene and anthracene, risks associated with an individual proposed options discussed below, we
were estimated to pose any potential for lifetime cancer source of pollution. We judge the level of risk of the current
exposures via routes beyond direct discussed the maximum individual HON rule to be acceptable for this
inhalation. The maximum cancer risk lifetime cancer risk as being ‘‘the source category. The calculated
estimated for exposures to these HAP is estimated risk that a person living near maximum individual lifetime cancer
0.2-in-1 million. For noncancer impacts, a plant would have if he or she were risk associated with HON CMPUs is
the maximum HQ is 0.0004. From these exposed to the maximum pollutant 100-in-1 million. There are no people
low risk estimates, we concluded that concentrations for 70 years.’’ We with estimated risks greater than 100-in-
multipathway risks do not pose a higher explained that this measure of risk ‘‘is 1 million, which is the presumptively
risk than inhalation exposure. an estimate of the upper bound of risk acceptable level of maximum individual
As with human health impacts, all the based on conservative assumptions, lifetime cancer risk under the 1989
ecological HQ values are well below such as continuous exposure for 24 Benzene NESHAP criteria. The HON
levels of concern, with the highest HQ hours per day for 70 years.’’ We CMPUs at 32 facilities are estimated to
being 0.05 from benthic/sediment acknowledge that maximum individual pose risks of between 10 and 100-in-1
exposure by aquatic life to anthracene. lifetime cancer risk ‘‘does not million, with 9,000 people estimated to
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

The highest HQ is 0.02 from surface necessarily reflect the true risk, but be exposed in this risk range. The HON
water exposure by aquatic life to displays a conservative risk level which CMPUs at the remaining 206 facilities
hexachlorobenzene. We do not believe is an upper bound that is unlikely to be are estimated to pose risks of 10-in-1
these levels are high enough to pose exceeded.’’ million or less. For the exposed
adverse environmental effects as Understanding that there are both population, total annual cancer
defined in CAA section 112(a)(7). benefits and limitations to using incidence is estimated at 0.1 cases per

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34433

year. In addition, significant non-cancer exposure concentrations after emissions and, therefore, the greatest
health effects are not expected. The application of MACT exceed chronic influence on risks from equipment
HON CMPUs at only two of the 238 noncancer thresholds. Acrolein, methyl leaks. Our evaluation of the feasible
facilities are associated with an HI bromide, and maleic anhydride are the control measures for each of the five
greater than 1, with less than 20 people only three which exceed chronic kinds of emission points is contained in
estimated to be exposed at levels noncancer thresholds. These 47 memoranda in the public docket, and
associated with an HI greater than 1. carcinogenic and three noncarcinogenic our proposed conclusions are
HAP are listed in proposed table 38 of summarized below.
E. What is our proposed decision on
40 CFR, part 63, subpart G.
ample margin of safety? We did not have sufficiently detailed 1. Process Vent Control Measures
The second step in the residual risk information to analyze the possibility of To develop possible additional
decision framework is the determination controls on the various specific sources control measures for process vents, we
of standards with corresponding risk within a facility but outside the HON applied the current level of control (i.e.,
levels that are equal to or lower than the source category. Because the facilities in reduce HAP emissions by 98 percent) to
acceptable risk level and that protect this source category also frequently have the uncontrolled process vents reported
public health with an ample margin of other non-HON processes we could not in the ACC survey. For CMPUs that emit
safety. In making this determination, we always associate the reported emissions at least one HAP listed in table 38, each
considered the estimate of health risk from the NEI Assessment to a particular uncontrolled process vent emitting one
and other health information along with source category. As a result, we could or more of the HAP listed in the
additional factors relating to the not evaluate the existing levels of proposed table 38 of subpart G of part
appropriate level of control, including control or the potential for applying 63, we calculated a TRE index value,
costs and economic impacts of controls, additional controls at the facilities arrayed the TRE index values in
technological feasibility, uncertainties, where HAP emissions from non-HON ascending order (a higher TRE index
and other relevant factors, consistent processes contributed to the risk. Our value means higher control costs), and
with the approach of the 1989 Benzene position on the potential consideration evaluated the emission reductions
NESHAP. of both source category-only emissions achieved by controlling each process
Many HON sites are located near and facilitywide emissions is fully vent. The TRE index value is a measure
other HON sites or other industrial sites, discussed in the final coke oven of the cost of applying a thermal
and people who live in these areas may batteries NESHAP (70 FR 19996–19998, oxidizer on a vent stream, based on vent
be exposed to HAP emitted from April 15, 2005). HAP emissions, stream flow rate, net
multiple sources. We analyzed the To develop possible regulatory heating value, and corrosion properties
effects of facility clusters on cancer risk alternatives, we first identified the (i.e., presence of halogenated
levels by modeling all facilities with additional control measures that could compounds).
HON CMPUs that are located within 50 be applied at a specified cost to each of The current HON rule requires 98
km of one another. The maximum the five kinds of emission points percent control of process vents with a
individual lifetime cancer risk of regulated by the HON. The feasible TRE of 1.0 or less at existing process
clustered emissions was similar to the control measures then were combined to units (corresponding to a cost of
highest maximum individual lifetime develop the regulatory alternatives for approximately $3,000 per ton). The
cancer risk of a facility with a HON assessing ample margin of safety. miscellaneous organic NESHAP (40 CFR
CMPU in that cluster. We concluded, Control measures were defined in terms part 63, subpart FFFF) also affects the
therefore, that cluster effects have little of both an emission control technology chemical manufacturing industry and
or no significant effect on the risks to and the number of emission points requires control of process vents with a
the individuals most exposed. The controlled. TRE of 1.9 at existing sources and a TRE
individuals potentially exposed to the The current HON standards for of 5.0 at new sources. A TRE of 5.0
highest risks would typically reside very storage vessels, process vents, corresponds to a cost of approximately
near one of the facilities, and the equipment leaks, wastewater collection $15,000 per ton. In constructing a risk-
resulting risk would be almost entirely and treatment operations, and transfer based alternative for process vents
caused by that closest facility. While loading operations require the use of containing table 38 HAP and
these individuals may also be exposed technologies such as thermal oxidizers, considering control technology and cost,
to emissions from neighboring facilities, carbon adsorbers, and steam strippers to we analyzed impacts of further reducing
we found that the risks are sufficiently reduce HAP emissions by 95 to 98 table 38 HAP without exceeding the
lower than the maximum risk posed by percent. We did not identify any other control level for the miscellaneous
the nearby facility. technically feasible control technologies organic NESHAP (MON) for new
Before developing our two general that would reduce HAP emissions sources (TRE of 5). We considered
proposed options under sections beyond these levels. control of new and existing HON
112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6), we considered Consequently, to select control process vents with a TRE index value of
three regulatory alternatives for measures that would further reduce 4.0 to be most reasonable.
providing an ample margin of safety, HAP emissions from HON CMPUs, we A TRE cut-off of 4.0 will reduce
assuming some degree of additional considered changing the applicability emissions of total HAP by 640 tpy at
control is warranted. In developing the criteria to require control of HON CMPUs at 14 out of 238 total
regulatory alternatives that assumed uncontrolled emission points (i.e., facilities that emit table 38 HAP. The
additional control is warranted, we certain Group 2 emission points under total capital cost would be $13 million
wanted to target further emission the original rule would become Group 1 with a total annualized cost of $3.7
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

reductions to the extent possible to emission points under the revised rule). million. A TRE cut-off of 4.0 will also
reduce public health risks. Therefore, For equipment leaks, we focused on reduce emissions of total volatile
the alternatives were crafted to apply reducing emissions from leaking valves organic compounds (VOC) by 1,100 tpy
only at CMPUs that emit either in gas/vapor service and in light liquid at HON CMPUs at 14 facilities that emit
carcinogenic HAP, or HAP that are not service since these equipment table 38 HAP. This control measure is
carcinogens but for which estimated components tend to have the highest included in our second proposed option

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34434 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

discussed below, but not in our first facilities for which wastewater data and total VOC emissions by 3,200 tpy.
proposed option. were available was 495 tons/year. The average cost of total HAP removed
While the ACC data contained of this control alternative would be
2. Storage Vessel Control Measures sufficient information to estimate HAP $430,000 per ton of HAP.
To develop possible additional emission reductions, flow rate data for We also evaluated lowering the leak
control measures for storage vessels, we individual streams, which is necessary definition. Under Phase III of the
applied the current HON MACT level of to estimate control costs, were not current HON equipment leak standards,
control (95 percent reduction) to the available. To determine whether control facilities are required to use a leak
uncontrolled tanks reported in the ACC of Group 2 wastewater streams would be definition of 500 ppmv. However, we do
survey. We calculated the HAP emission feasible and whether additional data not consider it appropriate to reduce the
reduction and cost for installing an gathering would be warranted, we leak definition below the 500 ppmv
internal floating roof on existing fixed- estimated cost per ton of HAP removed level. We do not have any data that
roof vessels that contain any HAP listed for each facility using the calculated would indicate the emissions reduction
in the proposed table 38 of subpart G of HAP emission reductions and steam or effectiveness in reducing risks
part 63. We sorted the storage vessels by stripper cost estimates developed for associated with lowering the definition.
decreasing emission reductions and model streams. The model streams were Additionally, we do not have field data
determined the cost per ton of HAP based upon comparable chemical that validates that lower concentrations
removed of controlling each tank. To manufacturing processes and can be identified using Method 21.
achieve emission reductions at the least wastewater HAP emissions data from The final method we evaluated to
cost, we selected a control measure with rulemaking docket for the NESHAP for reduce HAP emissions from leaking
the same cost as the process vent control miscellaneous organic chemical valves was to reduce the allowable
manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart percent of valve population that can
measure. We evaluated internal floating
FFFF). These data were grouped into leak. Under the current HON standards,
roofs on storage vessels with cost of
HAP loading (kg/liter) ranges and facilities are allowed to conduct less
approximately $12,000 per ton of total
default flow rates were estimated for frequent monitoring (quarterly,
HAP reduced or less for any individual
each range. The default flow rates were semiannually, annually) if the
vessel. Since it is impracticable to
assigned to wastewater streams for the percentage of leaking valves is less than
develop a TRE for storage vessels,
facilities in the ACC survey data based two percent, but must monitor more
another parameter was needed to
upon the HAP loading for each stream. frequently (monthly) if the percentage of
characterize storage vessels with a cost
Based on this analysis, 96 percent of leaking valves is more than two percent.
of $12,000 per ton removed. After We evaluated requiring facilities to
the facilities had cost per ton of HAP
analyzing the data, we expect that an removed exceeding $12,000 per ton of reduce the number of leaking valves in
emission cutoff of five tons of HAP per total HAP reduced. The average cost per gas/vapor service and in light liquid
year will ensure that no individual ton of HAP removed for controlling service. Data supplied by the industry
storage vessel that contains a HAP from Group 2 wastewater streams was indicated that the average percent
proposed table 38 of 40 CFR, part 63, approximately $410,000 per ton of HAP leaking valves at HON CMPUs is 0.5
subpart G would incur a control cost reduced. Considering these high costs, percent. Requiring no more than 0.5
that exceeds $12,000 per ton of HAP we concluded that it is not reasonable percent leakers would reduce total HAP
reduced. This emission cutoff would to require additional controls for Group emissions by 910 tpy, and total VOC
affect 7 out of 238 facilities and would 2 wastewater streams, in light of the emissions by 1,600 tpy, from HON
reduce total HAP emissions by 120 tpy, minimal risk reduction obtained if CMPUs at 174 facilities. The annual cost
at a total capital cost of $950,000 and a additional controls were to be imposed. of requiring 0.5 percent leakers was
total annualized cost of $120,000. The As a result, additional controls for calculated to be $9.7 million per year.
average cost of controlling storage Group 2 wastewater streams are not This regulatory alternative would
vessels at the 7 facilities would be included in either of our two proposed require no capital expenditures but
$1,000 per ton of total HAP. The options discussed below. would impose additional labor costs.
emission cut-off would also reduce The average cost per ton of total HAP
emissions of VOC by 210 tpy. 4. Equipment Component Control
removed of requiring 0.5 percent leakers
Measures
3. Process Wastewater Control Measures is $11,000 per ton of HAP.
For leaking valves in gas/vapor We also evaluated requiring no more
To develop possible additional service and in light liquid service, the than 1.0 percent leakers. The total HAP
control measures for process wastewater possible additional control measures emission reduction was estimated to be
streams, we applied the current HON available to reduce HAP emissions are 420 tpy at an annual cost of $10 million
MACT level of control (i.e., steam to either lower the leak definition, per year. For less than five percent
stripper with control of overhead gases) replace valves with leakless valves, or increase in annual cost, the 0.5-percent
to the emissions from uncontrolled conduct more frequent monitoring by leak limit more than doubles the HAP
wastewater streams reported in the ACC reducing the allowable percentage of reduction achieved by a 1.0-percent
survey. To estimate HAP emission leaking valves. We evaluated requiring limit.
reductions, the removal performance of replacement of existing valves in gas/ Under this control measure, facilities
the steam strippers was determined vapor service and in light liquid service would conduct monthly monitoring
using the compound-specific fraction with leakless valves. However, we until the 0.5-percent limit is achieved.
removed values specified in tables 8 and concluded that this method of control is The monitoring frequency would be
9 of subpart G of the HON. The not appropriate because it is extremely reduced to quarterly, semi-annually, or
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

destruction of the overhead gases from expensive. To implement this annually if successive monitoring
the steam strippers was assumed to be alternative, total industry capital costs periods show that facilities are able to
95 percent (the same performance that would exceed $5.7 billion, and total maintain 0.5 percent leakers or less.
is required in the current HON annualized costs were calculated to be However, monthly monitoring would be
standards). The estimated total HAP $780 million. The alternative would required if the percent leakers exceeds
emission reduction for the ACC reduce total HAP emissions by 1,800 tpy 0.5 percent. While neither requiring

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34435

leakless equipment nor lowering the emissions from all HON CMPUs, and emission reductions. Alternative I
leak definition are included in either of less than one percent of the total risk would require control of storage vessels
our two proposed options discussed from all HON CMPUs. Therefore, further that store a HAP listed in the proposed
below, requiring 0.5 percent leaking control of transfer operations would table 38 of 40 CFR part 63 of subpart G
valves (or less) is included in our provide no significant reduction of risk. and emit more than five tpy of HAP.
second proposed option, but not in our The cost of controlling emissions from Alternative II would require the same
first proposed option. transfer operations ranges from controls as Alternative I plus control of
approximately $10,000 per ton of HAP process vents that have a TRE index
5. Transfer Operation Control Measures
to over $100,000 per ton of HAP if there value less than or equal to 4.0 and emit
We did not further evaluate controls are already existing control devices that one or more HAP listed in the proposed
for transfer operations because the HAP may be used to reduce emissions. If a table 38 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart G.
emissions remaining after compliance new combustion device or vapor Alternative III would require the same
with the HON are very low. A total of recovery device is also needed, the cost controls as Alternative II plus the
400 tpy of total HAP are emitted from increases significantly. As a result, requirement to reduce the number of
controlled and uncontrolled transfer further controls for transfer operations leaking valves in gas/vapor service and
operations at HON sources, but only 200 are not included in either of our two in light liquid service to less than 0.5
tpy are from uncontrolled transfer proposed options discussed below. percent for valves that contain at least
operations. An additional 100 tpy are one HAP listed in proposed table 38 of
6. Regulatory Alternatives
from transfer operations that did not 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. Table 3 of
specify whether they are controlled or The three regulatory alternatives are this preamble summarizes the risk
uncontrolled. These emissions comprise presented in table 2 of this preamble reduction associated with each
less than three percent of total HAP along with the associated costs and regulatory alternative.

TABLE 2.—IMPACTS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES


Total Total Total HAP Average Incremental
Control installed annualized emission cost per ton cost per ton
Alt. requirement* capital costs cost reduction of HAP of HAP
($ million) ($ million) (tpy) ($/ton) ($/ton)

I ....... Reduce HAP emissions by 95 percent from storage vessels 1 0.12 120 1,000
that emit greater than 5 tons per year of HAP.
II ...... Same as Alternative I plus reduce HAP emissions by 98 per- 14 4 800 5,000 5,700
cent from process vents with a TRE value less than or equal
to 4.0.
III ..... Same as Alternative II plus conduct monthly monitoring of 14 13 1,700 7,600 10,000
process unit valves until the process unit has fewer than 0.5
percent leaking valves in gas/vapor and in light liquid service.
* Applies to units that emit HAP listed in proposed table 38 of 40 CFR 63, subpart G.

TABLE 3.—RISK IMPACTS OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES


Regulatory alternative
Parameter
Base I II III

Risk to most exposed individual:


Cancer (in a million) ......................................................................... 100 100 100 60
* Noncancer (H1) ............................................................................... 1 1 0.9 0.9
Size of population at cancer risk:
>100-in-1 million ............................................................................... 0 0 0 0
>10-in-1 million ................................................................................. 9,000 9,000 9,000 7,000
>1-in-1 million ................................................................................... 1,950,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,500,000
Number of plants at cancer risk level:
>100-in-1 million ............................................................................... 0 0 0 0
>10-in-1 million ................................................................................. 32 32 32 32
>1-in-1 million ................................................................................... 117 117 117 112
* Population with HI >1 ............................................................................. 20 20 0 0
* No. of Plants with HI >1 ......................................................................... 2 2 0 0
Cancer incidence ..................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.09
Cancer incidence reduction (percent) ..................................................... .......................... 2 2 10
HAP emission reduction (percent) ........................................................... .......................... 1 6 13
* If the HI is calculated to be less than 1, then no adverse health effects are expected as a result of the exposure. However, an HI exceeding 1
does not translate to a probability that adverse effects occur. Rather, it suggests the possibility that adverse health effects may occur.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

7. Regulatory Decision for Residual Risk additional emissions standards to option in table 2 of this preamble) with
protect public health with an ample no further modifications. The second
Based on the information analyzed for margin of safety. The first proposed proposed option corresponds to
the regulatory alternatives, we are option is to maintain the current level Regulatory Alternative III. In the final
proposing two options for our of control in the HON (i.e., the baseline rule, we expect to select one of these
rulemaking on whether to establish

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34436 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

options, with appropriate modifications exposed to lifetime cancer risks below rarely exceeding $1000 to $2000 per ton.
in response to public comments. 1-in a million. The cost of this option translates into
about $4,300 per ton of VOC removed.
a. Rationale for Option 1 b. Rationale for Option 2 While we believe that the risk
For the first option of the proposed For the second option, we are assessment for this proposal is
rulemaking, we are proposing to make proposing that Regulatory Alternative III appropriate for rulemaking purposes,
no changes to the current HON rule, provides an ample margin of safety to we recognize that there are a variety of
instead proposing to find that the protect public health. This option uncertainties in the underlying models
current level of control called for by the reduces HAP emissions and risks and data. These include the
existing MACT standard represents both beyond the current MACT standard uncertainties associated with the cancer
an acceptable level of risk (the cancer using controls that are technically and potency values (of the 52 HAP
risk to the most exposed individual is economically feasible and that pose no identified as ‘‘carcinogens’’, EPA
approximately 100-in-1 million) and adverse environmental impacts. The classifies only four as ‘‘known
provides public health protection with controls will reduce cancer risks to the carcinogens,’’ while the remaining
an ample margin of safety. This most exposed individual by about 40 carcinogens are classified as either
proposed finding is based on percent to 60 in a million. Exposures for ‘‘probable’’ or ‘‘possible’’ carcinogens
considering the additional costs of approximately 450,000 people will be (using the 1986 nomenclature)),
further control (as represented by reduced from above the 1 in a million reference concentrations, uncertainties
Option 2 [Regulatory Alternative III]) cancer risk level to below 1 in a million underlying emissions data, emissions
against the relatively small reductions cancer risk level, and no individual will dispersion modeling in the ISCST3
in health risks that are achieved by that be exposed to a noncancer HI greater model, and the human behavior
alternative. than 1. Note that these changes would modeling (including assumptions of
reduce cancer incidence by 0.01 cases exposure for 24 hours a day for 70
The Agency would conclude under per year (i.e., prevent one cancer case years). One source of uncertainty is the
this proposal that the $13 million per every hundred years). The rationale for reliance on industry-supplied data that
year cost of Regulatory Option III would this option reflects a relatively greater represent only a segment of the
be unreasonable given the minor emphasis on maximizing the total industry. These data were not collected
associated improvements in health number of people exposed to lifetime under the information collection
risks. Baseline cancer incidence under cancer risks below 1 in a million, authority of section 114 of the CAA, but
the current HON rule is estimated at 0.1 compared to that in Option 1, while were the result of a voluntary survey
cases per year. Proposed Option 2 reflecting correspondingly less conducted by the industry trade
would reduce incidence by about 0.01 emphasis on various other public health association. It is unclear what bias may
cases per year. Statistically, this level of metrics such as incidence reduction. exist in the data or the extent to which
risk reduction means that Option 2 The annualized cost of Option 2 is the 104 facilities in the survey are
would prevent 1 cancer case every 100 $13 million. Our economic analysis representative of the maximum risks
years. Accordingly, the cost of this (summarized later in this preamble) posed by the remaining 134 facilities.
option could be considered to be indicates that this cost will have little Another source of potential uncertainty
disproportionate to the level of impact on the price and output of is the use of data based on actual HAP
incidence reduction achieved. In chemical and petroleum feedstocks. emissions, rather than the maximum
addition, the Agency proposes to However, the Agency is considering the allowable emissions under the current
conclude that the changes in the adoption of an approach, described HON rule (which, as explained above,
distribution of risks reflected in table 3 elsewhere in this preamble, to allow are unknown and impossible to
of this preamble (i.e., the maximum sources to avoid additional controls if determine). An additional source of
individual cancer risk is reduced by 40 they can demonstrate that the risks uncertainty comes from our use of 1999
percent to 60 in a million, 450,000 posed by their HAP emissions already year emissions inventories. Some HON
people’s cancer risks are shifted to fall below certain low-risk thresholds. facilities may have reduced their
levels below 1 in a million, and 20 Depending on the public comments emissions since then to comply with
people’s noncancer Hazard Index values received, we may include this approach other CAA and state requirements;
would be reduced from above to below in the final rule, and this could result others may have increased their
1) are do not warrant the costs. This in some cost saving at individual emissions as a result of growth.
change in the distribution of risk, that facilities. We did not include this
is, the aggregate change in risk across an potential cost savings in our control cost F. What is EPA proposing pursuant to
affected population of more than one in calculations. It should be noted that the CAA section 112(d)(6)?
a million reduces cancer risk by 0.01 avoidance of controls would also result Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires
cancers per year (i.e., one cancer across in fewer incidence and VOC reductions us to review and revise MACT
this population every on hundred than those estimated above. standards, as necessary, every 8 years,
years). Consequently, under Option 1 taking into account developments in
we are proposing that it is not necessary Discussion of Other Factors practices, processes, and control
to impose any additional controls on the Besides HAP emission reductions, the technologies that have occurred during
industry to provide an ample margin of second option (Regulatory Alternative that time. This authority provides us
safety to protect public health. III) would reduce emissions of VOC by with broad discretion to revise the
Compared to Option 2, the rationale for 2,900 tpy. Reducing VOC provides the MACT standards as we determine
Option 1 reflects a relatively greater added benefit of reducing ambient necessary, and to account for a wide
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

emphasis on considering changes in concentrations of ozone and may reduce range of relevant factors.
cancer incidence in determining what is fine particulate matter. We have not We do not interpret CAA section
necessary to protect public health with estimated the benefits of these 112(d)6) as requiring another analysis of
an ample margin of safety and reductions but previous work suggests MACT floors for existing and new
correspondingly less emphasis on that the ozone benefits per ton of VOC sources. Rather, we interpret the
maximizing the total number of people removed would span a large range, provision as essentially requiring us to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34437

consider developments in pollution applicable. It is our position, however, implementation of the (d)(2) MACT
control in the industry (‘‘taking into that the better reading of (f)(2) allows standard was not founded at all on the
account developments in practices, EPA to revise the relevant subsection (d) availability or cost of particular control
processes, and control technologies’’), standard if the agency determines technologies and there was no issue
and assessing the costs of potentially residual risk so justifies under (f)(2); regarding adverse environmental effect
stricter standards reflecting those indeed, our practice has been to follow or health effects, and the facts
developments (69 FR 48351). As the this approach. See Coke Ovens, 70 FR supporting those analyses (e.g., the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit 19993; 40 CFR 63.300–.311. This public health and environmental risk)
has found regarding similar statutory approach results in clearer and more remain the same, it is unlikely that
provisions directing EPA to reach effective implementation because only advances in air pollution control
conclusions after considering various one part 63 NESHAP would apply to the technology alone would cause us to
enumerated factors, we read this source category, and is supported by the revise the NESHAP because the existing
provision as providing EPA with fact that section 112(d)(6) refers to regulations would continue to assure an
substantial latitude in weighing these ‘‘emission standards promulgated under adequate level of safety and protection
factors and arriving at an appropriate this section’’ (emphasis added), as of public health and prevention of
balance in revising our standards. This opposed to ‘‘subsection,’’ in defining the adverse environmental effects.
discretion also provides us with scope of EPA’s authority to review and Second, if, under step 2, we
substantial flexibility in choosing how revise standards. determined that additional controls
to apply modified standards, if Although the language of section were appropriate for ensuring an ample
necessary, to the affected industry. 112(d)(6) is nondiscretionary regarding margin of safety and/or to prevent
periodic review, it grants EPA much adverse environmental effects, and the
We took comment in two recently
discretion to revise the standards ‘‘as revised standards resulted in remaining
proposed residual risk rules on whether,
necessary.’’ Thus, although the lifetime cancer risk for non-threshold
when we make a low-risk finding under
specifically enumerated factors that EPA pollutants falling below 1-in-1 million
section 112(f) (as would occur under the
should consider all relate to technology and for threshold pollutants falling
first option proposed today), and
(e.g., developments in practices, below a similar threshold of safety and
‘‘barring any unforeseeable
processes and control technologies), the prevented adverse environmental effect,
circumstances which might
instruction to revise ‘‘as necessary’’ and the facts supporting those analyses
substantially change this source
indicates that EPA is to exercise its (e.g., the environmental and public
category or its emissions,’’ we would health risks) remain the same, then it is
need to conduct future technology judgment in this regulatory decision,
and is not precluded from considering unlikely that further revision would be
reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6). needed. As stated above, under these
See Proposed Rule: Magnetic Tape additional relevant factors, such as costs
and risk. EPA has substantial discretion circumstances we would probably not
Manufacturing Operations, 70 FR 61417 require additional emission reductions
(October 24, 2005); Proposed Rule: in weighing all of the relevant factors in
arriving at the best balance of costs and for a source category despite the
Industrial Process Cooling Towers, 70 existence of new or cheaper technology
FR 61411 (October 24, 2005). Earlier, in emissions reduction and determining
what further controls, if any, are or control strategies, the exception
the final residual risk rule for Coke possibly being the development of cost-
Ovens, we discussed the relationship necessary. This interpretation is
consistent with numerous rulings by the effective technology that would greatly
between the findings underlying a reduce or essentially eliminate the use
section 112(f) determination and section U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
regarding EPA’s approach to weighing or emission of a HAP. Therefore, in
112(d)(6) revisions. National Emission these situations, a robust technology
Standards for Coke Oven Batteries, 70 similar enumerated factors under
statutory provisions directing the assessment as part of a review under
FR 19992, 20009 (April 15, 2005). Today section 112(d)(6) may not be warranted.
we further elaborate on how we expect agency to issue technology-based
standards. See, e.g. Husqvarna AB, v. Note that the circumstances discussed
we would address the need for future above presume that the facts
reviews under certain circumstances, EPA, 254 F.3d 195 (DC Cir. 2001).
For example, when a section 112(d)(2) surrounding the ample margin of safety
and we refine our position regarding and environmental analyses have not
MACT standard alone obtains
when revisions may be likely under significantly changed. If there have been
protection of public health with an
section 112(d)(6). First, the Agency now significant changes to fundamental
ample margin of safety and prevents
interprets the language of section aspects of the risk assessment then
adverse environmental effects, it is
112(d)(6) as being clear in requiring a subsequent section 112(d)(6) reviews
unlikely that it would be ‘‘necessary’’ to
periodic review no less frequently than with robust technology assessments
revise the standard further, regardless of
every 8 years. We also believe that the (and relevant risk considerations) may
possible developments in control
periodic review should be of whatever be appropriate.
options.3 Thus, the section 112(d)(6)
section 112 standard applies to the Finally, if the availability and/or costs
review would not need to entail a robust
relevant source category, regardless of of technology were part of either the
technology assessment.
whether the original section 112(d) and/ rationale for an ample margin of safety
Two additional possible
or 112(h) NESHAP has, or has not, been determination that resulted in lifetime
circumstances involving step 2 of the
revised pursuant to section 112(f)(2). We cancer risk for non-threshold pollutants
benzene analysis also could lead to a
recognize that one could read the above 1-in-1 million (or for threshold
similar result. First, if, under step 2 of
section 112(f)(2) language to authorize pollutants falling below a similar
the benzene analysis, the ample margin
EPA’s setting a standard under threshold of safety) or affected the
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

of safety determination that resulted in


subsection (f)(2) separate from the decision of whether to prevent adverse
lifetime cancer risks above 1-in-1
NESHAP standard set under subsections environmental effect, it is reasonable to
million based on emissions after
(d) and/or (h). Following this reading, conclude that changes in those costs or
one might argue that any review under 3 Although, as discussed below, EPA might still in the availability of technology could
(d)(6) should be only of the (d)(2), (d)(4), consider developments that could be substantially alter our conclusions, even if risk factors
or (d)(5) NESHAP standard, as reduce or eliminate risk in a cost-effective manner. (e.g., emissions profiles, RfC, impacts on

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34438 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

listed species) remained the same. NESHAP ‘‘* * * as necessary (taking would not be necessary. These units
Under these circumstances, subsequent into account developments in practices, pose no cancer risk, no significant
section 112(d)(6) reviews with robust processes, and control technologies) noncancer risk, and no adverse
technology assessments (and relevant * * *’’ Our review found no new or ecological risks.
risk considerations) would be improved control technologies or
IV. Solicitation of Public Comments
appropriate. practices for reducing HAP emissions
For HON process vents, storage beyond the controls that are required by A. Introduction and General Solicitation
vessels, process wastewater, and the current rule. Control costs have not We request comments on all aspects
transfer operations, we are not aware of declined significantly. We found no of the proposed rulemaking. All
advances in control techniques that changes in industry production significant comments received during
would achieve greater HAP emission processes or practices that would lead to the public comment period will be
reductions than the control technologies increased HAP emissions from HON considered in the development and
that are used to comply with the current processes. selection of the final rulemaking.
HON rule. These technologies reduce Whether or not it is necessary to
HAP emissions by 95 to 98 percent for revise the current rule, therefore, B. Specific Comment and Data
the various regulated emission points. depends on the benefits of imposing Solicitations
The only feasible options for additional additional emission reductions and the In addition to general comments on
control would be to apply the existing associated cost. Option 2 would extend the proposed options (and, for Option 2,
HON reference technologies to some the applicability of the current HON the proposed revised standards), we
Group 2 emission points that are not control requirements to some emission particularly request comments and data
required to be controlled by the current points that currently are not subject to on the following issues:
rule. control requirements and would require
For equipment leaks, leakless more frequent monitoring of equipment 1. Format of Control Alternatives
components could be installed to reduce leaks. These emission reductions would We request comment on the format of
emissions from process equipment. reduce cancer incidence by about 0.01 the proposed standards under Option 2
Leakless components were considered cases per year and reduce the HI below (i.e., Regulatory Alternative III). We
during the development of the current 1 for about 20 individuals. Because structured regulatory alternatives to
rule and were determined not to these controls would not reduce these build on the emission and risk
represent MACT because of the high particular factors significantly, Option 1 reductions obtained by controlling
cost of replacing thousands of proposes that the additional control storage vessels, process vents, and
equipment components and concern costs are not necessary under section equipment leaks. The regulatory
that equipment was not available for all 112(d)(6). alternatives could have been structured
applications. The cost of leakless differently (e.g., as singular alternatives
components has not substantially 2. Rationale for Option 2
considering risk). We are requesting
declined since the promulgation of the By requiring additional control of comments on other possible
current rule. Therefore, we still consider storage vessels, process vents, and combinations of the proposed standards.
the cost of leakless components to be equipment leaks, Option 2 (i.e.,
infeasible for broad application Regulatory Alternative III) would reduce 2. ‘‘Low-risk’’ Alternative Compliance
throughout the industry. total HAP emissions by 1,700 tons/year. Approach
Accordingly, for the section 112(d)(6) The capital costs are estimated at $14 We request comment on whether the
review, we considered the same million with annualized costs of $13 final rule should incorporate a ‘‘Low-
regulatory alternatives described above million. The second option has an risk’’ approach that would allow a
for residual risk (table 2 of this average cost per ton of HAP of about facility to demonstrate that the risks
preamble). Based on the information $8,000 per ton HAP removed and an posed by HAP emissions from the HON
analyzed for the regulatory alternatives, incremental cost per ton of HAP of affected sources (storage vessels, process
we are proposing two options for $10,000 per ton HAP removed. Option vents, process wastewater, transfer
emissions standards to satisfy the 2 would satisfy the requirements of operations, and equipment leaks) are
requirements of section 112(d)(6) section 112(d)(6) because the controls below certain health effects thresholds.
review. The first proposed option is to have been demonstrated in practice and If sources demonstrate that risks are
maintain the current level of control in can be implemented at an annual cost below these levels, then the
the HON (i.e., the baseline option in of $13 million with no adverse energy requirements of proposed Option 2, if
table 3 of this preamble) with no further or non-air environmental impacts. In finalized, would not apply to them.
modifications, tracking the first addition, this second option would Possible models for health-based
proposed option for residual risk. The reduce the total number of people approaches to use for HON sources are
second proposed option corresponds to exposed to maximum lifetime cancer contained in 40 CFR part 63, subparts
our second proposed option under our risks of at least 1-in-1 million by DDDD (Plywood and Composite Wood
residual risk analysis and proposes the 450,000 and reduce cancer incidence by Products Manufacture NESHAP) and
additional control requirements of 0.01 cases per year (an average of one DDDDD (Industrial/Commercial/
Regulatory Alternative III. In the final case every one hundred years). This Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters
rule, we expect to select one of these option would apply controls only to NESHAP).
options, with appropriate modifications CMPUs that emit HAP listed in table 38 Each facility that would choose to use
in response to public comments. of the proposed rule. We estimate that the ‘‘Low-risk’’ approach would be
CMPUs that emit HAP not on table 38 required to determine maximum hourly
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

1. Rationale for Option 1 of the proposed rule pose such low risk emissions under worst-case operations
Under the first option we are (i.e., the current HON rule already and conduct a site-specific risk
proposing to make no changes to the protects public health with an ample assessment that demonstrates that the
current HON rule under our section margin of safety for these pollutants) HON CMPUs at the facility do not cause
112(d)(6) authority. Section that imposing any additional cost a maximum individual lifetime cancer
112(d)(6)requires us to revise the beyond the original MACT controls risk exceeding 1-in-1 million, an HI

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34439

greater than 1, or any adverse leaking equipment requires the use of a plume of VOC gas emanating from a
environmental impacts. portable instrument to detect leaks of leak.
For the risk assessment, facilities VOC or HAP at the leak interface of the We are requesting comment on the
would be allowed to use any equipment component. The instrument appropriateness of allowing gas imaging
scientifically-accepted, peer-reviewed must meet the performance technology as an alternative work
risk assessment methodology. An specifications of EPA Reference Method practice for identifying leaking
example of one approach for performing 21. components. While gas imaging may be
a site-specific compliance Under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA, applicable to monitor leaking
demonstration for air toxics can be EPA has the general authority to review components at many source categories,
found in the EPA’s ‘‘Air Toxics Risk and amend its regulations as we are specifically requesting comment
Assessment Reference Library, Volume appropriate and to provide additional on the application of gas imaging
2, Site-Specific Risk Assessment work practice alternatives as new technology to CPMUs regulated by the
Technical Resource Document’’, which technology becomes available. In recent HON.
may be obtained through the EPA’s Air years, a new technology, known as gas 4. Monitoring, Applicability,
Toxics Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ imaging, has been developed that could Implementation, and Compliance
ttn/fera/risk_atoxic.html. be used to detect leaking components.
At a minimum, the site-specific Based on issues which have arisen
The effective use of gas imaging
alternative compliance demonstration over the past 14 years through
technology may significantly reduce the
would have to: inspections, requests for clarification,
costs of LDAR programs because owners
• Estimate long-term inhalation and discussions with industry, EPA has
or operators will be able to reduce the
exposures through the estimation of identified the following areas for which
time necessary to monitor a component.
annual or multi-year average ambient we solicit comments relating to
The technology may also allow the
concentrations; monitoring, applicability,
identification of larger leaks more
• Estimate the inhalation exposure for quickly than Method 21, thereby,
implementation, and compliance with
the individual most exposed to the the rule.
allowing them to be repaired quicker, Liquid Streams from Control Devices:
facility’s emissions; and ultimately decrease emissions.
• Use site-specific, quality-assured The EPA is clarifying that liquid streams
Currently available gas imaging generated from control devices (e.g.,
data wherever possible;
• Use health-protective default technologies fall into two general scrubber effluent) are wastewater. Since
assumptions wherever site-specific data classes: active and passive. The active the concept of wastewater does not exist
are not available, and; type uses a laser beam that is reflected until the point of determination (i.e.,
• Document adequately the data and by the background. The attenuation of where the liquid stream exits the
methods used for the assessment so that the laser beam due to passing through CMPU), and a control device (e.g.,
it is transparent and can be reproduced a hydrocarbon cloud provides the scrubber) is not specifically defined as
by an experienced risk assessor and optical image. The passive type uses part of the CMPU as a control device,
emissions measurement expert. ambient illumination to detect the there is an inconsistent understanding
To ensure compliance with the ‘‘Low- difference in heat radiance of the in the industry as to whether
risk’’ alternative compliance hydrocarbon cloud. wastewater provisions apply.
demonstration, emission rates from the The principle of operation of the Non-continuous Gas Streams from
approved demonstration would be active system is the production of an Continuous Operations: The EPA is
required to be included the facility’s optical image by reflected clarifying that non-continuous vents
Title V permit as Federally enforceable (backscattered) laser light, where the from continuous HON unit operations
emission limits. EPA requests comment laser wavelength is such that it is (i.e., reactors, distillation units, and air
on the possible means for approving absorbed by the gas of interest. The oxidation units) are subject to the HON
such demonstrations (e.g., by EPA system would illuminate the process if they are generated during the course
affirmative review, by the State unit with infrared light and a video of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
permitting authority, by EPA audit, by camera-type scanner picks up the These are currently not specifically
third-party, or by self-certification plus backscattered infrared light. The camera defined by either the HON or the MON
EPA audit), and on the risk thresholds converts this backscattered infrared since they are generated from
that would be used for the basis of light to an electronic signal, which is continuous operations and are not batch
compliance demonstration. We are also displayed in real-time as an image. process vents as defined in 40 CFR
requesting comment on the method of Since the scanner is only sensitive to 63.101 or covered by 40 CFR
peer review for the site-specific risk illumination from the infrared light 63.100(j)(4).
assessments. We also request comment source and not the sun, the camera is Boiler Requirements versus Fuel Gas
on the legal authority for such an capable of displaying an image in either System Requirements: The EPA solicits
approach, under sections 112(f)(2) and day or night conditions. comment as to whether the need exists
112(d)(6), of tailoring the further The passive instrument has a tuned to have exclusions for boilers and
emissions reduction requirement to optical lens, which is in some respects exclusions for fuel gas systems. The
apply only where it is specifically like ‘‘night-vision’’ glasses. It selects and EPA also proposes to include
necessary to reduce risks to levels that displays a video image of light of a monitoring provisions and/or
assure public health is protected with particular frequency range and filters certifications that the boilers are
an ample margin of safety. out the light outside of that frequency compliant.
range. In one design, by superimposing Group Status Changes for Wastewater:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

3. Gas Imaging Equipment the filtered light (at a frequency that The Agency proposes to include
The HON currently requires that displays VOC gas) on a normal video language similar to 40 CFR 63.115(e),
emissions from leaking equipment be screen, the instrument (or camera) which requires a redetermination of
controlled using a leak detect and repair displays the VOC cloud in real time in TRE of process vents if process or
program (LDAR). The primary work relationship to the surrounding process operational changes occur for
practice currently employed to detect equipment. The operator can see a wastewater. Although § 63.100(m)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34440 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

generally applies to Group 2 wastewater difference must have a positive value impose the highest costs of the
streams becoming Group 1, explicit when used in the context of ‘‘recovering alternatives considered. All estimates
language similar to § 63.115(e) that chemicals for fuel value’’ (e.g., in the are for the fifth year after promulgation.
would require redetermination of group definition of ‘‘recovery device’’). The price increases from the market
status for wastewater does not exist. Pressure Testing for Equipment Leaks: reactions to the HON compliance costs
Leaking Components Found Outside Based on field inspections, the Agency are less than 0.02 percent, and the
of Regularly Scheduled Monitoring has found a poor correlation between output changes are less than 0.01
Periods: On October 12, 2004, the EPA the results of batch pressure testing and percent. The affected output in this case
issued a formal determination to Method 21 results. It has been the includes major chemical and petroleum
Louisiana Department of Environmental Agency’s experience that high leak rates feedstocks for use in major chemical
Quality clarifying that subpart H of the are found by Method 21 results on and refinery production. The small
HON requires that leaks found outside components which routinely pass either reductions in price and output reflect
of the regularly scheduled monitoring a gas or liquid pressure test. the relatively low cost of the proposal
period must be repaired, recorded, and Additionally, the annual pressure test relative to the size of the affected
reported as leaking components. The frequency does not adequately address industries. The overall annual social
EPA proposes to incorporate clarifying leaking components which are not costs, which reflect changes in
edits to subpart H to make this explicit otherwise disturbed and required to be consumer and producer behavior in
in the regulation. tested on a more frequent basis. The response to the compliance costs, are
Redetermination of Primary Product: Agency proposes to change the $3.77 million (2004 dollars). For more
Unlike other rules, such as the NESHAP frequency of the pressure testing to information, refer to the economic
for Polymers and Resins IV (40 CFR part quarterly and supplement the pressure impact analysis report that is in the
63, subpart JJJ), the HON does not have tests with a statistical sample of Method public docket for this rule.
specific provisions for performing a 21 results. Pursuant to the terms of E.O. 12866,
periodic redetermination for a primary this proposed rule has been determined
product. The EPA has issued formal V. Statutory and Executive Order to be a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
applicability determinations for site Reviews because it raises novel legal and policy
specific situations clarifying that, at the Because this notice proposes two issues. The EPA has submitted this
point that a facility meets the options for rulemaking, the analysis action to OMB for review. Changes
applicability of the rule, they would be conducted and determinations made in made in response to OMB suggestions or
subject to the rule regardless of the lack this section of the preamble are based recommendations will be documented
of specific provisions for periodic on the option with the higher cost and in the public record.
redeterminations. The EPA proposes to regulatory burden. B. Paperwork Reduction Act
codify procedures and compliance
schedules for flexible operating units A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory The information collection
which have a change in primary Planning and Review requirements in this proposed rule have
product. The EPA intends to model the Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, been submitted for approval to the
HON provisions after the NESHAP for October 4, 1993), EPA must determine Office of Management and Budget
Polymers and Resins IV which requires whether the regulatory action is (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
annual redetermination of a primary ‘‘significant,’’ and therefore, subject to Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An
product for equipment which is not review by the Office of Management and Information Collection Request (ICR)
originally designated as part of a HON Budget (OMB) and the requirements of document prepared by EPA has been
CMPU, but which produces HON the E.O. The E.O. defines a ‘‘significant assigned EPA ICR number 2222.01 and
products. Therefore, compliance with regulatory action’’ as one that is likely OMB Control Number XXXX–XXXX.
the HON for a flexible operating unit to result in a rule that may: The ICR estimates the increased
which previously produced a non-HON (1) Have an annual effect on the burden to industry that results from the
primary product would be required to economy of $100 million or more, or proposed standards. Burden means the
be in compliance with the HON adversely affect in a material way the total time, effort, or financial resources
immediately upon determination that economy, a sector of the economy, expended by persons to generate,
the primary product is a HON product. productivity, competition, jobs, the maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
Common Recovery Devices for environment, public health or safety, or information to or for a Federal agency.
Wastewater: The EPA clarifies that State, local, or tribal governments or This includes the time needed to review
liquid streams routed to a recovery communities; instructions; develop, acquire, install,
device receiving streams from multiple (2) Create a serious inconsistency or and utilize technology and systems for
CMPU’s would be wastewater. Under otherwise interfere with an action taken the purpose of collecting, validating,
the HON, the concept of recovery is tied or planned by another agency; and verifying information, processing
integrally to a specific CMPU. (3) Materially alter the budgetary and maintaining information, and
Additionally, a common recovery impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, disclosing and providing information;
device serving multiple CMPU’s would, or loan programs or the rights and adjust the existing ways to comply with
by definition, be outside the CMPU. obligations of recipients thereof; or any previously applicable instructions
Therefore, streams routed to it would be (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues and requirements; train personnel to
considered wastewater discharged from arising out of legal mandates, the respond to a collection of information;
the CMPU. President’s priorities, or the principles search data sources; complete and
Net Positive Heating Value: The EPA set forth in the E.O. review the collection of information;
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

proposes to define ‘‘net positive heating An economic impact analysis was and transmit or otherwise disclose the
value’’ to incorporate the concept that, performed to estimate changes in prices information.
for fuel value, the stream must provide and output for affected HON sources For this rule, the increased burden is
useful energy by using less energy to and their consumers using the annual associated with developing and
combust and produce a stable flame compliance costs estimated for maintaining Group 2 storage vessel
than would be derived from it. This proposed Option 2. This option would emission determinations and TRE

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34441

determinations for Group 2 process For sources subject to this proposed and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
vents, and recording and maintaining rule, the relevant NAICS and associated or to the private sector, of $100 million
equipment leak information. The employee sizes are listed below: or more in any one year. Before
projected hour burden is 4,500 hours at NAICS 32511—Petrochemical promulgating an EPA rule for which a
a cost of $104,000. Manufacturing—1,000 employees or written statement is needed, section 205
An Agency may not conduct or fewer. of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
sponsor, and a person is not required to NAICS 325192—Cyclic Crudes and identify and consider a reasonable
respond to, a collection of information Intermediates Manufacturing—750 number of regulatory alternatives and
unless it displays a currently valid OMB employees or fewer. adopt the least costly, most cost-
control number. The OMB control NAICS 325199—All Other Organic effective, or least-burdensome
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 Chemical Manufacturing—1,000 alternative that achieves the objectives
CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. employees or fewer. of the rule. The provisions of section
To comment on the Agency’s need for 205 do not apply when they are
After considering the economic
this information, the accuracy of the inconsistent with applicable law.
impacts of this proposal on small
provided burden estimate, and any Moreover, section 205 allows us to
entities, I certify that this action will not
suggested method for minimizing adopt an alternative other than the least-
have a significant economic impact on
respondent burden, including the use of costly, most cost-effective, or least-
a substantial number of small entities.
automated collection techniques, EPA burdensome alternative if the
The small entities directly regulated by
has established a public docket for this Administrator publishes with the final
this proposed rule are businesses within
rule, which includes this ICR, under rule an explanation why that alternative
the NAICS codes mentioned above.
Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR– was not adopted. Before we establish
There are 51 ultimate parent businesses
2005–0475. Submit any comments any regulatory requirements that may
that will be affected by this proposal. significantly or uniquely affect small
related to the ICR for this proposed rule Three of these businesses are small
to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES governments, including Tribal
according to the SBA small business governments, it must have developed
section at the beginning of this notice size standards. None of these three
for where to submit comments to EPA. under section 203 of the UMRA a small
small firms will have an annualized government agency plan. The plan must
Send comments to OMB at the Office of compliance cost of more than 0.03
Information and Regulatory Affairs, provide for notifying potentially
percent of sales associated with meeting affected small governments, enabling
Office of Management and Budget, 725 the requirements of this proposed rule. officials of affected small governments
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC For more information on the small to have meaningful and timely input in
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. entity impacts, please refer to the the development of EPA regulatory
Since OMB is required to make a economic impact and small business proposals with significant Federal
decision concerning the ICR between 30 analyses in the rulemaking docket. intergovernmental mandates, and
and 60 days after June 14, 2006, a Although the proposed rules will not informing, educating, and advising
comment to OMB is best assured of have a significant economic impact on small governments on compliance with
having its full effect if OMB receives it a substantial number of small entities, the regulatory requirements.
by July 14, 2006. The final rule will EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the The proposed rule contains no
respond to any OMB or public impact of the proposed rule on small Federal mandates (under the regulatory
comments on the information collection entities. When developing the HON provisions of title II of the UMRA) for
requirements contained in this notice. proposal, EPA took special steps to State, local, or tribal governments or the
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ensure that the burdens imposed on private sector. We have determined that
small entities were reasonable. Our the proposed rule does not contain a
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) economic analysis indicates compliance Federal mandate that may result in
generally requires an agency to prepare costs are reasonable and no other expenditures of $100 million or more
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any adverse impacts are expected to the for State, local, and Tribal governments,
rule subject to notice and comment affected small businesses. The proposed in the aggregate, or to the private sector
rulemaking requirements under the rule will therefore not impose any in any one year. The total capital costs
Administrative Procedure Act or any significant additional regulatory costs for this proposed rule are approximately
other statute unless the agency certifies on affected small entities. $14 million and the total annual costs
that the proposed rule will not have a We continue to be interested in the are approximately $13 million. Thus,
significant economic impact on a potential impacts of the proposed rule the proposed rule is not subject to the
substantial number of small entities. on small entities and welcome requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
Small entities include small businesses, comments on issues related to such the UMRA.
small organizations, and small impacts. The EPA has determined that this
governmental jurisdictions. action contains no regulatory
For the purposes of assessing the D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
requirements that might significantly or
impacts of the proposed rule on small Title II of the Unfunded Mandates uniquely affect small governments
entities, small entity is defined as, (1) a Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public because it contains no requirements that
small business as defined by the Small Law 104–4, establishes requirements for apply to such governments or impose
Business Administration (SBA); (2) a Federal Agencies to assess the effects of obligations upon them. Therefore, the
small governmental jurisdiction that is a their regulatory actions on State, local, proposed rule is not subject to section
government of a city, county, town, and tribal governments and the private 203 of the UMRA.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

school district or special district with a sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
population of less than 50,000; and (3) EPA generally must prepare a written E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
a small organization that is any not-for- statement, including a cost-benefit Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
profit enterprise that is independently analysis, for proposed and final rules August 10, 1999) requires EPA to
owned and operated and is not with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may develop an accountable process to
dominant in its field. result in expenditures to State, local, ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34442 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

State and local officials in the because the Agency does not have The Agency has recently reaffirmed
development of regulatory policies that reason to believe the environmental its commitment to ensuring
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies health or safety risks addressed by this environmental justice for all people,
that have Federalism implications’’ is action present a disproportionate risk to regardless of race, color, national origin,
defined in the E.O. to include children. This conclusion is based on or income level. To ensure
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct our assessment of the information on environmental justice, we assert that we
effects on the States, on the relationship the effects on human health and shall integrate environmental justice
between the national Government and exposures associated with SOCMI considerations into all of our programs
the States, or on the distribution of operations. and policies, and, to this end have
power and responsibilities among the identified eight national environmental
various levels of government.’’ H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
justice priorities. One of the priorities is
The proposed rule does not have Concerning Regulations That
to reduce exposure to air toxics. Since
Federalism implications. It will not Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
some HON facilities are located near
have substantial direct effects on the Distribution, or Use
minority and low-income populations,
States, on the relationship between the Today’s final decision is not a we request comment on the
national government and the States, or ‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in implications of environmental justice
on the distribution of power and E.O. 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) concerns relative to the two options
responsibilities among the various because it is not likely to have a proposed. While no exposed person
levels of government, as specified in significant adverse effect on the supply, would experience unacceptable risks
E.O. 13132. None of the affected SOCMI distribution, or use of energy. Further, under either of the proposed options,
facilities are owned or operated by State we have concluded that today’s final the distribution of risks is lower under
governments. Thus, E.O. 13132 does not decision is not likely to have any option 2 than option 1 as reflected in
apply to the proposed rule. adverse energy impacts. table 3 of this preamble. We note,
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation however, that the distributional impacts
I. National Technology Transfer
and Coordination With Indian Tribal of the cost of option 2 were not
Advancement Act
Governments quantified in our economic analysis.
Section 112(d) of the National List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
Technology Transfer and Advancement
November 9, 2000) requires EPA to Environmental protection, Air
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113,
develop an accountable process to pollution control, Hazardous
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by substances, Reporting and
to use voluntary consensus standards
tribal officials in the development of recordkeeping requirements.
(VCS) in its regulatory activities unless
regulatory policies that have tribal
to do so would be inconsistent with Dated: June 1, 2006.
implications.’’
The proposed rule does not have applicable law or otherwise impractical. Stephen L. Johnson,
tribal implications, as specified in E.O. The VCS are technical standards. (e.g., Administrator.
13175. It will not have substantial direct materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business For the reasons stated in the
effects on tribal governments, on the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
relationship between the Federal practices) that are developed or adopted
by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
Government and Indian tribes, or on the amended as follows:
distribution of power and to provide Congress, through OMB,
responsibilities between the Federal explanations when the Agency decides
PART 63—[AMENDED]
Government and Indian tribes. No tribal not to use available and applicable VCS.
governments own SOCMI facilities The proposed rule revisions do not 1. The authority citation for part 63
subject to the HON. Thus, E.O. 13175 include technical standards beyond continues to read as follows:
does not apply to the proposed rule. those already provided under the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
current rule. Therefore, EPA is not
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of considering the use of any VCS. Subpart F—[Amended]
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 2. Amend § 63.100 by:
Actions To Address Environmental a. Revising paragraph (k) introductory
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, Justice in Minority Populations and text;
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: Low-Income Populations b. Revising paragraph (m)
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically introductory text; and
significant’’ as defined under E.O. Executive Order 12898, ‘‘Federal c. Adding paragraph (r) to read as
12866, and (2) concerns an Actions to Address Environmental follows:
environmental health or safety risk that Justice in Minority Populations and
EPA has reason to believe may have a Low-Income Populations,’’ requires § 63.100 Applicability and designation of
disproportionate effect on children. If Federal agencies to consider the impact source.
the regulatory action meets both criteria, of programs, policies, and activities on * * * * *
the Agency must evaluate the minority populations and low-income (k) Except as provided in paragraphs
environmental health or safety risk of populations. According to EPA (l), (m), (p), and (r) of this section,
the planned rule on children and guidance, agencies are to assess whether sources subject to subparts F, G, or H of
explain why the planned regulation is minority or low-income populations this part are required to achieve
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

preferable to other potentially effective face risks or a rate of exposure to compliance on or before the dates
and reasonably feasible alternatives hazards that are significant and that specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through
considered by the Agency. ‘‘appreciably exceed or is likely to (k)(8) of this section.
The proposed rule is not subject to the appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the * * * * *
E.O. because it is not economically general population or to the appropriate (m) Before [DATE THE FINAL RULE
significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and comparison group.’’ (EPA, 1998) IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34443

REGISTER], if a change that does not subpart G of part 63, that is subject to in table 38 of this subpart, a TRE value
meet the criteria in paragraph (l)(4) of § 63.168 of subpart H of this part of 4.0 replaces references to a TRE value
this section is made to a chemical (Standards: Valves in gas/vapor service of 1.0 in 40 CFR part 65, except in 40
manufacturing process unit subject to and light liquid service) must comply CFR 65.62(c), and requirements for
subparts F and G of this part, and the with paragraph (k) in § 63.168 of subpart Group 1 process vents in 40 CFR part 65
change causes a Group 2 emission point H of this part no later than [DATE ONE also apply to Group 2A process vents.
to become a Group 1 emission point (as YEAR AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL The provisions of this paragraph apply
defined in § 63.111 of subpart G of this RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL to new sources that commence
part), then the owner or operator shall REGISTER]. New sources that construction or reconstruction after
comply with the requirements of commence construction or [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
subpart G of this part for the Group 1 reconstruction after [DATE OF RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
emission point as expeditiously as PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN upon start-up or by [DATE FINAL RULE
practicable, but in no event later than 3 THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must be in IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
years after the emission point becomes compliance with subparts F and G of REGISTER], whichever is later.
Group 1. After [DATE THE FINAL RULE this part upon start-up or by [DATE (ii) For Group 1 storage vessels, 40
IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE CFR part 65, subpart C satisfies the
REGISTER], the owner or operator FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is requirements of §§ 63.102, 63.103,
subject to this paragraph must comply later. 63.112, 63.119 through 63.123, 63.148,
with subpart G of this part no later than 63.151, and 63.152. On or after [DATE
three years after the emission point Subpart G—[Amended] THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE THE
becomes a Group 1 emission point (as FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
3. Amend § 63.110 by revising FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or
defined in § 63.111 of subpart G of this paragraphs (b)(3) and (i)(1)(i) and (ii) to
part). operator must also keep records
read as follows: specified in § 63.123(b). New sources
* * * * *
§ 63.110 Applicability. that commence construction or
(r) Compliance with standards to
reconstruction after [DATE OF
protect public health and the * * * * *
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
environment. On or after [DATE THE (b) * * *
(3) On or after the compliance dates THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must keep
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
specified in § 63.100 of subpart F of this records of the emissions of hazardous
FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or air pollutants listed in table 38 of this
operator must comply with the part, a Group 2 storage vessel that is also
subpart as specified in § 63.123(b) upon
provisions of paragraphs (r)(1) and (r)(2) subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part
start-up or by [DATE FINAL RULE IS
of this section to protect public health 61, subpart Y is required to comply only
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
and the environment. with the provisions of 40 CFR part 61,
REGISTER], whichever is later.
(1) Process vents and storage vessels. subpart Y. The recordkeeping and
On or after [DATE THE FINAL RULE IS reporting requirements of 40 CFR part * * * * *
61, subpart Y will be accepted as 4. Amend § 63.111 by revising the
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
compliance with the recordkeeping and following definitions of Group 1 process
REGISTER], the definitions of Group 1
reporting requirements of this subpart. vent, Group 2 process vent, and Group
process vent and Group 1 storage vessel
On or after [DATE THREE YEARS 1 storage vessel to read as follows:
change such that some Group 2
emission points may become Group 1 AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS § 63.111 Definitions.
emission points. Notwithstanding the PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL * * * * *
provisions of paragraph (k) of this REGISTER], the owner or operator must Group 1 process vent means a process
section, any existing Group 2 process also keep records of the emissions of vent for which the vent stream flow rate
vent or Group 2 storage vessel that hazardous air pollutants listed in table is greater than or equal to 0.005
becomes a Group 1 emission point on 38 of this subpart as specified in standard cubic meter per minute, the
[DATE THE FINAL RULE IS § 63.123(b). New sources that commence total organic hazardous air pollutant
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL construction or reconstruction after concentration is greater than or equal to
REGISTER] as a result of the revised [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL 50 ppmv, and the total resource
definition must be in compliance with RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] effectiveness index value, calculated
subparts F and G of this part no later must keep records of the emissions of according to § 63.115, is less than or
than [DATE THREE YEARS AFTER THE hazardous air pollutants listed in table equal to 1.0. On or after [DATE THE
DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED 38 of this subpart as specified in FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. New § 63.123(b) upon start-up or by [DATE FEDERAL REGISTER], a Group 1
sources that commence construction or FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE process vent also means a process vent
reconstruction after [DATE OF FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is for which the vent stream flow rate is
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN later. greater than or equal to 0.005 standard
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must be in * * * * * cubic meters per minute, the total
compliance with subparts F and G of (i) * * * organic HAP concentration is greater
this part upon start-up or by [DATE (1) * * * than or equal to 50 ppmv, the process
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE (i) For Group 1 and Group 2 process vent contains at least one hazardous air
FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is vents, 40 CFR part 65, subpart D, pollutant listed in table 38 of this
later. satisfies the requirements of §§ 63.102, subpart, and the total resource
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

(2) Equipment leaks. On or after 63.103, 63.112 through 63.118, 63.148, effectiveness index value, calculated
[DATE THE FINAL RULE IS 63.151, and 63.152. On or after [DATE according to § 63.115, is less than or
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE THE equal to 4.0.
REGISTER], an existing chemical FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Group 2 process vent means a process
manufacturing process unit containing FEDERAL REGISTER], for process vents vent that does not meet the definition of
at least one HAP from table 38 of emitting a hazardous air pollutant listed Group 1 process vent.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34444 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Group 1 storage vessel means a listed in table 38 of this subpart, achieve recovery devices shall install either an
storage vessel that meets the criteria for and maintain a TRE index value greater organic monitoring device equipped
design storage capacity and stored- than 1.0 at the outlet of the final with a continuous recorder or the
liquid maximum true vapor pressure recovery device, or prior to release of monitoring equipment specified in
specified in table 5 of this subpart for the vent stream to the atmosphere if no paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this
storage vessels at existing sources, and recovery device is present. If the TRE section, depending on the type of
in table 6 of this subpart for storage index value is greater than 1.0, the recovery device used. All monitoring
vessels at new sources. On or after process vent shall comply with the equipment shall be installed, calibrated,
[DATE THE FINAL RULE IS provisions for a Group 2 process vent and maintained according to the
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL specified in either paragraph (d) or (e) manufacturer’s specifications or other
REGISTER], a Group 1 storage vessel of this section, whichever is applicable. written procedures that provide
also means a storage vessel that stores The provisions of this paragraph apply adequate assurance that the equipment
at least 1 hazardous air pollutant listed to new sources that commence would reasonably be expected to
in table 38 of this subpart, and has a construction or reconstruction after monitor accurately. Monitoring is not
total hazardous air pollutant emission [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL required for process vents with TRE
rate greater than 4.54 megagrams per RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] index values greater than 4.0 as
year. upon start-up or by [DATE FINAL RULE specified in § 63.113(e) of this subpart.
* * * * * IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL * * * * *
5. Amend § 63.113 by revising REGISTER], whichever is later. (c) * * *
paragraphs (a)(3) and (d) to read as * * * * * (2) Complies by following the
follows: (d) The owner or operator of a Group requirements of § 63.113(a)(3) or
2 process vent meeting the conditions of § 63.113(d), and maintains a TRE greater
§ 63.113 Process vent provisions— paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) shall than 1.0 but less than or equal to 4.0
reference control technology.
maintain a TRE index value greater than without a recovery device or with a
(a) * * * 1.0 and shall comply with the recovery device other than the recovery
(3) Comply with paragraph (a)(3)(i), monitoring of recovery device devices listed in paragraphs (a) and (b)
(a)(3)(ii), or (a)(3)(iii) of this section. parameters in § 63.114(b) or (c) of this
(i) Prior to [DATE THE FINAL RULE of this section; or
subpart, the TRE index calculations of * * * * *
IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
§ 63.115 of this subpart, and the 7. Amend § 63.115 by revising
REGISTER], achieve and maintain a
applicable reporting and recordkeeping paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
TRE index value greater than 1.0 at the
provisions of §§ 63.117 and 63.118 of
outlet of the final recovery device, or this subpart. Such owner or operator is § 63.115 Process vent provisions—
prior to release of the vent stream to the not subject to any other provisions of methods and procedures for process vent
atmosphere if no recovery device is §§ 63.114 through 63.118 of this group determination.
present. If the TRE index value is greater subpart. * * * * *
than 1.0, the process vent shall comply (1) Prior to [DATE THE FINAL RULE (e) * * *
with the provisions for a Group 2 IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL (2) Where a process vent with the
process vent specified in either REGISTER], the process vent has a flow recalculated TRE index value meets the
paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, rate greater than or equal to 0.005 Group 1 definition, or where the
whichever is applicable. standard cubic meters per minute, a recalculated TRE index value, flow rate,
(ii) On or after [DATE THREE YEARS hazardous air pollutant concentration or concentration meet the specifications
AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS greater than or equal to 50 parts per of § 63.113(d) of this subpart, the owner
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL million by volume, and a TRE index or operator shall submit a report as
REGISTER], for process vents value greater than 1.0 but less than or specified in § 63.118 (g), (h), (i), or (j) of
containing a hazardous air pollutant equal to 4.0. this subpart and shall comply with the
listed in table 38 of this subpart, achieve (2) On or after [DATE THE FINAL appropriate provisions in § 63.113 of
and maintain a TRE index value greater RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL this subpart by the dates specified in
than 4.0 at the outlet of the final REGISTER], the process vent does not § 63.100 of subpart F of this part.
recovery device, or prior to release of emit any hazardous air pollutants listed * * * * *
the vent stream to the atmosphere if no in table 38 of this subpart, but has a 8. Amend § 63.117 by revising
recovery device is present. If the TRE flow rate greater than or equal to 0.005 paragraph (a) introductory text and
index value is greater than 4.0, the standard cubic meters per minute, a paragraph (a)(7) introductory text to
process vent shall comply with the hazardous air pollutant concentration read as follows:
provisions for a Group 2 process vent greater than or equal to 50 parts per
specified in either paragraph (d) or (e) § 63.117 Process vent provisions—
million by volume, and a TRE index
of this section, whichever is applicable. reporting and recordkeeping requirements
value greater than 1.0 but less than or for group and TRE determinations and
The provisions of this paragraph apply equal to 4.0 performance tests.
to new sources that commence * * * * *
construction or reconstruction after (a) Each owner or operator subject to
6. Amend § 63.114 by revising the provisions for process vents with a
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL paragraphs (b) introductory text and
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] on TRE index value less than or equal to
(c)(2) to read as follows: 4.0 shall:
or after [DATE FINAL RULE IS
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL § 63.114 Process vent provisions— * * * * *
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

REGISTER]. monitoring requirements. (7) Record and report the following


(iii) On or after [DATE THREE YEARS * * * * * when achieving and maintaining a TRE
AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS (b) Each owner or operator of a Group index value of 4.0 or less, as specified
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL 2 process vent that complies by in § 63.113(a)(3) or § 63.113(d) of this
REGISTER], for process vents not following § 63.113(a)(3) or § 63.113(d) of subpart:
containing a hazardous air pollutant this subpart that uses one or more * * * * *

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules 34445

9. Amend § 63.118 by revising greater than or equal to 76.6 kilopascals, (2) * * *


paragraphs (b) introductory text, the owner or operator shall operate and (iii) * * *
paragraph (c) introductory text, and maintain a closed vent system and (B) * * *
paragraph (h) introductory text to read control device meeting the requirements (2) For determining debits from Group
as follows: specified in paragraph (e) of this 1 process vents, recovery devices shall
section, route the emissions to a process not be considered control devices and
§ 63.118 Process vent provisions— cannot be assigned a percent reduction
or a fuel gas system as specified in
periodic reporting and recordkeeping in calculating EPViACTUAL. The
requirements. paragraph (f) of this section, vapor
balance as specified in paragraph (g) of sampling site for measurement of
* * * * * uncontrolled emissions is after the final
this section, or equivalent as provided
(b) Each owner or operator using a recovery device. However, as provided
in § 63.121 of this subpart.
recovery device or other means to in § 63.113(a)(3), a Group 1 process vent
achieve and maintain a TRE index value * * * * *
11. Amend § 63.120 by revising may add sufficient recovery to raise the
less than or equal to 4.0 as specified in TRE index value to a level such that the
§ 63.113(a)(3) or § 63.113(d) of this paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
vent becomes a Group 2 process vent.
subpart shall keep the following records § 63.120 Storage vessel provisions— * * * * *
up-to-date and readily accessible: procedures to determine compliance. 14. Amend the appendices to subpart
* * * * * * * * * * G by adding Table 38 to subpart G of
(c) Each owner or operator subject to (b) * * * part 63—List of Hazardous Air
the provisions of this subpart and who (1) * * * Pollutants Subject to Additional
elects to demonstrate compliance with (iv) If any storage vessel ceases to Requirements to Protect Public Health
the TRE index value greater than 4.0 store organic hazardous air pollutants and the Environment.
under § 63.113(e) of this subpart or less for a period of 1 year or more, or if the
than or equal to 4.0 under § 63.113(a)(3) storage vessel ceases to meet the Pollutant CAS No.
or § 63.113(d) of this subpart shall keep definition of a Group 1 storage vessel for
up-to-date, readily accessible records of: a period of 1 year or more, then 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ........ 79345
measurements of gaps between the 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ................ 79005
* * * * *
vessel wall and the primary seal, and 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine .............. 122667
(h) Whenever a process change, as
1,3-Butadiene ........................... 106990
defined in § 63.115(e) of this subpart, is gaps between the vessel wall and the 1,3-Dichloropropene ................. 542756
made that causes a Group 2 process vent secondary seal, shall be performed 1,4-Dioxane .............................. 123911
with a TRE greater than 4.0 to become within 90 calendar days of the vessel 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ..................... 121142
a Group 2 process vent with a TRE less being refilled with organic hazardous air 2,4-Toluene diamine ................. 95807
than or equal to 4.0, the owner or pollutants. 2,4-Toluene diisocyanate ......... 584849
operator shall submit a report within * * * * * 2-Nitropropane .......................... 79469
180 calendar days after the process 12. Amend § 63.123 by adding 3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine .............. 91941
3,3’-Dimethylbenzidine ............. 119937
change. The report may be submitted as paragraph (b) to read as follows. Acetaldehyde ............................ 75070
part of the next periodic report. The Acetamide ................................. 60355
report shall include: § 63.123 Storage vessel provisions—
recordkeeping. Acrolein ..................................... 107028
* * * * * Acrylamide ................................ 79061
10. Amend § 63.119 by revising * * * * * Acrylonitrile ............................... 107131
paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2) to read as (b) On or after [DATE THREE YEARS Allyl chloride ............................. 107051
follows: AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS Aniline ....................................... 62533
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL Benzene .................................... 71432
§ 63.119 Storage vessel provisions— REGISTER], an owner or operator must Benzotrichloride ........................ 98077
reference control technology. keep records of the uncontrolled Benzyl chloride ......................... 100447
(a) * * * hazardous air pollutant emissions from Bis (chloromethyl) ether ............ 542881
(1) For each Group 1 storage vessel Bromoform ................................ 75252
each Group 2 storage vessel, containing
Carbon tetrachloride ................. 56235
storing a liquid for which the maximum at least one hazardous air pollutant Chrysene .................................. 218019
true vapor pressure of the total organic listed in table 38 of this subpart, on a Dichloroethyl ether .................... 111444
hazardous air pollutants in the liquid is 12-month rolling average. Calculate Epichlorohydrin ......................... 106898
less than 76.6 kilopascals, the owner or uncontrolled hazardous air pollutant Ethyl acrylate ............................ 140885
operator shall reduce hazardous air emissions (ESiu) using the equations and Ethylene dibromide ................... 106934
pollutants emissions to the atmosphere procedures in § 63.150(g)(3)(i). The Ethylene dichloride ................... 107062
either by operating and maintaining a provisions of this paragraph apply to Ethylene oxide .......................... 75218
fixed roof and internal floating roof, an Ethylidene dichloride ................ 75343
new sources that commence
Formaldehyde ........................... 50000
external floating roof, an external construction or reconstruction after Hexachlorobenzene .................. 118741
floating roof converted to an internal [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL Hexachlorobutadiene ................ 87683
floating roof, a closed vent system and RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] Hexachloroethane ..................... 67721
control device, routing the emissions to upon start-up or by [DATE FINAL RULE Isophorone ................................ 78591
a process or a fuel gas system, or vapor IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL Maleic anhydride ...................... 108316
balancing in accordance with the REGISTER], whichever is later. Methyl bromide ......................... 74839
requirements in paragraph (b), (c), (d), Methyl tert-butyl ether ............... 1634044
* * * * * Methylene chloride ................... 75092
(e), (f), or (g) of this section, or 13. Amend § 63.150 by revising
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

Naphthalene ............................. 91203


equivalent as provided in § 63.121 of paragraph (g)(2)(iii)(B)(2) to read as o-Toluidine ................................ 95534
this subpart. follows: p-Dichlorobenzene .................... 106467
(2) For each Group 1 storage vessel Propylene dichloride ................. 78875
storing a liquid for which the maximum § 63.150 Emissions averaging provisions Propylene oxide ........................ 75569
true vapor pressure of the total organic * * * * * Tetrachloroethene ..................... 127184
hazardous air pollutants in the liquid is (g) * * * Trichloroethylene ...................... 79016

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2
34446 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 14, 2006 / Proposed Rules

Pollutant CAS No. 16. Amend § 63.168 by revising paragraph by upon start-up or [DATE
paragraph (a) introductory text and FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
Vinyl chloride ............................ 75014 adding paragraph (k) to read as follows: FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is
later.
§ 63.168 Standards: Valves in gas/vapor
Subpart H—[Amended] service and in light liquid service.
(1) The valves shall be monitored to
detect leaks by the method specified in
15. Amend § 63.160 by revising (a) The provisions of this section § 63.180(b) of this subpart. The
paragraph (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) to read apply to valves that are either in gas
instrument reading that defines a leak is
as follows: service or in light liquid service. On or
500 parts per million.
after [DATE ONE YEAR AFTER THE
§ 63.160 Applicability and designation of (2) The owner or operator shall
DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED
source. monitor valves for leaks at the intervals
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the
specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through
* * * * * owner or operator of a process unit
(g) * * * (k)(2)(v) of this section. Monitoring data
containing at least one HAP from table
(1) * * * generated before [DATE THE FINAL
38 of subpart G of part 63, must comply
(i) For equipment, 40 CFR part 65 RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
with monitoring frequency and leak
satisfies the requirements of §§ 63.102, REGISTER], may be used to qualify for
frequency requirements in paragraph (k)
63.103, and 63.162 through 63.182. less frequent monitoring under
of this section. New sources that
When choosing to comply with 40 CFR paragraphs (k)(2)(ii) through paragraphs
commence construction or
part 65, the requirements of § 63.180(d) (k)(2)(v) of this section.
reconstruction after [DATE OF
continue to apply. On or after [DATE PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN (i) At process units with 0.5 percent
ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE THE THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must or greater leaking valves, calculated
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE comply with the provisions of this according to paragraph (e) of this
FEDERAL REGISTER], owners or paragraph upon start-up or by [DATE section, the owner or operator shall
operators must comply with the valve FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE monitor each valve once per month.
monitoring frequencies and valve leak FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is (ii) At process units with less than 0.5
frequencies in § 63.168(k) instead of later. percent leaking valves, the owner or
§ 65.106(b)(3) for processes that contain operator shall monitor each valve once
* * * * * each quarter, except as provided in
at least one hazardous air pollutant (k) On or after [DATE ONE YEAR
listed in table 38 of subpart F. New paragraphs (k)(2)(iii) through (k)(2)(v) of
AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS
sources that commence construction or this section.
PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
reconstruction after [DATE OF (iii) At process units with less than
REGISTER], the owner or operator of a
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN 0.5 percent leaking valves over two
source subject to this subpart shall
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must consecutive quarters, the owner or
monitor all valves at process units
comply with the valve monitoring operator may elect to monitor each
containing at least one HAP from table
frequencies and valve leak frequencies valve once every 2 quarters.
38 of subpart G of part 63, except as
in § 63.168(k) instead of § 65.106(b)(3) (iv) At process units with less than 0.5
provided in § 63.162(b) of this subpart
for processes that contain at least one percent leaking valves over three out of
and paragraphs (h) and (i) of this
hazardous air pollutant listed in table 38 four consecutive quarters, the owner or
section, at the intervals specified in
of subpart F upon start-up or by [DATE operator may elect to monitor each
paragraph (k)(2) of this section and shall
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE valve once every 4 quarters.
comply with all other provisions of this
FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is (v) At process units with less than
section, except as provided in §§ 63.171,
later. 0.25 percent leaking valves over two
63.177, 63.178, and 63.179 of this
(ii) For Group 1 and Group 2 process consecutive periods, the owner or
subpart. New sources that commence
vents, Group 1 and Group 2 storage operator may elect to monitor each
construction or reconstruction after
vessels, and Group 1 transfer operations, valve once every two years.
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
comply with § 63.110(i)(1). RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] [FR Doc. 06–5219 Filed 6–13–06; 8:45 am]
* * * * * must comply with the provisions of this BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:52 Jun 13, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JNP2.SGM 14JNP2