EPA initially looks to the latest version of industry codes, standards, and guidelines to determine whether an owner or operator has documented compliance with RAGAGEP under 40 CFR 68.65(d)(2), given that 40 CFR part 68 does not define the phrase “recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices.” EPA believes this application makes sense because the plain meaning of the phrase is that practices should be “recognized,” “good,” and “generally accepted,” and the latest version of RAGAGEP contains the industry’s most up-to-date assessment of practices that meet these criteria.
Also, under the structure of the CAA, stationary sources subject to 40 CFR part 68 are subject to the GDC in 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)(1). Neither the text nor the legislative history of the GDC mentions locking obsolete industry standards into place. EPA also believes there is no practical reason to have a stricter standard for facilities subject to the GDC, but not to 40 CFR part 68. Further, a facility subject to the GDC may have RMP-regulated substances in amounts lower than the RMP regulatory threshold.
To address these concerns, EPA proposes that the RMP regulations clarify that PHAs must include an analysis of the most recently promulgated RAGAGEP to identify any gaps between practices related to the facility’s design, maintenance, and operation and the most current version of RAGAGEP.