[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80220-80258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31091]
[[Page 80219]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface
Coating); National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 80220]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786; FRL-9237-1]
RIN 2060-AQ42
National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
(Surface Coating); National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes how EPA will address the residual risk
and technology review conducted for two industrial source categories
regulated by separate national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants. It also proposes to address provisions related to emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 22,
2011. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the
Office of Management and Budget receives a copy of your comments on or
before January 20, 2011.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by January 5, 2011, a public hearing will be held on
January 20, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0786, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected], Attention Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786.
Facsimile: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0786.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0786, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer
for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20004. Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0786. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider
to be confidential business information or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. on January 20, 2011 and will be held at EPA's campus in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. For
information on the status of the public hearing, go to http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. Persons interested in presenting
oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be
held should contact Ms. Joan Rogers, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Natural Resources and
Commerce Group (E143-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-4487.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Ms. J. Kaye Whitfield, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-2509; facsimile number: (919) 541-3470; and
e-mail address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Elaine Manning,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-5499; facsimile number: (919) 541-0840; and e-mail address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of
these two National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to
a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1
to this preamble.
[[Page 80221]]
Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Addressed in this Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP for: OECA Contact \1\ OAQPS Contact \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Mr. Leonard Lazarus, Ms. J. Kaye
(Surface Coating). (202) 564-6369, Whitfield, (919)
lazarus.leonard@epa 541-2509,
.gov. [email protected]
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Mr. Leonard Lazarus, Ms. J. Kaye
Operations. (202) 564-6369, Whitfield, (919)
lazarus.leonard@epa 541-2509,
.gov. [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OECA stands for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
\2\ OAQPS stands for EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes,
data inventories, and risk modeling are included in this preamble.
While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this
preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms
are defined here:
ACA American Coatings Association
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
ADAF Age-dependent Adjustment Factors
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
AERMOD The air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
AHFA American Home Furnishings Alliance
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
APA Administrative Procedure Act
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BIFMA Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer's
Association
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEEL Community Emergency Exposure Levels
CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
DGBE Diethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether
EGME Ethylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HI Hazard Index
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model version 3
HON Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
HQ Hazard Quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
KCMA Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing Association
Kg Kilogram
Km Kilometer
LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MACT Code Code within the NEI used to identify processes included in
a source category
MIR Maximum Individual Risk
MRL Minimum Risk Level
NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effects Level
NOX Nitrous Oxide
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
POM Polycyclic Organic Matter
PPRTV Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Value
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL CalEPA Reference Exposure Level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC Reference Concentration
RfD Reference Dose
RTO Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer
RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC Source Classification Codes
SF3 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 3
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
TOSHI Target Organ-Specific Hazard Index
TPY Tons Per Year
TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System
TRIM.FaTE A spatially explicit, compartmental mass balance model
that describes the movement and transformation of pollutants over
time, through a user-defined, bounded system that includes both
biotic and abiotic compartments
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UF Uncertainty Factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE Unit Risk Estimate
VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards
VHAP Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
VOHAP Volatile Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants
WWW Worldwide Web
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
III. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for
this proposal?
C. What other actions are we addressing in this proposal?
IV. Analyses Performed
A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source categories?
B. How did we perform the technology review?
V. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results and proposed decisions for the
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category?
B. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category?
VI. Proposed Action
A. What actions are we proposing as a result of the technology
review?
B. What actions are we proposing as a result of the residual
risk review?
C. What other actions are we proposing?
VII. Request for Comments
VIII. Submitting Data Corrections
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
[[Page 80222]]
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of
this proposal are listed in Table 2 of this preamble. Table 2 is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers
regarding entities likely to be affected by the proposed action for the
source categories listed. These standards, and any changes considered
in this rulemaking, would be directly applicable to sources as a
federal program. Thus, federal, state, local, and tribal government
entities are not affected by this proposed action. The regulated
categories affected by this proposed action are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2--NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS code \1\ MACT code \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface 336611.......................................... 0715-2
Coating).
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations..... 3371, 3372, 3379................................ 0716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposal will also be available on the WWW through the EPA's TTN.
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this proposed
action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
Additional information is available on the RTR web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes the
most recent version of the rule, source category descriptions, detailed
emissions, and other data that were used as inputs to the risk
assessments.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or
CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If
you submit a CD ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI
only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786.
III. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, after EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or
more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) of
the CAA calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. ``Major
sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 TPY or
more of a single HAP or 25 TPY or more of any combination of HAP. For
major sources, these technology-based standards must reflect the
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and nonair quality health and
environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as MACT standards.
MACT standards must reflect application of measures, processes,
methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to,
measures which, (A) Reduce the volume of or eliminate pollutants
through process changes, substitution of materials or other
modifications; (B) enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
(C) capture or treat pollutants when released from a process, stack,
storage, or fugitive emissions point; (D) are design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator
training or certification); or (E) are a combination of the above. CAA
section 112(d)(2)(A)-(E). The MACT standards may take the form of
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards where EPA
first determines either that, (A) a pollutant cannot be emitted through
a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the
pollutants, or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance
would be inconsistent with law; or (B) the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations. CAA sections 112(h)(1)-(2).
The MACT ``floor'' is the minimum control level allowed for MACT
standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3) and may not be based
on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar source. The MACT floors for existing sources
can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be
less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor
[[Page 80223]]
based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions
reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
The EPA is required to review these technology-based standards and
to revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently
than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this
review, EPA is not obliged to completely recalculate the prior MACT
determination. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir. 2008).
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any
remaining ``residual'' risk according to CAA section 112(f). This
provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report to Congress
discussing (among other things) methods of calculating the risks posed
(or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT
standards, the public health significance of those risks, the means and
costs of controlling them, the actual health effects to persons in
proximity of emitting sources, and the recommendations regarding
legislation of such remaining risk. EPA prepared and submitted this
report (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March
1999. Congress did not act in response to the report, thereby
triggering EPA's obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and
address residual risk.
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires us to determine, for source
categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether the emissions
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified as a known, probable, or
possible human carcinogen, do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks
to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the
category or subcategory to less than 1-in-1 million,'' EPA must
promulgate residual risk standards for the source category (or
subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health. In doing so, EPA may adopt standards equal to
existing MACT standards if EPA determines that the existing standards
are sufficiently protective. As stated in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077,
1083 (DC Cir. 2008), ``If EPA determines that the existing technology-
based standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.''
CAA section 112(f)(2) further states that EPA must also adopt more
stringent standards if required, ``to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Adverse environmental effect'' is defined in CAA section
112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect, which
may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural
resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or
threatened species or significant degradation of environmental
qualities over broad areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA was enacted in 1990, it expressly
preserved our use of the two-step process for developing standards to
address any residual risk and our interpretation of ``ample margin of
safety'' developed in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants,
Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment
Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR
38044, September 14, 1989). The first step in this process is the
determination of acceptable risk. The second step provides for an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, which is the level at which
the standards are set (unless a more stringent standard is required to
prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect).
The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA.
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves the interpretation set out
in the Benzene NESHAP, and the Court (in NRDC v. EPA) concluded that
EPA's interpretation of subsection 112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008), which says
``[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates EPA's interpretation
of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene standard, complete with a
citation to the Federal Register.'' See also, A Legislative History of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate
on Conference Report). We notified Congress in the Residual Risk Report
to Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in
making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA-453/R-99-
001, p. ES-11).
In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective:
* * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of
safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible protection against
risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the
greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk
level no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; and (2) limiting
to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1
million] the estimated risk that a person living near a facility
would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant
concentrations for 70 years.
The EPA also stated that, ``The EPA also considers incidence (the
number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious health
effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an important
measure of the health risk to the exposed population. Incidence
measures the extent of health risk to the exposed population as a
whole, by providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or other
serious health effects in the exposed population.'' The EPA went on to
conclude, ``estimated incidence would be weighed along with other
health risk information in judging acceptability.'' As explained more
fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA does not define
``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but considers rather broad
objectives to be weighed with a series of other health measures and
factors (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The determination of what
represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a judgment of ``what
risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' (Residual Risk
Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 824
F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not risk-free.
In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``EPA will generally presume
that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no higher than
approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that risk level is considered
acceptable.'' 54 FR 38045. We discussed the maximum individual lifetime
cancer risk as being ``the estimated risk that a person living near a
plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant
concentrations for 70 years.'' Id. We explained that this measure of
risk ``is an estimate of the upper bound of risk based on conservative
assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70
years.'' Id. We acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer
risk ``does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a
conservative risk level which is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be
exceeded.'' Id.
Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining
acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that
``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account
the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Id.
Consequently, the
[[Page 80224]]
presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10 thousand) provides
a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line for making
that determination.
The EPA also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following:
``In establishing a presumption for MIR [maximum individual cancer
risk], rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the Agency intends
to weigh it with a series of other health measures and factors. These
include the overall incidence of cancer or other serious health effects
within the exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within
each individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within,
typically, a 50-km exposure radius around facilities, the science
policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated with the
risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence for human health
effects, other quantified or unquantified health effects, effects due
to co-location of facilities, and co-emission of pollutants.'' Id.
In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the
exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime
cancer risk alone. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``[e]ven though
the risks judged ``acceptable'' by EPA in the first step of the Vinyl
Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry,
determining an ``ample margin of safety,'' again includes consideration
of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even
further.'' In the ample margin of safety decision process, the EPA
again considers all of the health risks and other health information
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be
considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant
factors. Considering all of these factors, the EPA will establish the
standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to protect
the public health, as required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 38046.
B. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for this
proposal?
As discussed in section III.A of this preamble, we apply a two-step
process for developing standards to address residual risk. In the first
step, EPA determines if risks are acceptable. This determination
``considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR \2\ of
approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million].'' 54 FR 38045.
In the second step of the process, EPA sets the standard at a level
that provides an ample margin of safety ``in consideration of all
health information, including the number of persons at risk levels
higher than approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant
factors, including costs and economic impacts, technological
feasibility, and other factors relevant to each particular decision.''
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level
of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In past residual risk determinations, EPA presented a number of
human health risk metrics associated with emissions from the category
under review, including: The MIR; the numbers of persons in various
risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer HI; and the
maximum acute non-cancer hazard (72 FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71 FR 42724,
July 27, 2006). EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation
uncertainties. In our most recent proposal (75 FR 65068), EPA also
presented and considered additional measures of health information to
support our decision-making, including: Estimates of ``total facility''
risks (risks from all HAP emissions from the facility at which the
source category is located); \3\ demographic analyses (analyses of the
distributions of HAP-related risks across different social,
demographic, and economic groups living near the facilities); and
estimates of the risks associated with emissions allowed by the MACT
standards (75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010). EPA is providing this same
type of information in support of the proposed actions described in
this Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA previously provided estimates of total facility risk in
a residual risk proposal for coke oven batteries (69 FR 48338,
August 9, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is considering all available health information to inform
our determinations of risk acceptability and ample margin of safety
under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and thus ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38044,
38046 (Sept. 14, 1989). Similarly, with regard to making the ample
margin of safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP ``[I]n
the ample margin decision, the EPA again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The EPA acknowledges that flexibility is provided by the Benzene
NESHAP regarding what factors EPA might consider in making
determinations and how they might be weighed for each source category.
In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, EPA
explained that: ``The policy chosen by the Administrator permits
consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR
figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer
health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this
way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed
in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride
mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to
the public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It
also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did
not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk
from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112
regulations, and, thereby, implicitly permits consideration of any and
all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment,
believes are appropriate to determining what will `protect the public
health.' '' 54 FR 38057.
For example, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed
in determining acceptability of risks. It is explained in the Benzene
NESHAP ``an MIR of approximately 1-in-10 thousand should ordinarily be
the upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above
this benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA
section 112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures
and information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the
EPA may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less
than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of
other health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to
the ample margin of safety analysis, it is stated in the Benzene NESHAP
that: ``* * * EPA believes the relative weight of the many
[[Page 80225]]
factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety
can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs
mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the
health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.''
Id. at 38061.
EPA wishes to point out that certain health information has not
been considered in these decisions. In assessing risks to populations
in the vicinity of the facilities in each category, we present
estimates of risk associated with HAP emissions from the source
category alone (source category risk estimates) and HAP emissions from
the entire facilities at which the covered source categories are
located (facility-wide risk estimates). We do not attempt to
characterize the risks associated with all HAP emissions impacting the
populations living near the sources in these categories. That is, we
have not presented estimates of total HAP inhalation risks from all
sources in the vicinity of the covered sources (e.g., the sum of the
risks from ambient levels, emissions from the source category,
facility-wide emissions, and emissions from other facilities nearby),
nor have we attempted to include estimates of total HAP inhalation
risks from indoor sources such as from cooking or degassing from
consumer products.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. While such
considerations are relevant to both cancer and non-cancer risk
assessments, they can be particularly important when assessing
cumulative non-cancer risks, where pollutant-specific risk-based
exposure levels (e.g., RfC) are based on the assumption that thresholds
exist for adverse health effects. For example, the EPA recognizes that,
although exposures attributable to emissions from a source category or
facility alone may not indicate the potential for increased risk of
adverse non-cancer health effects in a population, the exposures
resulting from emissions from the facility in combination with
emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to
which an individual is exposed, may be sufficient to result in
increased risk of adverse non-cancer health effects. In May 2010, the
SAB advised us ``* * * that RTR assessments will be most useful to
decision makers and communities if results are presented in the broader
context of aggregate and cumulative risks, including background
concentrations and contributions from other sources in the area.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA's responses to this and all other key recommendations of
the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment methodologies (which is
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf)
are outlined in a memo to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup
entitled, EPA's Actions in Response to the Key Recommendations of
the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. At this point, we believe that such
estimates of total HAP risks will have significantly greater associated
uncertainties than for the source category or facility-wide estimates,
hence compounding the uncertainty in any such comparison. This is
because we have not conducted a detailed technical review of HAP
emissions data for source categories and facilities that have not
previously undergone a RTR review or are not currently undergoing such
review. We are requesting comment on whether and how best to estimate
and evaluate total HAP exposure from outdoor sources in our
assessments, and, in particular, on whether and how it might be
appropriate to use information from EPA's NATA to support such
estimates. We also request comment whether and how to estimate total
HAP exposure from indoor sources in the context of these assessments.
We are also seeking comment on how best to consider various types and
scales of risk estimates when making our acceptability and ample margin
of safety determinations under CAA section 112(f). Additionally, we are
seeking comments and recommendations for any other comparative measures
that may be useful in the assessment of the distribution of HAP risks
across potentially affected demographic groups.
C. What other actions are we addressing in this proposal?
We are also proposing to revise requirements in these MACT
standards related to emissions during periods of SSM. The United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions
of two provisions in EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the
emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010).
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulation,
commonly referred to as the General Provisions Rule, that EPA
promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA
section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these two
provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during
periods of SSM.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in both of
the MACT standards addressed in this proposal. Consistent with Sierra
Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards in these rules that apply at
all times. In proposing the standards in these rules, EPA has taken
into account startup and shutdown periods, and, because operations and
emissions do not differ from normal operations during these periods,
has not proposed different standards for these periods. We are also
proposing several revisions to the General Provisions Applicability
table in both of the MACT standards. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop a SSM plan. We are also proposing to eliminate or
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not included in
the proposed regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are
specifically seeking comment on whether there are any such provisions
that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has determined that
malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating mode and,
therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be
factored into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once
promulgated, apply at all times. In Mossville Environmental Action Now
v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (DC Cir. 2004), the Court upheld as
reasonable standards that had factored in variability of emissions
under all operating conditions. However, nothing in CAA section 112(d)
or in case law requires that EPA anticipate and
[[Page 80226]]
account for the innumerable types of potential malfunction events in
setting emission standards. See Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1058 (DC Cir. 1978), (``In the nature of things, no general limit,
individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset
situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory
limits caused by ``uncontrollable acts of third parties,'' such as
strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of
other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise
of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in
advance by regulation.''). Further, it is reasonable to interpret CAA
section 112(d) as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in
setting emissions standards. For example, we note that CAA section 112
uses the concept of ``best performing'' sources in defining MACT, the
level of stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying the
concept of ``best performing'' to a source that is malfunctioning
presents significant difficulties. The goal of best performing sources
is to operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of their units.
Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into
account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for shipbuilding and
ship repair (surface coating) and wood furniture manufacturing
operations. As noted above, by definition, malfunctions are sudden and
unexpected events, and it would be difficult to set a standard that
takes into account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in each source category. Malfunctions can also
vary in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating standard
setting.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the
CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
Finally, EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause or contribute to an exceedance of the relevant emission
standard. (See, e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excessive Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown
(September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup,
Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (February 15, 1983)). EPA is,
therefore, proposing to add to the final rule an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by
malfunctions in both of the MACT standards addressed in this proposal.
See 40 CFR 63.782 for sources subject to the Shipbuilding and Repair
(Surface Coating) MACT standards, or 40 CFR 63.801 for sources subject
to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards (defining
``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other regulatory
provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to establish this
affirmative defense; a source subject to the Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair (Surface Coating) MACT standards must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR
63.781(d) and a source subject to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations MACT standards must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.800(h). (See
40 CFR 22.24.) The criteria ensure that the affirmative defense is
available only where the event that causes an exceedance of the
emission limit meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR
63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by
poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example to
successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a
sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution
control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner. * * *'' The criteria also are
designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to
minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 63.783(b)(1) for sources
subject to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) MACT
standards, or 40 CFR 63.802(c) for sources subject to the Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards, and to prevent
future malfunctions. For example the source must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously
as possible when the applicable emission limitations were being
exceeded* * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize
the impact of the excess emissions on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health* * *'' In any judicial or administrative
proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the
affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate
penalties may be assessed in accordance with section 113 of the CAA
(see also 40 CFR 22.77).
IV. Analyses Performed
As discussed above, in this notice, we are taking the following
actions: (1) we are proposing action to address the RTR requirements of
CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2) for both the Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair (Surface Coating) and the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations MACT standards; and, (2) we are proposing to revise the
provisions in both of these MACT standards to address SSM to ensure
that the SSM provisions are consistent with the Court decision in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019. In this section, we describe the
analyses performed to support the proposed decisions for the RTRs for
each of these source categories.
A. How did we estimate risks posed by the source categories?
The EPA conducted risk assessments that provided estimates of the
MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in a category, and, by
each source category, the distribution of cancer risks within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, HI for chronic exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause non-cancer health effects, HQ for acute
exposures to HAP with the potential to cause non-cancer health effects,
and an evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects.
The risk assessments consisted of seven primary steps, as discussed
below. The docket for this rulemaking contains the following documents
which provide more information on the risk assessment inputs and
models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations Source Category, and Draft Residual Risk
Assessment for the
[[Page 80227]]
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Source Category.
1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual Emissions and
Identifying the Emissions Release Characteristics
For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source
category, we compiled preliminary datasets using readily-available
information, reviewed the data, made changes where necessary, and
shared these data with the public via an ANPRM. 72 FR 29287, March 29,
2007. The preliminary dataset was based on data in the 2002 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) Final Inventory, Version 1 (made publicly
available on February 26, 2006).\5\ The preliminary dataset was updated
with information received in response to the ANPRM; data from the 2005
NEI, when that data became available; and additional data gathered by
EPA. For more information see the Memoranda Documenting Changes to the
RTR Dataset for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
Source Category, dated November 22, 2010, which is available in the
docket for this action. The updated dataset contains 85 facilities and
was used to conduct the risk assessments and other analyses that form
the basis for the proposed actions for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
(Surface Coating) source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The NEI is a database that contains information about
sources that emit criteria air pollutants and their precursors, and
HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant
emissions from point, non-point, and mobile sources in the 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. The EPA collects this information and releases an updated
version of the NEI database every three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category, we
compiled preliminary datasets using the best data available, reviewed
the data, and made changes where necessary. For this source category,
we compiled the preliminary datasets using data in the 2005 NEI. After
incorporation of changes to the dataset based on additional information
gathered by EPA, an updated dataset was created. This updated dataset
contains 385 facilities and was used to conduct the risk assessments
and other analyses that form the basis for the proposed actions for the
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category.
2. Establishing the Relationship Between Actual Emissions and MACT-
Allowable Emissions Levels
The available emissions data in the NEI and from other sources
typically represent the estimates of mass of emissions actually emitted
during the specified annual time period. These ``actual'' emission
levels are often lower than the emission levels that a facility might
be allowed to emit and still comply with the MACT standards. The
emissions level allowed to be emitted by the MACT standards is referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions level. This represents the
highest emissions level that could be emitted by the facility without
violating the MACT standards.
We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in
the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 19998-19999,
April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final HON residual risk rules
(71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006,
respectively). In those previous actions, we noted that assessing the
risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently reasonable since these
risks reflect the maximum level sources could emit and still comply
with national emission standards. But we also explained that it is
reasonable to consider actual emissions, where such data are available,
in both steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene
NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) It is reasonable to consider
actual emissions because sources typically seek to perform better than
required by emission standards to provide an operational cushion to
accommodate the variability in manufacturing processes and control
device performance.
As described above, the actual emissions data were compiled based
on the NEI, information gathered from companies, individual facilities,
industry trade associations, states, and information received in
response to the ANPRM. To estimate emissions at the MACT-allowable
level, we developed a ratio of MACT-allowable to actual emissions for
each emissions source type in each source category, based on the level
of control required by the MACT standards compared to the level of
reported actual emissions and available information on the level of
control achieved by the emissions controls in use. For example, if
there was information to suggest several facilities in the Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category were using coatings
that contain only 1 Kg of VOHAP compounds per Kg of coating solids (kg
VOHAP/kg solids) while the MACT standards required coatings to contain
no more than 2 kg VOHAP/kg solids, we would estimate that MACT-
allowable emissions from emission points using these coatings could be
as much as 2 times higher (VOHAP content of 2 kg/kg solids allowed
compared with VOHAP content of 1 kg/kg solids actually used), and the
ratio of MACT-allowable to actual would be 2:1 for the emission points
using these coatings at the facilities in this source category. After
developing these ratios for each emission point type in each source
category, we next applied these ratios on a facility-by-facility basis
to the maximum chronic risk estimates from the inhalation risk
assessment to obtain facility-specific maximum risk estimates based on
MACT-allowable emissions. The estimates of MACT-allowable emissions for
the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations and Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair (Surface Coating) source categories are described in section V
of this preamble.
3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation Exposures,
and Estimating Individual and Population Inhalation Risks
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risks from each of the source categories addressed in this
proposal were estimated using the HEM (Community and Sector HEM-3
version 1.1.0). The HEM-3 performs three of the primary risk assessment
activities listed above: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to estimate
the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term and
short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing within 50 km of
the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and population-level
inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-
response information.
The dispersion model used by HEM-3 is AERMOD, which is one of EPA's
preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations from industrial
facilities.\6\ To perform the dispersion modeling and to develop the
preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data libraries. The
first is a library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion
calculations. This library includes one year of hourly surface and
upper air observations for 130 meteorological stations, selected to
provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A second library
of United States Census Bureau census block \7\ internal point
[[Page 80228]]
locations and populations provides the basis of human exposure
calculations (Census, 2000). In addition, for each census block, the
census library includes the elevation and controlling hill height,
which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library of
pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is used to
estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the
latest values recommended by EPA for HAP and other toxic air
pollutants. These values are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are discussed in more detail later in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\7\ A census block is generally the smallest geographic area for
which census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used
the estimated annual average ambient air concentration of each of the
HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the
source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block
centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We
calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with
a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks
per year for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at
the centroid of an inhabited census block. Individual cancer risks were
calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the
ambient concentration of each of the HAP (in micrograms per cubic
meter) by its URE, which is an upper bound estimate of an individual's
probability of contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a
concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air.
For residual risk assessments, we generally use URE values from EPA's
IRIS. For carcinogenic pollutants without EPA IRIS values, we look to
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using
CalEPA URE values, where available. In cases where new, scientifically
credible dose-response values have been developed in a manner
consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process
similar to that used by EPA, we may use such dose-response values in
place of, or in addition to, other values, if appropriate.
Formaldehyde is a unique case. In 2004, EPA determined that the
CIIT dose-response value for formaldehyde (5.5 x 10-9 [mu]g/
m\3\) was based on better science than the IRIS dose-response value
(1.3 x 10-5 [mu]g/m\3\), and we switched from using the IRIS
value to the CIIT value in risk assessments supporting regulatory
actions. This determination was based on a substantial body of research
on the inhalation dosimetry for formaldehyde in rodents and primates by
the CIIT Centers for Health Research (formerly the CIIT), with a focus
on use of rodent data for refinement of the quantitative cancer dose-
response assessment.8 9 10 The CIIT's risk assessment of
formaldehyde incorporated mechanistic and dosimetric information on
formaldehyde. However, recent research published by EPA indicates that,
when the CIIT's two-stage modeling assumptions are varied, resulting
dose-response estimates can vary by several orders of
magnitude.11 12 13 14 These findings are not supportive of
interpreting the CIIT model results as providing a conservative
(health-protective) estimate of human risk.\15\ The recent EPA research
also examined the contribution of the two-stage modeling for
formaldehyde towards characterizing the relative weights of key events
in the mode-of-action of a carcinogen. For example, in the EPA
research, the model-based inference in the published CIIT study that
formaldehyde's direct mutagenic action is not relevant to the
compound's tumorigenicity was found not to hold under variations of
modeling assumptions.\16\ As a result of these findings, we no longer
considered the CIIT URE value health protective, and we are again using
the EPA's current value on IRIS, which was last revised in 1991, and
which is more than 2000 times greater than the CIIT value. We note that
a new IRIS re-assessment has been drafted and sent to the NAS for
review. The NAS review is expected to be completed by March of 2011. We
also note that POM, a carcinogenic HAP with a mutagenic mode of action,
is emitted by some of the facilities in these two categories.\17\ For
this compound group,\18\ the ADAF described in EPA's Supplemental
Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to
Carcinogens \19\ were applied. This adjustment has the effect of
increasing the estimated lifetime risks for POM by a factor of 1.6. In
addition, although only a small fraction of the total POM emissions
were not reported as individual compounds, EPA expresses carcinogenic
potency for compounds in this group in terms of benzo[a]pyrene
equivalence, based on evidence that carcinogenic POM has the same
mutagenic mechanism of action as benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, EPA's
Science Policy Council \20\ recommends applying the Supplemental
Guidance to all carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for which
risk estimates are based on relative potency. Accordingly, we have
applied the ADAF to the benzo[a]pyrene equivalent portion of all POM
mixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Conolly, RB, Kimbell, JS, Janszen, D, Schlosser, PM,
Kalisak, D, Preston, J, and Miller, FJ. 2003. Biologically Motivated
Computational Modeling of Formaldehyde Carcinogencity in the F344
Rat. Tox Sci 75: 432-447.
\9\ Conolly, RB, Kimbell, JS, Janszen, D, Schlosser, PM,
Kalisak, D, Preston, J, and Miller, FJ. 2004. Human Respiratory
Tract Cancer Risks of Inhaled Formaldehyde: Dose-Response
Predictions Derived from Biologically-Motivated Computational
Modeling of a Combined Rodent and Human Dataset. Tox Sci 82: 279-
296.
\10\ Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT). 1999.
Formaldehyde: Hazard Characterization and Dose-Response Assessment
for Carcinogenicity by the Route of Inhalation. CIIT, September 28,
1999. Research Triangle Park, NC.
\11\ U.S. EPA. Analysis of the Sensitivity and Uncertainty in 2-
Stage Clonal Growth Models for Formaldehyde with Relevance to Other
Biologically-Based Dose Response (BBDR) Models. U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-08/103, 2008.
\12\ Subramaniam, R; Chen, C; Crump, K; et al. (2008).
Uncertainties in Biologically-Based Modeling of Formaldehyde-Induced
Cancer Risk: Identification of Key Issues. Risk Anal 28 (4):907-923.
\13\ Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; White P; Chen
C; Schlosser PM (2007). Uncertainties in the CIIT model for
formaldehyde-induced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited
sensitivity analysis-I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237-1254.
\14\ Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; et al. (2008). Sensitivity
Analysis of Biologically Motivated Model for Formaldehyde-Induced
Respiratory Cancer in Humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495.
\15\ Crump, K; Chen, C; Fox, J; et al. (2008). Sensitivity
Analysis of Biologically Motivated Model for Formaldehyde-Induced
Respiratory Cancer in Humans. Ann Occup Hyg 52:481-495.
\16\ Subramaniam RP; Crump KS; Van Landingham C; White P; Chen
C; Schlosser PM (2007). Uncertainties in the CIIT model for
formaldehyde-induced carcinogenicity in the rat: A limited
sensitivity analysis-I. Risk Anal, 27: 1237-1254.
\17\ U.S. EPA, 2005. Performing risk assessments that include
carcinogens described in the Supplemental Guidance as having a
mutagenic mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines
Implementation Work Group Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland,
dated October 4, 2005.
\18\ See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories document
available in the docket for a list of HAP with a mutagenic mode of
action.
\19\ U.S. EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Early-
Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03/003F. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
\20\ U.S. EPA, 2006. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines
Implementation Workgroup Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland,
dated June 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
emissions from the source category were estimated as the sum of the
risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP (including those classified as
carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and
suggestive evidence of carcinogenic
[[Page 80229]]
potential \21\) emitted by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the population within 50 km
of any source were also estimated for the source category as part of
these assessments by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models,
including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ These classifications also coincide with the terms ``known
carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,''
respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA's previous
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR
33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the risks of these individual
compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that
was recommended by the EPA's SAB in their 2002 peer review of EPA's
NATA entitled, NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess risk of non-cancer health effects from chronic exposures,
we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ
system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or target organ-
specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ for chronic exposures is the estimated
chronic exposure divided by the chronic reference level, which is
either the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with uncertainty spanning
perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to
the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to
be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a
lifetime,'' or, in cases where an RfC from EPA's IRIS database is not
available, EPA will utilize the following prioritized sources for our
chronic dose-response values: (1) The ATSDR MRL, which is defined as
``an estimate of daily human exposure to a substance that is likely to
be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects (other than cancer)
over a specified duration of exposure''; (2) the CalEPA Chronic REL,
which is defined as ``the concentration level at or below which no
adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure
duration;'' and (3) as noted above, in cases where scientifically
credible dose-response values have been developed in a manner
consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer review process
similar to that used by EPA, we may use those dose-response values in
place of, or in concert with other values.
Screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were also
evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site exposure
for each facility (i.e., not just the census block centroids) assuming
that a person is located at this spot at a time when both the peak
(hourly) emission rate and hourly dispersion conditions (1991 calendar
year data) occur. The acute HQ is the estimated acute exposure divided
by the acute dose-response value. In each case, acute HQ values were
calculated using best available, short-term dose-response values. These
acute dose-response values, which are described below, include the
acute REL, AEGL, and ERPG for 1-hour exposure durations. As discussed
below, we used conservative assumptions for emission rates,
meteorology, and exposure location for our acute analysis.
As described in the CalEPA's Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference
Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined as ``the
concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are
anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' Acute REL values are
based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported
in the medical and toxicological literature. Acute REL values are
designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by
the inclusion of margins of safety. Since margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the
acute REL does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels values were derived in response to
recommendations from the NRC. As described in Standing Operating
Procedures (SOP) of the National Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),\22\ ``the NRC's previous name for acute exposure
levels--community emergency exposure levels (CEEL)-- was replaced by
the term AEGL to reflect the broad application of these values to
planning, response, and prevention in the community, the workplace,
transportation, the military, and the remediation of Superfund sites.''
This document also states that AEGL values ``represent threshold
exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency
exposures ranging from 10 minutes to eight hours.'' The document lays
out the purpose and objectives of AEGL by stating (page 21) that ``the
primary purpose of the AEGL program and the NAC/AEGL Committee is to
develop guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures
to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
In detailing the intended application of AEGL values, the document
states (page 31) that ``[i]t is anticipated that the AEGL values will
be used for regulatory and nonregulatory purposes by United States
Federal and State agencies, and possibly the international community in
conjunction with chemical emergency response, planning, and prevention
programs. More specifically, the AEGL values will be used for
conducting various risk assessments to aid in the development of
emergency preparedness and prevention plans, as well as real-time
emergency response actions, for accidental chemical releases at fixed
facilities and from transport carriers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ National Academies of Science, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AEGL-1 value is then specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience
notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory
effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and
reversible upon cessation of exposure.'' The document also notes (page
3) that, ``Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure
levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient
and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Similarly, the document defines
AEGL-2 values as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as ppm or mg/
m\3\) of a substance above which it is predicted that the general
population, including susceptible individuals, could experience
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or
an impaired ability to escape.''
Emergency Response Planning Guidelines values are derived for use
in emergency response, as described in the American Industrial Hygiene
Association's document entitled, Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
(ERPG) Procedures and Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf), which states that, ``Emergency Response
Planning Guidelines were developed for emergency planning and are
intended as health based guideline concentrations
[[Page 80230]]
for single exposures to chemicals.'' \23\ The ERPG-1 value is defined
as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that
nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour without
experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects or
without perceiving a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Similarly,
the ERPG-2 value is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration
below which it is believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed
for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or
other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an
individual's ability to take protective action.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. 1 November,
2006. American Industrial Hygiene Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and ERPG values
include the similarly-defined severity levels one and 2. For many
chemicals, a severity level one value AEGL or ERPG has not been
developed; in these instances, higher severity level AEGL-2 or ERPG-2
values are compared to our modeled exposure levels to screen for
potential acute concerns.
Acute REL values for one hour exposure durations are typically
lower than their corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 values. Even though
their definitions are slightly different, AEGL-1 values are often the
same as the corresponding ERPG-1 values, and AEGL-2 values are often
equal to ERPG-2 values. Maximum HQ values from our acute screening risk
assessments typically result when basing them on the acute REL value
for a particular pollutant. In cases where our maximum acute HQ value
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next highest acute
dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1 value).
To develop screening estimates of acute exposures, we developed
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average
actual annual hourly emission rates by a factor to cover routinely
variable emissions. We chose the factor based on process knowledge and
engineering judgment and with awareness of a Texas study of short-term
emissions variability, which showed that most peak emission events, in
a heavily-industrialized 4-county area (Harris, Galveston, Chambers,
and Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than twice the annual average
hourly emission rate. The highest peak emission event was 74 times the
annual average hourly emission rate, and the 99th percentile ratio of
peak hourly emission rate to the annual average hourly emission rate
was 9.\24\ This analysis is provided in Appendix 4 of the Draft
Residual Risk Assessment for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations,
and Draft Residual Risk Assessment for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
(Surface Coating) which are available in the docket for this action.
Considering this analysis, unless specific process knowledge or data
are available to provide an alternate value, to account for more than
99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, we apply a conservative
screening multiplication factor of 10 to the average annual hourly
emission rate in these acute exposure screening assessments. For the
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category, this
factor of 10 was applied. For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations source category, a factor of 4 was applied, based on
emissions data provided by industry. More information supporting the
use of this factor for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations is
presented in the memorandum, Acute Effects Factor for Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations, dated November 23, 2010, which is available
in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on this factor and
the data used to calculate it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the source of these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In cases where all acute HQ values from the screening step were
less than or equal to 1, acute impacts were deemed negligible and no
further analysis was performed. In the cases where an acute HQ from the
screening step was greater than 1, additional site-specific data were
considered to develop a more refined estimate of the potential for
acute impacts of concern. The data refinements employed for these
source categories consisted of using the site-specific facility layout
to distinguish facility property from an area where the public could be
exposed. These refinements are discussed in the draft risk assessment
documents, which are available in the docket, for each of these source
categories. Ideally, we would prefer to have continuous measurements
over time to see how the emissions vary by each hour over an entire
year. Having a frequency distribution of hourly emission rates over a
year would allow us to perform a probabilistic analysis to estimate
potential threshold exceedances and their frequency of occurrence. Such
an evaluation could include a more complete statistical treatment of
the key parameters and elements adopted in this screening analysis.
However, we recognize that having this level of data is rare, hence our
use of the multiplier approach.
4. Conducting Multi-Pathway Exposure and Risk Modeling
The potential for significant human health risks due to exposures
via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multi-pathway exposures) and
the potential for adverse environmental impacts were evaluated in a
three-step process. In the first step, we determined whether any
facilities emitted any HAP known to be PB-HAP. There are 14 PB-HAP
compounds or compound classes identified for this screening in EPA's
Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are cadmium compounds, chlordane,
chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans,
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorocyclohexane, lead compounds, mercury compounds, methoxychlor,
polychlorinated biphenyls, POM, toxaphene, and trifluralin.
Since one or more of these PB-HAP are emitted by facilities in both
source categories, we proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
In this step, we determined whether the facility-specific emission
rates of each of the emitted PB-HAP were large enough to create the
potential for significant non-inhalation risks. To facilitate this
step, we have developed emission rate thresholds for each PB-HAP using
a hypothetical screening exposure scenario developed for use in
conjunction with the EPA's TRIM.FaTE model. The hypothetical screening
scenario was subjected to a sensitivity analysis to ensure that its key
design parameters were established such that environmental media
concentrations were not underestimated (i.e., to minimize the
occurrence of false negatives, or results that suggest that risks might
be acceptable when, in fact, actual risks are high), and to also
minimize the occurrence of false positives for human health endpoints.
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. The
facility-specific emission rates of each of the PB-HAP in each source
category were compared to the emission threshold values for each of the
PB-HAP identified in the source category datasets.
For all of the facilities in the source categories addressed in
this proposal, all of the PB-HAP emission rates were less than the
emission threshold values. As a result of this, multi-pathway exposures
and environmental risks were
[[Page 80231]]
deemed negligible and no further analysis was performed. If the
emission rates of the PB-HAP had been above the emission threshold
values, the source categories would have been further evaluated for
potential non-inhalation risks and adverse environmental effects in a
third step through site-specific refined assessments using EPA's
TRIM.FaTE model.
For further information on the multi-pathway analysis approach, see
the residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this
preamble.
5. Assessing Risks Considering Emissions Control Options
In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening
for potential multi-pathway risks, where appropriate, we also estimated
risks considering the potential emission reductions that would be
achieved by the particular control options under consideration. In
these cases, the expected emissions reductions were applied to the
specific HAP and emissions sources in the source category dataset to
develop corresponding estimates of risk reductions.
6. Conducting Other Risk-Related Analyses, Including Facility-Wide
Assessments and Demographic Analyses
a. Facility-Wide Risk
To put the source category risks in context, we also examined the
risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, for each facility that includes one or more
sources from one of the source categories under review, we examined the
HAP emissions, not only from the source category of interest, but also
emissions of HAP from all other emission sources at the facility. The
emissions data for generating these ``facility-wide'' risks were
obtained from the 2005 NATA emissions inventory (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005). We estimated the risks due to the
inhalation of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the
populations residing within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the
methods used for the source category analysis described above. For
these facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled source category risks
were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the portion of
facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source categories
addressed in this proposal. We specifically examined the facilities
associated with the highest estimates of risk and determined the
percentage of that risk attributable to the source category of
interest. The risk documentation available through the docket for this
action provides all the facility-wide risks and the percentage of
source category contribution for all source categories assessed.
The methodology and the results of the facility-wide analyses for
each source category are included in the residual risk documentation as
referenced in section IV.A of this preamble, which is available in the
docket for this action.
b. Demographic Analysis
To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with each source category, we evaluated the distributions of HAP-
related cancer and non-cancer risks across different social,
demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near the
facilities where these source categories are located. The development
of demographic analyses to inform the consideration of EJ issues in EPA
rulemakings is an evolving science. The EPA offers the demographic
analyses in this rulemaking to inform the consideration of potential EJ
issues, and invites public comment on the approaches used and the
interpretations made from the results, with the hope that this will
support the refinement and improve the utility of such analyses for
future rulemakings.
For the demographic analyses, we focus on the populations within 50
km of any facility estimated to have exposures to HAP which result in
cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, or non-cancer HI of 1 or
greater (based on the emissions of the source category or the facility,
respectively). We examine the distributions of those risks across
various demographic groups, comparing the percentages of particular
demographic groups to the total number of people in those demographic
groups nationwide. The results, including other risk metrics, such as
average risks for the exposed populations, are documented in source
category-specific technical reports in the docket for both source
categories covered in this proposal.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ For example, the report pertaining to the Shipbuilding and
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category is entitled Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for
Populations Living Near Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface
Coating) Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the risk values used in these analyses were the
modeling results based on actual emissions levels obtained from the
HEM-3 model described above. The risk values for each census block were
linked to a database of information from the 2000 Decennial census that
includes data on race and ethnicity, age distributions, poverty status,
household incomes, and education level. The Census Department
Landview[reg] database was the source of the data on race and
ethnicity, and the data on age distributions, poverty status, household
incomes, and education level were obtained from the SF3 Long Form.
While race and ethnicity census data are available at the census block
level, the age and income census data are only available at the census
block group level (which includes an average of 26 blocks or an average
of 1,350 people). Where census data are available at the block group
level but not the block level, we assumed that all census blocks within
the block group have the same distribution of ages and incomes as the
block group.
For each source category, we focused on those census blocks where
source category risk results show estimated lifetime inhalation cancer
risks above 1-in-1 million or chronic non-cancer indices above 1, and
determined the relative percentage of different racial and ethnic
groups, different age groups, adults with and without a high school
diploma, people living in households below the national median income,
and for people living below the poverty line within those census
blocks. The specific census population categories studied include:
Total population
White
African American (or Black)
Native Americans
Other races and multiracial
Hispanic or Latino
Children 18 years of age and under
Adults 19 to 64 years of age
Adults 65 years of age and over
Adults without a high school diploma
Households earning under the national median income
People living below the poverty line
It should be noted that these categories overlap in some instances,
resulting in some populations being counted in more than one category
(e.g., other races and multiracial and Hispanic). In addition, while
not a specific census population category, we also examined risks to
``Minorities,'' a classification which is defined for these purposes as
all race population categories except white.
For further information about risks to the populations located near
the facilities in these source categories, we also evaluated the
estimated distribution of inhalation cancer and chronic non-cancer
risks associated
[[Page 80232]]
with the HAP emissions from all the emissions sources at the facility
(i.e., facility-wide). This analysis used the facility-wide RTR
modeling results and the census data described above.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analyses for
each source category are included in a source category-specific
technical report for each of the categories, which are available in the
docket for this action.
7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for the source categories
addressed in this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions,
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A brief discussion of
the uncertainties in the emissions datasets, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in
the risk assessment documentation (referenced earlier) available in the
docket for this action.
a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Datasets
Although the development of the RTR datasets involved quality
assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values
will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data
are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to
complete the datasets are inaccurate, errors in estimating emissions
values, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals for certain years that do not
reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or
variations from year to year. Additionally, we are aware of a potential
impact on emissions from a chemical reaction during the curing and
gluing of parts in this source category,\26\ which may not be reflected
in our emissions inventory. For example, we believe formaldehyde may be
formed during the chemical process of curing of some coatings
formulations, such as conversion varnishes, which are commonly used at
some wood furniture manufacturing operations. Currently, there are no
EPA-approved methods for estimating formaldehyde emissions from wood
furniture coatings that could potentially be formed as a result of the
curing process. This is an uncertainty that could potentially bias the
risk estimates; however, the extent of this bias is unknown. We request
comment on the extent to which wood furniture coatings covered by this
source category, including but not limited to conversion varnishes,
undergo a chemical reaction during the curing process that yields
formaldehyde, and associated methods for quantifying the resultant
impact on emission levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Howard et al. (1998). Indoor Emissions from Conversion
Varnishes. A[igrave]r & Waste Management Assoc. 48:924-930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects
screening assessment were based on multiplication factors applied to
the average annual hourly emission rates (the default factor of 10 was
used for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) and a factor of
4 was used for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations), which are
intended to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility
operations. Additionally, although we believe that we have data for
most facilities in these two source categories in our RTR dataset, our
dataset may not include data for all existing facilities. Moreover,
there are significant uncertainties with regard to the identification
of sources as major or area in the NEI for these source categories.
While we published an ANPRM for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface
Coating) and received additional data, we did not publish an ANPRM for
Wood Furniture Manufacturing due to time constraints.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
While the analysis employed EPA's recommended regulatory dispersion
model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is uncertainty in ambient
concentration estimates associated with any model, including AERMOD. In
circumstances where we had to choose between various model options,
where possible, model options (e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion,
chemistry) were selected to provide an overestimate of ambient air
concentrations of the HAP rather than underestimates. However, because
of practicality and data limitation reasons, some factors (e.g.,
meteorology, building downwash) have the potential in some situations
to overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts. For example,
meteorological data were taken from a single year (1991), and facility
locations can be a significant distance from the site where these data
were taken. Despite these uncertainties, we believe that at off-site
locations and census block centroids, the approach considered in the
dispersion modeling analysis should generally yield overestimates of
ambient HAP concentrations.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
The effects of human mobility on exposures were not included in the
assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility and long-term mobility
between census blocks in the modeling domain were not considered.\27\
As a result, this simplification will likely bias the assessment toward
overestimating the highest exposures. In addition, the assessment
predicted the chronic exposures at the centroid of each populated
census block as surrogates for the exposure concentrations for all
people living in that block. Using the census block centroid to predict
chronic exposures tends to over-predict exposures for people in the
census block who live further from the facility, and under-predict
exposures for people in the census block who live closer to the
facility. Thus, using the census block centroid to predict chronic
exposures may lead to a potential understatement or overstatement of
the true maximum impact, but is an unbiased estimate of average risk
and incidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Short-term mobility is movement from one microenvironment
to another over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is
movement from one residence to another over the course of a
lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The assessments evaluate the cancer inhalation risks associated
with continuous pollutant exposures over a 70-year period, which is the
assumed lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the length of time
that modeled emissions sources at facilities actually operate (i.e.,
more or less than 70 years), and the domestic growth or decline of the
modeled industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size
of United States facilities), will influence the risks posed by a given
source category. Depending on the characteristics of the industry,
these factors will, in most cases, result in an overestimate both in
individual risk levels and in the total estimated number of cancer
cases. However, in rare cases, where a facility maintains or increases
its emission levels beyond 70 years, residents live beyond 70 years at
the same location, and the residents spend most of their days at that
location, then the risks could potentially be underestimated. Annual
cancer incidence estimates from exposures to emissions from these
sources would not be affected by uncertainty in the length of time
emissions sources operate.
The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume chronic
exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because
[[Page 80233]]
most people spend the majority of their time indoors, actual exposures
may not be as high, depending on the characteristics of the pollutants
modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor levels are roughly equivalent to
ambient levels, but for very reactive pollutants or larger particles,
these levels are typically lower. This factor has the potential to
result in an overstatement of 25 to 30 percent of exposures.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996.
(EPA 453/R-01-003; January 2001; page 85.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that should
be highlighted. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment
depends on the simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may
vary greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and human
activity patterns. In this assessment, we assume that individuals
remain for one hour at the point of maximum ambient concentration as
determined by the co-occurrence of peak emissions and worst-case
meteorological conditions. These assumptions would tend to overestimate
actual exposures since it is unlikely that a person would be located at
the point of maximum exposure during the time of worst-case impact.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and non-cancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and
others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a
preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is
brought out in EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the primary
goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, as an
Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default options
that are used in the absence of scientific data to the contrary, should
be health protective.'' (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, pages 1-7.) This
is the approach followed here as summarized in the next several
paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of uncertainties and
variability in dose-response relationships is given in the residual
risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this preamble,
which is available in the docket for this action.
Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit).\29\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as
low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could also be
greater.\30\ When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to
provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective
default approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring
adequate health-protection, EPA typically uses the upper bound
estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency estimates in our
risk assessments, an approach that may have limitations for other uses
(e.g., priority-setting or expected benefits analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).
\30\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC and RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels.
Specifically, these values provide an estimate (with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily oral exposure (RfD) or
of a continuous inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive
values that are intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the
methodology relies upon an UF approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 1994) which
includes consideration of both uncertainty and variability. When there
are gaps in the available information, UF are applied to derive
reference values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk
of deleterious effects. The UF are commonly default values,\31\ e.g.,
factors of 10 or 3, used in the absence of compound-specific data;
where data are available, UF may also be developed using compound-
specific information. When data are limited, more assumptions are
needed and more UF are used. Thus, there may be a greater tendency to
overestimate risk in the sense that further study might support
development of reference values that are higher (i.e., less potent)
because fewer default assumptions are needed. However, for some
pollutants, it is possible that risks may be underestimated. While
collectively termed ``UF,'' these factors account for a number of
different quantitative considerations when using observed animal
(usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the development of the RfC.
The UF are intended to account for: (1) Variation in susceptibility
among the members of the human population (i.e., inter-individual
variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from experimental animal
data to humans (i.e., interspecies differences); (3) uncertainty in
extrapolating from data obtained in a study with less-than-lifetime
exposure (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to chronic exposure);
(4) uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data to obtain an
estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse effects; and (5)
uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there are problems with
the applicability of available studies. Many of the UF used to account
for variability and uncertainty in the development of acute reference
values are quite similar to those developed for chronic durations, but
they more often use individual UF values that may be less than 10.
Uncertainty factors are applied based on chemical-specific or health
effect-specific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do not
vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 is
typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference value (see
the following paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference value
derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in
extrapolating from animals to humans; (3) uncertainty in lowest
observed adverse effect (exposure) level to no observed adverse effect
(exposure) level adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an
incomplete database on toxic effects of potential concern. Additional
adjustments are often
[[Page 80234]]
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., four hours) to derive an acute
reference value at another exposure duration (e.g., one hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk
Assessment (NRC, 1994) ``[Default] options are generic approaches,
based on general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are
applied to various elements of the risk assessment process when the
correct scientific model is unknown or uncertain.'' The 1983 NRC
report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the
Process, defined default option as ``the option chosen on the basis
of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the
absence of data to the contrary'' (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore,
default options are not rules that bind the Agency; rather, the
Agency may depart from them in evaluating the risks posed by a
specific substance when it believes this to be appropriate. In
keeping with EPA's goal of protecting public health and the
environment, default assumptions are used to ensure that risk to
chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults are not intended
to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination of EPA
Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, EPA/100/B-04/001 available
at:
http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not all acute reference values are developed for the same purpose,
and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute
assessment of human health effects relative to the reference value or
values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the
lack of short-term dose-response values at different levels of severity
should be factored into the risk characterization as potential
uncertainties.
Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed reference
values for cancer and non-cancer effects for all pollutants emitted by
the sources included in this assessment, some HAP continue to have no
reference values for cancer or chronic non-cancer or acute effects.
Since exposures to these pollutants cannot be included in a
quantitative risk estimate, an understatement of risk for these
pollutants at environmental exposure levels is possible. For a group of
compounds that are either unspeciated or do not have reference values
for every individual compound (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively
use the most protective reference value to estimate risk from
individual compounds in the group of compounds.
Additionally, chronic reference values for several of the compounds
included in this assessment are currently under EPA IRIS review, and
revised assessments may determine that these pollutants are more or
less potent than the current value. We may re-evaluate residual risks
for the final rulemaking if, as a result of these reviews, a dose-
response metric changes enough to indicate that the risk assessment
supporting this notice may significantly understate human health risk.
e. Uncertainties in the Multi-Pathway and Environmental Effects
Assessment
We generally assume that when exposure levels are not anticipated
to adversely affect human health, they also are not anticipated to
adversely affect the environment. For each source category, we
generally rely on the site-specific levels of PB-HAP emissions to
determine whether a full assessment of the multi-pathway and
environmental effects is necessary. Because site-specific PB-HAP
emission levels were so far below levels which would trigger a refined
assessment of multi-pathway impacts, we are confident that these types
of impacts are insignificant for these source categories.
f. Uncertainties in the Facility-Wide Risk Assessment
Given that the same general analytical approach and the same models
were used to generate facility-wide risk results as were used to
generate the source category risk results, the same types of
uncertainties discussed above for our source category risk assessments
apply to the facility-wide risk assessments. Additionally, the degree
of uncertainty associated with facility-wide emissions and risks is
likely greater because we generally have not conducted a thorough
engineering review of emissions data for source categories not
currently undergoing an RTR review.
g. Uncertainties in the Demographic Analysis
Our analysis of the distribution of risks across various
demographic groups is subject to the typical uncertainties associated
with census data (e.g., errors in filling out and transcribing census
forms), as well as the additional uncertainties associated with the
extrapolation of census-block group data (e.g., income level and
education level) down to the census block level.
B. How did we perform the technology review?
Our technology review is focused on the identification and
evaluation of ``developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies'' since the promulgation of the existing MACT standard. If
a review of available information identifies such developments, then we
conduct an analysis of the technical feasibility of requiring the
implementation of these developments, along with the impacts (costs,
emission reductions, risk reductions, etc.). We then make a decision on
whether it is necessary to amend the regulation to require these
developments.
Based on specific knowledge of each source category, we began by
identifying known developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies. For the purpose of this exercise, we considered any of
the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during MACT development;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that was identified and considered during MACT development)
that could result in significant additional emission reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified and considered during MACT development; and
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied that was not identified and considered
during MACT development.
In addition to looking back at practices, processes, or control
technologies reviewed at the time we developed the MACT standards, we
reviewed a variety of sources of data to aid in our evaluation of
whether there were additional practices, processes, or controls to
consider. One of these sources of data was subsequent air toxics rules.
Since the promulgation of the MACT standards for the source categories
addressed in this proposal, EPA has developed air toxics regulations
for a number of additional source categories. We reviewed the
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these
subsequent regulatory actions to identify any practices, processes, and
control technologies considered in these efforts that could possibly be
applied to emission sources in the source categories under this current
RTR review.
We also consulted EPA's RBLC. The terms ``RACT,'' ``BACT,'' and
``LAER'' are acronyms for different program requirements under the CAA
provisions addressing the national ambient air quality standards.
Control technologies classified as RACT, BACT, or LAER apply to
stationary sources depending on whether the source is existing or new,
and on the size, age, and location of the facility. Best Available
Control Technology and LAER (and sometimes RACT) are determined on a
case-by-case basis, usually by state or local permitting agencies. EPA
established the RBLC to provide a central database of air pollution
technology information (including technologies required in source-
specific permits) to promote the sharing of information among
permitting agencies and to aid in identifying future possible control
technology options that might apply broadly to numerous sources within
a category or apply only on a source-by-source basis. The RBLC contains
over 5,000 air pollution control permit determinations that can help
identify appropriate technologies to mitigate many air pollutant
emission streams. We searched this database to determine whether any
practices, processes, or control technologies are included for the
types of processes used for emission
[[Page 80235]]
sources (e.g., spray booths) in the source categories under
consideration in this proposal.
We also requested information from industry regarding developments
in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, we reviewed
other information sources, such as state or local permitting agency
databases and industry-supported databases.
V. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions
This section of the preamble provides background information on the
MACT standards and source categories, the results of our RTR for each
source category, and our proposed decisions concerning the SSM
provisions in each MACT standard.
A. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Shipbuilding and
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category?
1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standards
The National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
(Surface Coating) were promulgated on December 15, 1995 (60 FR 64330)
and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart II. The Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair (Surface Coating) MACT standards (i.e., Shipbuilding MACT
standards) apply to shipbuilding and ship repair operations at any
facility that is a major source of HAP. We estimate that there are
approximately 85 shipbuilding and ship repair facilities currently
subject to the Shipbuilding MACT standards.
The shipbuilding and ship repair industry consists of
establishments that build, repair, repaint, convert, and alter ships,
which are marine or fresh-water vessels used for military or commercial
operations. In general, activities and processes involved in ship
repair and new ship construction are relatively similar. Operations
include fabrication of basic components from raw materials, welding
components and parts together, painting and repainting, overhauls, ship
conversions, and other alterations. Nearly all shipyards that construct
new ships also perform ship repairs. The source category covered by
this MACT standard only includes the surface coating operations that
occur at these facilities during shipbuilding and ship repair.
Emissions of VOHAP from surface coating operations at shipbuilding
and ship repair facilities result from the application of coatings and
the use of cleaning solvents containing VOHAP during ship repair and
shipbuilding operations. To reduce VOHAP emissions, the Shipbuilding
MACT standards limit the coatings that can be used to those with as-
applied VOHAP content less than or equal to the applicable level
specified in Table 2 to Subpart II of Part 63--Volatile Organic HAP
Limits for Marine Coatings. This table contains as-applied VOHAP
content limits of a variety of marine surface coatings categories,
including a general use category and 22 specialty coatings categories.
The Shipbuilding MACT standards also specify work practice standards
that minimize evaporative emissions and spills from the handling,
transfer, and storage of VOHAP-containing materials such as organic
thinning solvents and paint wastes.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
We initially created a preliminary dataset for the source category
using data in the 2002 NEI Final Inventory, Version 1 (made publicly
available on February 26, 2006). We reviewed the NEI dataset and made
changes where necessary to ensure that the proper facilities were
included and that the proper processes were allocated to the
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category. We also
reviewed the emissions and other data to identify data anomalies that
could affect risk estimates. On March 29, 2007, we published an ANPRM
(72 FR 29287) for the express purpose of requesting comments and
updates to this dataset, as well as to the datasets for the other
source categories addressed in that ANPRM. Approximately 20 comments,
received in response to the ANPRM, were reviewed and considered, and we
made adjustments to the dataset where we concluded the comments
supported such adjustment. Adjustments were also made to the dataset to
reflect updates made to the data in the 2005 NEI and to remove
emissions from the dataset that were from sources that are not part of
the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category, as
determined through further engineering review. Based on the data
collection and review process, we developed model input files to be
used in the risk analysis for 71 facilities. As mentioned previously,
there are a total of approximately 85 facilities subject to the
Shipbuilding MACT standards. Therefore, we developed model input files
for about 84 percent of the total facilities.
Nevertheless, after the adjustments described above were made to
the dataset, approximately 40 facilities included in our list of 85
facilities still had some missing or incomplete HAP emissions data,
based on NEI and EPA's Toxics Release Inventory searches. Thus, a HAP
profile was developed to populate the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
(Surface Coating) dataset with representative data for these 40
facilities, using several assumptions and decisions. For more
information see Memoranda Documenting Changes to the RTR Dataset for
the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Source Category,
dated November 22, 2010, which includes the memorandum Default
Emissions Assumptions for Shipbuilding RTR Dataset. For three
facilities that provided VOC emissions data, but did not provide HAP
emissions data, we speciated the VOC emissions into specific HAP
emissions, making the worst-case assumption that all the VOC were HAP.
The HAP profile we developed and applied to the VOC emissions for these
three facilities was based on the top three solvents reported by the
other facilities in the source category, which accounted for more than
90 percent of the total HAP emissions at those facilities. This HAP
speciation profile was: Xylene (all isomers)--78 percent; ethyl
benzene--15 percent; and toluene--7 percent.
There were also 44 facilities subject to the Shipbuilding MACT
standards with no available emissions data, and we decided to assign
them to one of two possible categories based on available information
from company Web sites, operating permits, previous MACT project
information, or similar facilities. The first category included 11
facilities that emitted greater than or equal to 25 TPY of total HAP.
The second category included 33 facilities that emitted less than 25
TPY. Based on a small number of available operating permits and
industry information collected for the original MACT rule, we
determined which facilities belonged in each category. We then used the
available emissions data reported for those facilities to calculate
average total HAP emissions for each source type. The average HAP
emissions level for facilities in the first category was estimated to
be about 25 TPY, and the average HAP emissions level for facilities in
the second category was estimated to be 7 TPY. Thus, the 11 facilities
in the first category with no emissions data were assigned emissions of
25 tons total HAP per year, and 33 facilities in the second category
with no emissions data were assigned emissions of 7 tons total HAP per
year. The same default HAP solvent profile discussed above was used to
speciate the HAP emissions for these facilities. For a more complete
description of the default
[[Page 80236]]
assumptions used to populate the dataset, see Default Emissions
Assumptions for Shipbuilding RTR Dataset memorandum, dated August 30,
2010, which is available in the docket for this action. These updated
data were used to conduct the risk assessments and other analyses that
form the basis for this proposed action.
Mixed xylenes and ethyl benzene account for the majority of the HAP
emissions from the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
source category (approximately 855 TPY, or 90 percent of the total HAP
emissions by mass). These estimates are based on actual reported
emissions data. These facilities also reported relatively small
emissions of 33 other HAP. For more detail, see the memorandum in the
docket for this action describing the risk assessment inputs and models
for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category.
We estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from this source category
could be up to 2 times greater than the actual emissions for some types
of coatings, based on information obtained for the highest usage
coating categories at several major source facilities. However, we do
not have facility-specific information for all facilities or all
coatings, and we request comment on this estimate. For more detail
about how this estimate of the ratio of actual to MACT-allowable
emissions was derived, see the Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) Allowable Emission Estimates memorandum, dated August 5, 2010,
in the docket for this action describing the estimation of MACT-
allowable emission levels and associated risks and impacts. For the
``facility-wide'' risk analysis, facility-specific emissions data from
the 2005 NEI were used.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We conducted an inhalation risk assessment for the Shipbuilding and
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category. We also conducted an
assessment of facility-wide risk and performed a demographic analysis
of population risks. Details of the risk assessments and analyses can
be found in the residual risk documentation referenced in section IV.A
of this preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 3 provides an overall summary of the results of the
inhalation risk assessment.
Table 3--Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer Estimated Maximum chronic non-cancer
risk (in 1 million) \2\ Estimated annual TOSHI \3\
---------------------------- population cancer ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable at risk >= 1- incidence Actual Allowable cancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions in-1 million (cases per emissions emissions
level level year) level Level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
85...................................... 10 20 4,000 0.003 0.5 1 HQREL = 0.1 glycol ethers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category is the reproductive
system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ
values shown use the lowest available acute dose-response value, which, in most cases, is the REL. See section IV.A of this preamble for explanation
of acute dose-response values.
As shown in Table 3, the results of the inhalation risk assessment
performed using actual emissions data indicate the maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk could be as high as 10-in-1 million, due to
ethyl benzene emissions; the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value
could be as high as 0.5, due to mixed xylenes emissions; and the
maximum off-site acute HQ value could be as high as 0.1, based on the
REL value for glycol ethers. The total estimated cancer incidence from
these facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.003 excess cancer
cases per year, or 1 in every 333 years.
As explained above, our analysis of potential differences between
actual emission levels and emissions allowable under the Shipbuilding
MACT standards indicate that MACT-allowable emission levels may be up
to 2 times greater than actual emission levels. Considering this
difference, the risk results from the inhalation risk assessment
indicate the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high
as 20-in-1 million, and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value
could be as high as 1 at the MACT-allowable emissions level.
Facility-wide Risk Assessment Results
A facility-wide risk analysis was also conducted based on actual
emissions levels. Table 4 displays the results of the facility-wide
risk assessment. For detailed facility-specific results, see Table 2 of
Appendix 6 of the ``Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Source Category in the docket for
this rulemaking.
Table 4. Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Facility-Wide
Risk Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities analyzed 85
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Risk................... Estimated maximum facility-wide 200
individual cancer risk (in 1
million).
Number of facilities with 4
estimated facility-wide
individual cancer risk of 100-
in-1 million or more.
Number of facilities at which 0
the shipbuilding and ship
repair (surface coating) source
category contributes 50 percent
or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risks of 100-
in-1 million or more.
Number of facilities with 41
facility-wide individual cancer
risk of 1-in-1 million or more.
Number of facilities at which 15
the shipbuilding and ship
repair (surface coating) source
category contributes 50 percent
or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risk of 1-in-
1 million or more.
Chronic Non-cancer Risk....... Maximum facility-wide chronic 10
non-cancer TOSHI.
Number of facilities with 6
facility-wide maximum non-
cancer TOSHI greater than 1.
[[Page 80237]]
Number of facilities at which 0
the shipbuilding and ship
repair (surface coating) source
category contributes 50 percent
or more to the facility-wide
maximum non-cancer TOSHI of 1
or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at any
facility that contains sources subject to the Shipbuilding MACT
standards is estimated to be 200-in-1 million based on actual
emissions. Of the 85 facilities included in this analysis, four have
facility-wide maximum individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or
greater. At these shipbuilding and ship repair facilities, surface
coating operations account for about 1 percent of the total facility-
wide risk. There are 41 facilities with facility-wide maximum
individual cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater. Of these 41
facilities, 15 have shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating)
operations that contribute greater than 50 percent to the facility-wide
risks. The facility-wide cancer risks at these 41 facilities, and at
the four facilities with risks of 100-in-a million or more, are
primarily driven by emissions of hexavalent chromium from welding and
abrasive blasting operations. However, we note that there are
uncertainties in the amount and form of chromium emitted from these
facilities. For many of the facilities, the emissions inventory used
for the risk assessment included estimates for the two main forms of
chromium (i.e., hexavalent and trivalent chromium). However, for other
facilities, we only had estimates of total chromium emitted. For those
facilities, we applied a default assumption that 34 percent of the
total chromium emissions were hexavalent and 66 percent were trivalent
chromium,\32\ based on the best judgment of EPA. Chromium speciation
profiles can be found on the EPA Technology Transfer Network Web site
for emissions inventories \33\ under the ``Point Sources'' section.
Although, hexavalent chromium is toxic and is a known human carcinogen,
trivalent chromium is less toxic and is currently ``not classified as
to its human carcinogenicity.'' Therefore, the relative emissions of
these two forms can have a significant effect on the cancer risk
estimates. We request comment on the distribution of the default
emissions assumptions for chromium emissions applied to the
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/nettables.pdf.
\33\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2005inventory.html#inventorydata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The facility-wide maximum individual chronic non-cancer TOSHI is
estimated to be 10 based on actual emissions. Of the 85 facilities
included in this analysis, 6 have facility-wide maximum chronic non-
cancer TOSHI values greater than 1 (the facility-specific TOSHI values
are 2,2,2,3,4, and 10). Of these 6 facilities, none had shipbuilding
and ship repair (surface coating) operations that contributed greater
than 50 percent to these facility-wide risks. The chronic non-cancer
risks at these 6 facilities are primarily driven by manganese emissions
from welding and abrasive blasting operations.
Finally, as discussed previously, the welding and abrasive blasting
operations that occur during shipbuilding and ship repair are sources
of HAP at these major source facilities, and could involve different
types of metals (welding) and minerals (abrasive blasting and welding).
We therefore intend to list welding and blasting operations that occur
at shipbuilding and ship repair facilities as a major source category
under Section 112(c)(5) of the CAA. We request additional information
on the HAP emitted by these activities. Once we have this information,
we will be in a better position to identify the appropriate scope of
the major source category to be listed.
c. Demographic Risk Analysis Results
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million among the
surrounding population are summarized in Table 5 below. These results,
for various demographic groups, are based on actual emissions levels
for the population living within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 5--Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with cancer risk greater
than 1 in a million due to . . .
Nationwide -------------------------------------
Source category Facility-wide HAP
HAP emissions emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population....................................... 285,000,000 4,000 392,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 75 54 71
All Other Races........................................ 25 46 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 75 54 71
African American....................................... 12 42 20
Native American........................................ 0.9 0.4 0.6
Other and Multiracial.................................. 12 4 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic............................................... 14 3 9
Non-Hispanic........................................... 86 97 91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80238]]
Income by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below poverty level.................................... 13 24 16
Above poverty level.................................... 87 76 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without high school diploma................ 13 15 13
Over 25 and with a high school diploma................. 87 85 87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
source category demographic analysis indicate that there are
approximately 4,000 people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1
million due to emissions from the source category. Of this population,
an estimated 46 percent can be classified as a minority (listed as
``All Other Races'' in the table above), including 42 percent in the
``African American'' demographic group. Of the 4,000 people with
estimated cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from the source category,
24 percent are in the ``Below Poverty'' demographic group, and 15
percent are in the ``Over 25 Without High School Diploma'' demographic
group, results which are 11 and two percentage points higher,
respectively, than the respective percentages for these demographic
groups across the United States. The percentages for the other
demographic groups are lower than their respective nationwide
percentages. The table also shows that there are approximately 392,000
people exposed to an estimated cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million
due to facility-wide emissions. Of this population, an estimated 29
percent can be classified as a minority, including 20 percent in the
``African American'' demographic group. Of the 392,000 with estimated
cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million from the source category, 16
percent are in the ``Below Poverty'' demographic group, a result which
is three percentage points higher than the respective percentage for
this demographic group across the United States. The percentages for
the other demographic groups are equal to, or lower than their
respective nationwide percentages.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
a. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III.B of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors and measures in our risk acceptability determination,
including cancer risks to the individual most exposed, risk estimation
uncertainty, and other health information. For the Shipbuilding and
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category, the risk analysis we
performed indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most
exposed could be as high as 10-in-1 million due to actual emissions and
as high as 20-in-1 million due to MACT-allowable emissions. These risks
are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive
limit of acceptability. The risk analysis also shows low cancer
incidence (1 case in every 333 years), no potential for adverse
environmental effects or human health multi-pathway effects, and that
chronic and acute non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. While our
additional analysis of facility-wide risks showed that there are four
facilities with maximum facility-wide cancer risk of 100-in-1 million
or greater and 6 facilities with a maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI
greater than 1 and less than or equal to 10, it also showed that
shipbuilding and ship repair (surface coating) operations did not drive
these risks. Our additional analysis of the demographics of the exposed
population indicates that disparities in risks between demographic
groups may exist; however, the number of people exposed to cancer risks
of 1-in-1 million or greater due to emissions from the source category
is relatively low (4,000). Considering these factors and the
uncertainties discussed in section IV.A.7 of this preamble, we propose
that the risks from the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
source category are acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety
Although we are proposing that the risks from the Shipbuilding and
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source category are acceptable, risk
estimates for 4,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-
in-1 million. Consequently, we considered whether the MACT standard
provides an ample margin of safety. In this analysis, we investigated
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk
associated with emissions from the source category and considered this
information along with all of the health risks and other health
information considered in the risk acceptability determination.
One option we considered was to require the use of marine coatings
with lower overall VOHAP content or lower toxicity VOHAP content.
However, we have not identified any data regarding the availability,
use, performance, and emissions associated with the use of any such
marine coating. We are soliciting comment on the availability of such
coatings and any issues related to the use and performance of those
coatings.
We also considered requiring the enclosure of some or all of the
coating operations and requiring emissions to be routed to a control
device, such as a regenerative thermal oxidizer. However, because these
facilities repair and repaint ships, as well as perform new
construction painting operations, any enclosures would need to be large
enough to accommodate the entire ship or a large portion (i.e., half)
of a ship at one time. We determined that this is not practicable or
technically feasible in many cases, would not be cost-effective, and we
are not aware of any facility using an enclosure of this size.
Additional information on the feasibility and costs of controls is
discussed in the Technology Review section (section 5) of this preamble
and
[[Page 80239]]
in the memorandum Cost Analyses for Add-on Controls for Surface Coating
Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities, dated September
2, 2010, in the docket for this action.
In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP,
EPA weighed all health risk measures and information considered in the
risk acceptability determination, along with the costs and economic
impacts of emissions controls, technological feasibility,
uncertainties, and other relevant factors, in making our ample margin
of safety determination. Considering the health risk information, the
uncertainty and lack of data associated with one potential risk
reduction option identified, and the technological infeasibility of the
other option identified, we propose that the existing MACT standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standards to satisfy
section 112(f) of the CAA.
While we are proposing that the emissions covered by the
Shipbuilding MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, we are concerned about the estimated facility-
wide risks identified through these screening analyses. As described
previously, the estimated cancer risks are due to emissions of chromium
compounds and are largely dependent on the estimates of the fraction of
total chromium that is in the hexavalent form. Welding and abrasive
blasting operations (which are not part of this source category) that
occur during shipbuilding and ship repair are sources of HAP at these
major source facilities, and could involve different types of metals
(welding) and minerals (abrasive blasting and welding).
5. What are the results and proposed decisions from the technology
review?
We evaluated developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies potentially applicable to the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
(Surface Coating) source category. This included a search of the RBLC
Clearinghouse, the California BACT Clearinghouse, the Internet, and
correspondence with state agencies and industry. We found an advance in
add-on control technology since the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair MACT
standards were originally developed in 1995, and we have determined
that there are more stringent VOC-based coating limits for certain
marine coating categories for shipbuilding and ship repair facilities
in some areas of California.
We identified an add-on control device, a concentrator/RTO,
recently installed (2009) at one shipbuilding and ship repair facility
in California. The control device consisted of rotary concentrators
followed by RTOs on five large, custom-built spray booths to control
volatile organic emissions from some of the coating operations. The
system is capable of achieving 95 percent control efficiency for the
VOHAP emissions captured by the spray booths (which are estimated to
capture 90 percent of the VOHAP emissions). For this type of add-on
control to be effective, a facility must perform regular or continuous
modular (ship sections or components) coating operations, a process
that is normally performed at large shipyards during new ship
construction. Due to the size of the booths required to handle large
ship modules, a facility would also require a large physical land space
to build or retrofit the spray booths. Such spray booths must be
located near the final ship assembly area (e.g., dry-dock or graving
dock) to facilitate the logistics of moving the ship modules into place
and attaching them to other modules. Large coating booths would not be
effective at shipyards that perform repairs on finished vessels or
during dockside coating, since only a small amount of the total coating
could be applied in such spray booths.
Nationwide, based on recently awarded contracts for new ship
construction, we estimate that fewer than 20 facilities have
significant new ship construction business, are large enough to adopt
this type of technology, and are able to retrofit existing spray
booths. We estimate cost-effectiveness of the concentrator/RTO system
to be $305,000 per ton of VOHAP, with an estimated industry-wide
emission reduction of 48 tons of VOHAP per year (if installed at the
approximately 20 facilities large enough to use the technology). Based
on facility level sales, we determined that this option is not
affordable. The cost as a percent of revenues was estimated to be 42
percent or greater. Additional information on the affordability of
controls is discussed in the memorandum Affordability of Add-on
Controls for Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
Facilities, dated October 28, 2010, in the docket for this action. The
large add-on controls also require a substantial amount of fuel, which
produces NOX emissions, a byproduct of combustion. The extra
fuel use and emissions of NOX would be negative consequences
of the use of such add-on controls. Moreover, we believe the costs of
these controls would be disproportionate to the emission reduction that
would be achieved. Thus, we are proposing that it is not necessary to
revise the existing MACT standards to require this technology pursuant
to section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
In our review of developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies, we also identified four California air quality districts
that have adopted more stringent VOC marine coating emission limits
than those specified in the 1995 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface
Coating) MACT Standard. Based on information from major source
facilities, when the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair MACT standards were
originally developed, the relationship between VOC content and VOHAP
content in marine coatings was approximately 3:1, where approximately
30 percent of all solvents used for painting and thinning were VOHAP
solvents. For more information on the relationship between VOC and
VOHAP, see the Background Information Document for the Shipbuilding and
Ship Repair (Surface Coating) proposed rule, dated February, 1994.
However, we note that the California limits are not uniformly applied
across each coating category or in each of the four districts.
Furthermore, the 1995 MACT standard includes cold weather VOHAP limits
such that, if the temperature is below 4.5 [deg]C (40 [deg]F) at the
time the coating is applied and the source needs to thin that coating
beyond the applicable VOHAP limit, the applicable cold-weather VOHAP
limit may be used. Since the California limits do not have similar
allowances for cold weather, and California generally has a more
temperate climate than many parts of the country, the ability to apply
coatings effectively could be compromised in areas of the country with
colder climates if the more stringent California limits were required
nationwide. We currently do not have data to determine whether these
lower-VOC content coatings could be applied nationwide. Considering the
technical feasibility uncertainties associated with the use of lower-
VOHAP coatings, we are proposing that it is not necessary to revise the
existing MACT standards to require lower-VOHAP coatings pursuant to
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. However, we solicit comment and data on
low-VOHAP marine coatings that may be available for use at these
facilities and that could be applied at facilities nationwide.
[[Page 80240]]
6. What other actions are we proposing?
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in the
Shipbuilding (Surface Coating) MACT Standards. Consistent with Sierra
Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards in this rule that apply at all
times. We are proposing several revisions to subpart II. Specifically,
we are proposing to revise Table 1 to Subpart II of Part 63--General
Provisions of Applicability to Subpart II to indicate that the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions do not
apply, including at facilities complying with the standards by using an
add-on control device. The 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires owners or
operators to act according to the general duty to ``operate and
maintain any affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions.'' We are separately proposing to incorporate this general
duty to minimize into 40 CFR 63.783(b)(1). The 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3)
requires the owner or operator of an affected source to develop a
written SSM plan. We are proposing to remove the SSM plan requirement.
We are also proposing to: (1) Add 40 CFR 63.786(e) to specify the
conditions for performance tests; (2) revise the SSM-associated
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.788 to require
reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction; (3) revise
Table 1 to Subpart II of Part 63--General Provisions of Applicability
to Subpart II to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii),
63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1); 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and
(iii), and the last sentence of 63.8(d)(3); 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii),
(iv), and (v); 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15); and, 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do not apply. In addition, as
explained above, we are proposing to add an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits caused by
malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense.
EPA has attempted to ensure that we have neither overlooked nor
failed to propose to remove from the existing text any provisions that
are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption, nor included any such provisions in the proposed new
regulatory language. We are specifically seeking comment on whether
there are any such provisions that we have inadvertently overlooked or
incorporated.
Finally, we intend to list welding and blasting operations that
occur at shipbuilding and ship repair facilities as a major source
category under section 112(c)(5) of the CAA and are requesting
additional information on the HAP emitted by these activities. Once we
have this information, we will be in a better position to identify the
appropriate scope of the major source category to be listed.
B. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations source category?
1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standard
The National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations were promulgated on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62930) and
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ. The Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations MACT standards (i.e., Wood Furniture MACT
standards) apply to wood furniture manufacturing operations at any
facility that is a major source of HAP. We estimate that there are
approximately 406 wood furniture manufacturing facilities subject to
the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards. In some
instances, wood furniture manufacturing operations may be located at
facilities that also have operations regulated by the NESHAP for
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR), the
NESHAP for Surface Coating of Wood Building Products (40 CFR part 63,
subpart QQQQ), or NESHAP for Plywood and Composite Wood Products
(Subpart DDDD).
The Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category
includes operations related to the production of a range of wood
products, including wood kitchen cabinets, wood residential furniture,
upholstered residential and office furniture, wood office furniture and
fixtures, partitions, shelving, lockers, and other wood furniture not
included in one of the other categories listed above.
Finishing, gluing, cleaning, and wash-off operations are processes
that take place during wood furniture manufacturing that result in VHAP
emissions, and are regulated by the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations MACT standards.
Finishing materials include, but are not limited, to stains,
basecoats, washcoats, sealers, enamels, and topcoats. All of these
finishing materials may contain VHAP that would be emitted during
application. After a finishing material is applied, the wood substrate
typically enters a flash-off area where the more volatile solvents in
the finishing materials (including VHAP) evaporate, and the finishing
material begins to cure. Then, the wood substrate enters an oven where
curing of the finishing material and evaporation of the volatile
solvents continues.
The only gluing operations that occur at wood furniture
manufacturing facilities that are part of the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations source category are contact adhesives.
Cleaning activities include the use of solvents to dissolve resins
into the coating mix and to remove dried coatings. These industrial
solvents sometimes contain VHAP which evaporate when the solvent is
exposed to the air and subsequently discharged to the atmosphere via
ventilation air.
To meet the requirements of the Wood Furniture MACT Standards,
facilities typically use compliant coatings, finishing materials that
meet the individual VHAP content requirements by material type, and
work practice standards. Work practice standards include inspection and
maintenance plans to prevent leaks, as well as using covers on tanks.
Another option, installing destructive control devices such as
thermal oxidizers, is allowed by the Wood Furniture MACT standards as
an alternative to using compliant coatings, but is not often used by
the industry. For more information see memorandum Developments in
Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies for the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations, dated August 24, 2010.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category, we
compiled preliminary datasets using data in the 2005 NEI. We reviewed
and verified these data and made changes where necessary. In this
review and verification process, we contacted several facilities to
verify existing information on emissions of several different
pollutants, including speciated glycol ether emissions, as reported in
the NEI. We obtained updated emissions data and process information
(generally 2008 or 2009 data), found that some plants had closed, and
that others no longer manufacture wood furniture. For more detail, see
the memorandum Wood Furniture Manufacturing--Updated Data for Modeling
File, dated June 8, 2010, in the docket for this action.
In addition to contacting individual facilities, we consulted with
four trade
[[Page 80241]]
associations that are heavily involved in wood furniture manufacturing
operations. We asked KCMA, the AHFA, the BIFMA, and the ACA to verify
existing information in the NEI database. Specifically, we asked the
trade associations to verify addresses, operational status (i.e.,
operational or shut down), and whether the facilities belonged in the
Wood Furniture Manufacturing source category. With their assistance, we
were able to update the facility status for another 85 facilities. For
more detail, see the memo Review and Verification of Wood Furniture
Facilities in NEI Database, dated October 22, 2010, in the docket for
this action.
A speciation profile was created and applied to the generically-
reported glycol ethers in the NEI data set. A total of 66 wood
furniture manufacturing facilities in the RTR dataset reported generic
glycol ethers that totaled 70 TPY. For more information about glycol
ethers and the glycol ether speciation profile, see the memorandum
Review of Glycol Ether Emissions Associated with Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Source Category, dated October 22, 2010, in the docket
for this action.
This updated dataset was used to conduct the risk assessments and
other analyses that form the basis for this proposed action. Toluene
and mixed xylenes account for the majority of the VHAP emissions from
the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category
(approximately 3,500 TPY and 62 percent of the total VHAP emissions by
mass). Lower levels of emissions of 68 other VHAP were also reported
from facilities in the source category. For more detail, see the
memorandum Wood Furniture Manufacturing--Updates for Modeling File,
dated June 8, 2010, in the docket for this action describing the risk
assessment inputs and models for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations source category.
We estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from this source category
could be up to 2 times greater than the actual emissions, as the
compliant coatings used typically have lower VHAP content than required
by the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Standards to allow for operational
and market variability. However, we do not have facility-specific
information for all facilities or all coatings, and we request comment
on this estimate. For more detail about how we estimated this ratio of
actual-to-MACT-allowable emissions, see the memorandum Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Allowable Emission Estimates,
dated September 9, 2010, in the docket for this action.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We have conducted an inhalation risk assessment for the Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category. We have also
conducted an assessment of facility-wide risks and performed a
demographic analysis of population risks. Details of the risk
assessments and analyses can be found in the residual risk
documentation referenced in section IV.A of this preamble, which is
available in the docket for this action.
a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 6 provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk
assessment results for the source category.
Table 6--Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer Estimated Maximum chronic non-
risk (in 1 million) \2\ Estimated annual cancer TOSHI \3\
---------------------------- population cancer ---------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable at risk >= 1- incidence Actual Allowable cancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions in-1 million (cases per emissions emissions
level level year) level level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
385..................................... 20 40 20,000 0.005 0.4 0.8 HQREL = 10 (propyl
cellosolve) \5\
HQREL = 7 (formaldehyde)
HQAEGL 1= 0.35
(formaldehyde)
HQREL = 2 (toluene)
HQERPG 1 = 0.35 (toluene)
HQAEGL 1 = 0.09 (toluene)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. We note that the MIR values would be reduced by 50 percent, and the cancer incidence would
be reduced by 30 percent if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the IRIS URE.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category is the nervous system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ
values shown use the lowest available acute dose-response value, which in most cases is the REL. Note that the REL for EGME was used to evaluate
propyl cellosolve. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. See section IV.A of this
preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values.
\5\ Note the HQ value for propyl cellosolve is the maximum acute pollutant HQ of all speciated glycol ethers modeled. The REL for EGME was used to
evaluate propyl cellosolve and all speciated glycol ethers that do not have an acute dose response value. There are no AEGL or ERPG values available
for glycol ethers to aid in further interpretation of potential acute risks.
The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions
data. As shown in Table 6, the results of the inhalation risk
assessment indicate the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could
be as high as 20-in-1 million due to emissions of formaldehyde.\34\ The
total estimated cancer incidence due to actual emissions from the
source category is 0.005 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 200 years. The maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be up
to 0.4, due to emissions of hexane; and the maximum acute HQ value
could be up to 10 for propyl cellosolve with propyl cellosolve
representing the maximum acute HQ among all the speciated glycol ethers
using the REL value for EGME as a surrogate. We estimate that emissions
of glycol ethers (mainly propyl cellosolve)
[[Page 80242]]
from eight facilities (or about two percent of the total facilities)
result in maximum acute HQs greater than 1. Additionally, the maximum
acute HQ for formaldehyde could be up to 7 based on the REL value for
formaldehyde. We estimate that emissions of formaldehyde from 11
facilities (about three percent of the total facilities) result in
maximum acute HQs between 1 and 7 (the actual maximum HQ values for
these 11 facilities are 7, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, and 2). The
maximum acute level of formaldehyde did not exceed the one hour AEGL-1
for formaldehyde; the estimated maximum HQ using the AEGL-1 was 0.35.
We also identified one facility with a potential to exceed the acute
REL for toluene (with a maximum estimated acute HQREL of 2,
a maximum estimated acute HQAEGL-1 of 0.09, and a maximum
estimated acute HQERPG-1 of 0.35.). It is important to note,
as described earlier in this preamble, the acute assessment includes
multiple conservative assumptions. For example, the modeling approach
assumes that peak emissions occur at the same time as worst case one
hour meteorology and that a person is located directly downwind at that
time. Moreover, for glycol ethers, we used the lowest acute REL of any
of the glycol ethers with such health values (i.e., EGME) to assess the
other glycol ethers without such values. There are no AEGL or ERPG
values available for any glycol ethers; this limits our ability to
further interpret the potential acute impacts of propyl cellosolve.
Nonetheless, overall, we believe it is unlikely that HAP emissions from
this source category pose significant acute health risks. Nevertheless,
we are seeking comments and data to refine the risk assessment and
resolve the uncertainties that led to the use of conservative
assumptions. Some of the specific information and data that we are
seeking are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ We note that this MIR value would be reduced by 50 percent
if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the IRIS URE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, our analysis of potential differences between
actual emission levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standards
indicates that MACT-allowable emission levels may be up to 2 times
greater than actual emission levels. Considering this difference, the
risk results from the inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high as 40-in-1 million,
and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.8 at
the MACT-allowable emissions level.
The risk assessment for chronic non-cancer risks was performed
consistent with the approach taken in previous risk and technology
review for other source categories, i.e., we used our existing
hierarchy of reference values (EPA 1999--Residual Risk Report to
Congress), which favors the use of an IRIS value when available, and
favors using values which have been developed and peer-reviewed using
processes similar to the IRIS process under the sponsorship of a state
or federal government agency, the documentation of which can be easily
accessed by the public (such as those from ATSDR or the California EPA)
when IRIS values are not available. The use of a surrogate reference
value for chemicals in a chemical group (e.g., glycol ethers) is part
of this approach when specific chemicals in the group do not have
available reference values, and/or emissions are reported generically
for the chemical group and not specific chemicals. In this case, the
IRIS RfC for EGME is the lowest (i.e., most health protective) of the
available reference values for glycol ethers from our hierarchy of
reference values. Using the surrogate approach described above, the
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI for the source category could be as
high as 0.4 (based on actual emissions) and 0.8 (based on allowable
emissions), with emissions of n-hexane dominating.
In reviewing data sources for this residual risk assessment, we
identified a PPRTV for assessing chronic noncancer health risks from
inhalation of DGBE, which is emitted by some facilities in this source
category. PPRTV are reference values, developed by EPA for use
specifically in EPA's Superfund Program when an acceptable reference
value, such as those found in EPA's IRIS database, is not otherwise
available.
The DGBE PPRTV was prepared for EPA's Superfund Program in 2009.
Inhalation toxicity information for DGBE is essentially limited to the
results of a single 5-week study in rats (Gushow et al., 1984), which
resulted in slight vacuolization of the liver cells consistent with
fatty change. An uncertainty factor of 3000 was applied in deriving the
PPRTV, and confidence in the provisional RfC (p-RfC) value is low.
Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values differ from IRIS values
in that PPRTVs do not receive the multiprogram review provided for IRIS
values. As stated in the DGBE PPRTV document, this is because ``* * *
IRIS values are generally intended to be used in all U.S. EPA programs,
while PPRTVs are developed specifically for the Superfund Program.''
The EPA's Superfund Program uses PPRTVs in conjunction with assessments
to support site-specific clean-up decisions. PPRTVs are applied to high
quality exposure data developed for each Superfund site using
measurements of the specific chemical for which the PPRTV was
developed. Each final cleanup decision, as memorialized in a Record of
Decision, is subject to public notice and comment, and it is at this
stage of the process that a public review of how a PPRTV was used in
that site-specific context may occur, which may include consideration
of comments on the development of the PPRTV itself (i.e., the PPRTV
development document is not explicitly the subject of a separate public
review or comment period). The current process for development of the
reference values used to support these proposed decisions includes a
public comment period prior to a final external peer review of the
assessment. This more rigorous review process prior to the release of
the values enables immediate use of the derived values across multiple
EPA Program Offices, including providing support for national
regulatory decisions (e.g., RTR).
Contrasting the site-specific Superfund application of PPRTVs and
related Records of Decision, the Wood Furniture RTR proposal is of
national scope and will not be subject to ongoing review related to
each application to a facility. Based on the foregoing discussion, EPA
has determined that reliance on the DGBE PPRTV value in this RTR rule
is beyond the specific purpose for which it was developed, and would
exacerbate the cumulative uncertainty in the baseline Wood Furniture
risk assessment stemming from limitations in the underlying exposure
and toxicity data. Accordingly, EPA has not used the DGBE PPRTV value
in the risk assessment supporting this proposed action, noting that a
suitable alternative value (in this case, it is the RfC for EGME from
IRIS) is available to represent the toxicity of glycol ethers without
hierarchically based non-cancer reference values in the assessment.
In characterizing the potential cancer and non-cancer risks, it is
important to consider the uncertainties related to the risk
assessments, particularly for formaldehyde and glycol ethers. Some of
the general uncertainties with health values and the modeling approach
were described earlier in this preamble. With regard to emissions,
there are various areas of potential uncertainty for these HAP. First,
only about 23 percent of the facilities reported glycol ether emissions
and about half reported formaldehyde. We recognize that not all
facilities necessarily emit these HAP. Nevertheless, we believe the
actual number of facilities with emissions of glycol ethers and
formaldehyde could
[[Page 80243]]
possibly be higher than the number we have in our data set because of
the uncertainties in the NEI database, including the lack of quantified
emissions from curing and gluing. Second, most facilities reporting
glycol ether emissions reported them generically as the class ``glycol
ethers'' and not as particular species. We developed a profile to
speciate these generic glycol ethers, which was generated from a
composite of reported speciated glycol ethers emissions data from
facilities across the source category; however, there is uncertainty
regarding how representative this profile is for the other facilities
in the source category since the profile is based on limited data.
Additionally, as previously discussed, a limited number of the glycol
ether compounds have non-cancer reference values and therefore a
surrogate value was used. For the acute assessment, glycol ethers were
assessed individually and not as a combined group. Third, the reported
levels of formaldehyde in the NEI are likely derived from coatings and
contact adhesives content and may not account for curing or other types
of gluing operations that may create and emit VHAP (including
formaldehyde). Recognizing that there is no approved method for
estimating formaldehyde emissions from curing, this is an uncertainty
that could possibly bias the risk estimates low, but the extent of
underestimation, if any, is unknown.
With regard to the acute inhalation assessment, the maximum acute
non-cancer HQs of 7 for formaldehyde with the REL and 0.35 with the
AEGL and 10 for propyl cellosolve were derived partly based on using an
acute multiplier of 4 from the annual average hourly emissions. The
factor of 4 is based on readily available information for the emissions
driving the risk. The information we have may not be representative of
all sources in the category. For more information on this factor, see
the memorandum Acute Effects Factor for Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations, dated November 23, 2010, in the docket for this action.
Thus, because of the uncertainties described above, we solicit
additional data and comments that would improve our emissions
estimates. Specifically, we solicit data on glycol ethers (speciated to
the extent known) and formaldehyde used in coatings at wood furniture
manufacturing facilities. We solicit data regarding facilities that use
coatings that may form formaldehyde or other VHAP during the curing
process and data on VHAP emissions related to gluing operations. We
solicit comment on the emissions estimates and assumptions we have used
in this proposal and whether there are scientifically credible methods
to estimate curing and gluing emissions, based on known coatings or
other methods. We also solicit comment on potential options for
reducing the use in this source category of specific glycol ethers
which are known to have (or are suspected to have) higher toxicity than
other compounds in the class. Moreover, we request that comments
include, if possible, the following types of data and information that
might help reduce the uncertainties: (1) Ranges of the VHAP content in
coating products and variability between product runs for different
types of facilities; (2) ranges within the annual averages of VHAP per
pound of coating solids; (3) information regarding whether control
devices are used and, if so, what types and at how many facilities.
b. Facility-wide Risk Assessment Results
Table 7 displays the results of the facility-wide risk assessment.
This assessment was conducted based on actual emission levels. For
detailed facility-specific results, see Table 2 of Appendix 6 of the
``Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Source Category'' in the docket for this rulemaking.
Table 7--Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Facility-Wide Risk
Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities analyzed 385
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Risk................... Estimated maximum facility-wide 100
individual cancer risk (in 1
million).
Number of facilities with 1
estimated facility-wide
individual cancer risks of 100-
in-1 million or more.
Number of wood furniture 0
manufacturing operations
contributing 50 percent or more
to facility-wide individual
cancer risk of 100-in-1 million
or more.
Number of facilities with 74
facility-wide individual cancer
risk of 1-in-1 million or more.
Number of wood furniture 64
manufacturing operations
contributing 50 percent or more
to facility-wide individual
cancer risk of 1-in-1 million
or more.
Chronic Non-cancer Risk....... Maximum facility-wide chronic 3
non-cancer TOSHI.
Number of facilities with 2
facility-wide maximum non-
cancer TOSHI greater than 1.
Number of wood furniture 0
manufacturing operations
contributing 50 percent or more
to facility-wide maximum non-
cancer TOSHI of 1 or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a
facility that contains sources subject to the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing MACT standards is estimated to be 100-in-1 million. Of
the 385 facilities included in this analysis, one has a facility-wide
maximum individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or greater. At this
facility, the wood furniture manufacturing operations contribute
approximately one percent to these facility-wide risks. Based on the
data we have, the emissions source driving this higher cancer risk is a
boiler, which is subject to the proposed Boiler NESHAP (see 75 FR
32006, June 4, 2010) which is scheduled to be finalized in the near
future.
There are 74 facilities with facility-wide maximum individual
cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater. Of these 74 facilities, 64
have wood furniture manufacturing operations that contribute 50 percent
or greater to the facility-wide risks. The facility-wide cancer risks
at most of these 74 facilities are primarily driven by emissions of
ethyl benzene from wood furniture manufacturing operations.
The facility-wide maximum individual chronic non-cancer TOSHI is
estimated to be 3. Of the 385 facilities included in this analysis, two
have facility-wide maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI values between 1
and 3 (the individual TOSHI values are 2 and 3); all the rest are 1 or
below. Of these three facilities, no facility had wood furniture
manufacturing operations that contributed 50 percent or greater to
these facility-wide risks. The chronic non-cancer risks at these
facilities are primarily driven by emissions of manganese and acrolein
from boilers.
[[Page 80244]]
c. Demographic Risk Analysis Results
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of cancer risks at or above 1-in-1 million to the
surrounding population are summarized in Table 8 below. These results,
for various demographic groups, are based on actual emissions levels
for the population living within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 8--Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with cancer risk greater
than 1 in a million due to
Nationwide -------------------------------------
Source category Facility-wide HAP
HAP emissions emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total population....................................... 285,000,000 20,000 26,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 75 63 65
All Other Races........................................ 25 37 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 75 63 65
African American....................................... 12 13 17
Native American........................................ 0.9 0.7 0.6
Other and Multiracial.................................. 12 23 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic............................................... 14 34 24
Non-Hispanic........................................... 86 66 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below poverty.......................................... 13 16 16
Above poverty.......................................... 87 84 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without high school diploma................ 13 19 19
Over 25 and with a high school diploma................. 87 81 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source
category demographic analysis indicate that there are 20,000 people
exposed to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million based
on HAP emissions from the source category. Of this population, an
estimated 37 percent can be classified as a minority (listed as ``All
Other Races'' in the table above), including 13 percent in the
``African American'' demographic group, and 23 percent in the ``Other
and Multiracial'' demographic group). Of the 20,000 people with
estimated cancer risks above 1-in-1-million from the source category,
34 percent are in the ``Hispanic'' demographic group, 16 percent are in
the ``Below Poverty'' demographic group, and 19 percent are in the
``Over 25 and Without High School Diploma'' demographic group; these
percentages are higher than their respective percentages for these
demographic groups across the United States by 20, 3, and 6 percentage
points. The percentages for the other demographic groups are lower than
their respective nationwide values. The table also shows that there are
approximately 26,000 people exposed to an estimated cancer risk greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million based on facility-wide emissions. Of
this population, the results of the facility-wide demographic analysis
indicate that the percentages are higher than nationwide percentages
for those included in the ``African American,'' ``Other and
Multiracial,'' ``Hispanic,'' ``Below Poverty'' level,'' and the ``Over
25 and Without High School Diploma'' demographic groups, by 5, 5, 10,
3, and 6 percentage points, respectively. The percentages for the other
demographic groups are lower than their respective nationwide values.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
a. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section III.B of this preamble, we weigh all health
risk factors and measures in our risk acceptability determination,
including cancer risks to the individual most exposed, risk estimation
uncertainty, and other health information. For the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations source category, the risk analysis we
performed indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most
exposed could be up to 20-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up
to 40-in-1 million due to MACT-allowable emissions.\35\ These values
are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive
limit of acceptability. The risk analysis also shows low cancer
incidence (1 in every 200 years),\36\ no potential for adverse
environmental effects or human health multi-pathway effects, and that
chronic non-cancer health impacts are unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ We note that these MIR values would be reduced by 50
percent if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the
IRIS URE.
\36\ We note that the cancer incidence would be reduced by 30
percent if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the
IRIS URE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When estimated maximum 1-hour peak emissions estimates for
speciated glycol ethers (i.e., propyl cellosolve) are compared to the
REL for EGME (used as a surrogate for propyl cellosolve), the
assessment indicates that a maximum acute non-cancer HQ up to 10 could
occur at one facility. Eight facilities (or
[[Page 80245]]
2 percent of the total) had an estimated HQ greater than 1. All other
facilities modeled had HQ less than 1. Nevertheless, exposures above
the REL do not necessarily indicate that adverse effects will occur.
There are no other appropriate acute reference values available for
glycol ethers that may be used to assess acute risks for glycol ethers.
When estimated one-hour peak emissions estimates for formaldehyde
are compared to the formaldehyde REL, the assessment indicates a
maximum acute non-cancer HQ up to 7 could occur. Eleven facilities (or
three percent of the total) had an estimated HQ greater than 1 and up
to 7 for formaldehyde. All other facilities modeled had HQs less than
1. The maximum acute HQ for formaldehyde based on an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1
value is 0.35. Exposures immediately above the REL do not necessarily
indicate that adverse effects will occur (i.e., they do not define a
threshold for an effect); on the other hand, AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 are
levels above which you may have mild, but reversible, non-disabling
effects.
A detailed discussion of our acute assessment for formaldehyde
along with the interpretation of potential acute risks is provided in
the Draft Risk Assessment for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Source
Category, in the docket for this rulemaking. We solicit comment on the
acute assessment and on the interpretation of potential acute
formaldehyde risks.
Nevertheless, as described earlier in this preamble, the acute
assessment includes some conservative assumptions and some
uncertainties. Moreover, the RELs are protective and designed to
protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by inclusion
of margins of safety. Therefore, overall we believe that it is unlikely
that HAP emissions from this source category pose unacceptable acute
non-cancer risks. However, as described below, we still have concerns
about the uncertainties associated with acute non-cancer risks.
While our additional analysis of facility-wide risks indicates that
there is one facility with a maximum facility-wide cancer risk of 100-
in-1 million and three facilities with a maximum chronic non-cancer
TOSHI of 1 or more, it also shows that wood furniture manufacturing
operations do not drive these risks. Our additional analysis of the
demographics of the exposed population indicates disparities in risks
between demographic groups may exist; however, the overall risks are
not high and the total number of people exposed to cancer risks of 1-
in-1 million or greater due to emissions from the source category is
relatively low (20,000).
EPA has weighed the various health measures and factors and
uncertainties discussed above and in section IV.A.7 of this preamble,
and is proposing that the risks from the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations source category are acceptable. We are proposing that the
risks are acceptable after weighing concerns about possible acute non-
cancer risks, especially acute non-cancer risks due to formaldehyde
(acute HQ up to 7 with the REL and up to 0.35 with the AEGL) and glycol
ethers (acute HQ up to 10), and uncertainties in the emissions data as
described above. We have considered these HAP further under the ample
margin of safety analyses, as described below, and are seeking data and
comments to help us refine the assessments.
b. Ample Margin of Safety
Although we are proposing that the risks from the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations source category are acceptable, risk estimates
for 20,000 individuals in the exposed population are above 1-in-1
million, and while there is uncertainty associated with our assessment
of acute non-cancer risks, we remain concerned about the potential for
them. Consequently, we considered whether the Wood Furniture MACT
standards provide an ample margin of safety. In this analysis, we
investigated available emissions control options that might reduce the
risks associated with emissions from the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations source category and considered this information along with
all of the health risks and other health information considered in the
risk acceptability determination.
i. Emissions Control Options
We evaluated the emissions reductions and cost associated with
various control options for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations
source category. One option would require lower VHAP content in wood
furniture coatings, which we estimate could reduce VHAP emissions from
this source category by up to 56 TPY from the estimated baseline level
of 5,900 TPY.\37\ The estimated capital and annualized costs for this
option would be $12,200,000 and $2,800,000, respectively. We estimate
the cost-effectiveness would be about $30,000 per ton of HAP emissions
reduced. We estimate this requirement to lower VHAP content from wood
furniture coatings would not appreciably reduce the maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value, or
the maximum acute non-cancer TOSHI value. These values would remain at
about 20-in-1 million for the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk,
0.4 for the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value, and 10 for the
maximum acute HQ value using the REL.\38\ Table 9 summarizes the
nationwide costs and cost-effectiveness of this option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ We estimate that lower-VHAP coatings could be applied
nationwide for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source
category because the coatings are applied inside buildings at the
facilities and the external temperature is not a limiting factor.
\38\ We estimate this requirement to lower VHAP content from
wood furniture coatings would reduce the maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value by
approximately one percent. However, as the maximum individual risk
values are presented with one significant digit due to the precision
of the data used to estimate these values, the risk values would
still be presented as 20 for the maximum individual cancer risk, 0.4
for the maximum individual non-cancer TOSHI, and 10 for the maximum
acute HQ value.
Table 9--Lower Voc Coating Limits For Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations--Costs And Risk Reductions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max MIR
Number of Emission Capital costs Annualized Cost- after Max TOSHI Max Acute
Control option affected reduction ($ million) costs ($ effectiveness control (in after HQ after
facilities (TPY) million/yr) ($/ton) 1 million) control control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower VOC coating limits................... 406 56 $12.2 $2.8 $30,000 20 0.4 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 80246]]
Another potential emissions reduction option involving an RTO add-
on control device was investigated but found not to be feasible for
implementation by the majority of the facilities in the source
category. This control technology is discussed below in section IV.B.5
of this preamble.
A third emissions reduction option is to limit formaldehyde
emissions by restricting formaldehyde use to 400 pounds per rolling 12
month period, or if a control device is used, to an amount adjusted
from 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period based on the overall
control efficiency of the control system. The limit would apply to wood
furniture coatings and contact adhesives. This emissions level is
currently included in Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--List of VHAP of
Potential Concern Identified by Industry of the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations MACT standards as part of the work practice
requirement to have a Formulation Assessment Plan for finishing
operations. The usage level provided in Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part
63--List of VHAP of Potential Concern Identified by Industry of the
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards is 0.2 TPY.
Under the current Wood Furniture MACT standards, if a facility's annual
usage of formaldehyde exceeds its baseline level, the owner or operator
of the facility provides a written notification to the permitting
authority describing the amount of the increase and explains the
reasons for exceedance of the baseline level. If the exceedance is no
more than 15 percent above the baseline, or if usage is below the level
in Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--List of VHAP of Potential Concern
Identified by Industry, then no further explanation is required. See 40
CFR 63.803(l). This third emissions reduction option would change the
formaldehyde usage level in the existing Wood Furniture Operations MACT
standards to a limit not to be exceeded at any time. Based on the
updated dataset described in section V.B.2, 39 of the 385 facilities
use (and emit) more than 400 pounds per rolling 12-month period of
formaldehyde. By setting a usage limit of 400 pounds per rolling 12-
month period, we estimate that the formaldehyde emissions from these 39
facilities will be reduced from 20.125 TPY to 10.665 TPY, a 9.46 TPY or
47 percent reduction.
As described in the risk assessment section above, we estimate that
formaldehyde emissions from 11 facilities (about three percent) could
result in exceedances of the acute REL, indicating a potential for
acute non-cancer risks of concern. We did not see a potential for any
facility to cause exceedances of the acute ERPG-1 or AEGL-1 levels.
These 11 facilities are among the 39 facilities that use and emit
formaldehyde in excess of 400 pounds per year. Moreover, formaldehyde
emissions from these facilities also drive the maximum lifetime
individual cancer risks. Therefore, reductions in formaldehyde
emissions will reduce these risks. We estimate that limiting
formaldehyde use to no more than 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period
will reduce the maximum acute HQ value based on the REL for
formaldehyde from 7 to 3, and will reduce the maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk from 20-in-1 million to approximately 10-in-1
million, both based on the actual emissions level.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ We note that the estimated reduction in cancer MIR would be
negligible if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the
IRIS URE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many coatings and adhesives available from several
suppliers that contain no or low quantities of formaldehyde and that
are approximately equivalent in cost to the coatings and adhesives that
contain formaldehyde. Many facilities currently use these no- or low-
formaldehyde coatings and adhesives. Based on our data, the wood
furniture manufacturing operations at the facilities using more than
400 pounds per rolling 12 month period of formaldehyde are similar to
operations at facilities currently using less than 400 pounds per
rolling 12 month period of formaldehyde. Therefore, we believe it is
feasible for the remaining facilities (including the 11 facilities with
HQ greater than 1) to switch to coatings and adhesives containing no or
low amounts of formaldehyde, at little or no extra cost, and reduce
their overall usage to no more than 400 pounds per rolling 12 month
period.
We are proposing to limit the formaldehyde usage to 400 pounds per
12 month rolling period as a means of reducing emissions of
formaldehyde. This limit will reduce the maximum acute HQ value for
formaldehyde from 7 to 3, and reduce the maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk from 20-in-1 million to approximately 10-in-1 million. All
affected sources are expected to meet this limit by using no- or low-
formaldehyde coatings. We solicit comment on these estimated risk
reductions, compliant coatings as a method for reducing the risk
associated with formaldehyde, the appropriateness of the 400 lb per
rolling 12-month period emissions limit on formaldehyde usage, and the
feasibility and cost associated with using compliant coatings to
achieve the limit on formaldehyde usage.
The proposed emission limit is being developed primarily under CAA
section 112(f)(2), and has a 2-year compliance date for existing
sources pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(4). We are soliciting comment on
whether the proposed formaldehyde emission limit should be issued under
CAA section 112(d)(6). Standards developed under section 112(d)(6)
would provide up to a three year compliance date for existing sources.
We recognize that affected sources may need time to ensure that
compliant coatings are available for their wood furniture manufacturing
operations.
ii. Ample Margin of Safety Evaluation
In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP,
EPA weighed all health risk measures and information considered in the
risk acceptability determination, along with the costs and economic
impacts of emissions controls, technological feasibility,
uncertainties, and other relevant factors, in making our ample margin
of safety determination. We considered all of these factors in our
ample margin of safety decision, and concluded that the costs of the
add-on control options analyzed are not reasonable considering the
emissions reductions and health benefits potentially achievable with
the controls. However, as discussed above, we believe it is feasible
for facilities to limit formaldehyde use to less than 400 pounds per
rolling 12 month period by using no- or low-formaldehyde coatings and
adhesives. This limit on formaldehyde use will also result in reduced
emissions. As a result, we propose to establish a usage limit of 400
pounds per rolling 12 month period for formaldehyde under section
112(f) of the CAA.
We chose this level (of 400 pounds per rolling 12 month period) as
the proposed usage limit since it is currently used in the MACT
standard and since limiting emissions to this level will lead to
reductions in cancer risks and the potential for acute non-cancer risks
of concern. This limit would reduce formaldehyde emissions by an
estimated 9.46 TPY from the baseline level of 20.125 TPY. The estimated
maximum lifetime individual cancer risk would be reduced to
approximately 10-in-1 million from the baseline of 20-in-1 million, the
estimated cancer incidence due to emissions from the source category
would be reduced by about 15 percent nationwide, and the estimated
maximum acute HQ would be reduced
[[Page 80247]]
from 7 to 3, based on the REL for formaldehyde, and from 0.35 to 0.15,
based on the AEGL-1 for formaldehyde. We estimate that there would be
either no or minimal additional costs associated with this option, as
the cost of no- or low-formaldehyde coatings and adhesives are
approximately equal to other coating and adhesive products containing
larger quantities of formaldehyde. Also, there are minimal costs
associated with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
compliance with the rule. See EPA ICR number 1716.07 for detailed
information. We believe this formaldehyde limit is technically feasible
for all wood manufacturing operations and is a cost-effective measure
to achieve emissions and health risk reductions. Therefore, we propose
that with this formaldehyde limit, the Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. Nevertheless, we are seeking comments on the proposed
formaldehyde limit of 400 pounds per rolling 12-month period, and
whether there may be an alternative level that we should consider. In
addition, we are seeking comments and data on the cost and feasibility
of using coatings, solvents, adhesives, and any other products covered
by the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards that have
lower VHAP content, or contain less toxic VHAP, as well as information
that would help us to refine our assessment of the chronic or acute
risks of formaldehyde emissions from this source category.
While we propose that the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations
MACT standards, revised to include the 400 pounds per rolling 12-month
period formaldehyde emissions limit, will provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health, uncertainties remain concerning that
an acute HQ of up to 10 may occur due to emissions of glycol ethers
based on our screening level assessment. The potential risk reduction
options identified would not appreciably reduce emissions or the
potential acute risks associated with glycol ethers. Therefore, we are
seeking comments and data regarding the use of glycol ethers in wood
furniture manufacturing operations. This information includes the
quantities of coatings and adhesives used (TPY); the speciated glycol
ethers content in these products; whether the use of these products is
in the kitchen cabinet, business furniture, or home furnishings sector;
and the availability and feasibility of using coatings and adhesive
products with a lower content of glycol ethers.
5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
We evaluated developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations
source category. This included an internet search, a search of the RBLC
Clearinghouse, a review of relevant subsequently developed regulations,
and contacts with industry. We found one advance in add-on control
technology since the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT
standards were promulgated, we have determined that there are more
stringent VOC-based coatings limits for wood furniture manufacturing
facilities in one area of California, and we have found that fewer
conventional spray guns are in use. For more detail, see the memorandum
Developments in Practices, Processes, and Control Technologies, dated
August 24, 2010, in the docket for this action that describes the
technology review for the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations
source category.
With regard to add-on technology, we identified one facility in
Indiana that manufactures kitchen cabinets and uses an RTO to control
spray booth emissions from its wood furniture manufacturing operations.
The facility coats flat panels using an automated process with high
speed lines. We estimate cost-effectiveness of the RTO system at this
facility to be $20,000 per ton of HAP reduced.
Nationwide, we estimate that fewer than five facilities manufacture
wood furniture using automated, high speed lines, and could install
this type of add-on control device. Therefore, the RTO control
technology is not applicable across the entire wood furniture source
category. The estimated emissions reduction, based on these five
facilities, is 98 tons of HAP per year. The cost to treat low-HAP
concentration, high volume air streams routed to the RTO is estimated
to be $20,000 per ton of HAP reduced, and is considered economically
prohibitive when compared to the amount of emissions reduced. Based on
per facility sales, we determined that this option is not affordable.
The cost as a percentage of revenues was estimated to be 73 percent or
greater. Additional information on the affordability of controls is
discussed in the memorandum Affordability of Lower VHAP Coatings and
Add-on Controls for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, dated
October 28, 2010, in the docket for this action. The large amount of
fuel required for this type of add-on control would be a significant
disadvantage and the fuel produces NOX emissions, a by-
product of combustion. Finally, facilities must have a large physical
land space to house the RTO. For these reasons, we determined that the
installation of a RTO on spray booths is not a viable option for the
wood furniture manufacturing industry. For more detail, see the memo
Cost Analyses for Control Options, dated September 27, 2010, in the
docket for this action that describes the cost analysis for the Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category.
In our review of developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies, we identified the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District in California as having adopted more stringent VOC coating
emission limits than the VHAP coating emission limits in the Wood
Furniture MACT standards. However, the California limits came into
effect in July 2010, and we do not have data to demonstrate whether the
facilities in this area have been able to achieve compliance with these
limits or the measures they may be taking to comply with them. The
California limits are VOC-based, and coating limits in the Wood
Furniture MACT standard are VHAP-based. We do not have information on
the exact correlation between lower-VOC content and lower-HAP content
in coatings (e.g., if lower VOC content leads to lower HAP content). We
believe that coatings used in the industry average approximately 50
percent HAP and 50 percent non-HAP VOC, however the HAP and non-HAP VOC
content varies between specific coating products.\40\ Using this
assumed average HAP-to-VOC content, we estimate that by adopting the
California VOC limits, the industry-wide emission reduction would be 56
tons of HAP per year at a cost of $30,000 per ton of HAP reduced for
the approximately 406 facilities in the source category. Based on per
facility sales, we determined that this option may be affordable. The
cost as a percentage of revenues was estimated to be less than four
percent. Additional information on the affordability of lower VHAP
coatings is discussed in the memorandum Affordability of Lower VHAP
Coatings and Add-on Controls for Wood Furniture Manufacturing
Operations, dated October 28, 2010, in
[[Page 80248]]
the docket for this action. Nevertheless, due to the factors described
above including the limited emissions reduction potential and the cost
effectiveness, we are not proposing to require lowering the VHAP
content in coatings in the MACT standards. However, we solicit comments
and data regarding lower VHAP coatings and information on the types of
wood furniture manufacturing coating operations for which they may be
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Case Studies comparing HAP and VOC content of wood
furniture coatings at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/wood/low/casebyco.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Wood Furniture MACT standards were promulgated,
conventional guns were used extensively by industry. Since
promulgation, the use of conventional guns in the wood furniture
industry has diminished drastically, and they are now rarely used. We
are proposing to remove the provision in the Wood Furniture MACT
standards that allows the use of conventional air spray guns; thereby
codifying current industry practice. This proposed action will prevent
future increases in the use of conventional spray guns, which have
lower transfer efficiencies and higher emissions than other spray gun
types. Based on our findings, it is possible to replace conventional
air spraying with more efficient spray application methods such as air
assisted airless spraying. We anticipate no changes in coating
formulation will be needed to use air assisted airless spray guns
rather than conventional spray guns. As conventional spray guns are now
rarely used, we do not estimate there will be any appreciable emission
reductions as a result of this proposed provision. For more details,
see Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, dated October
19, 2010.
The associated cost of discontinuing use of conventional air spray
guns is believed to be minimal. Overall, we do not believe many
conventional guns are in use and need to be replaced. However, for the
remaining conventional spray guns, we also estimate there to be a net
cost savings by switching to air assisted airless spray guns. While an
air assisted airless spray gun is estimated to cost approximately $300
more than a conventional spray gun, the 10 percent increase in transfer
efficiency results in an equally lower coating use and cost savings. We
estimate that for a single spray gun, if the coating cost is $10/gallon
and the rate of coating use is at least 1.1 gallons per day, the
initial cost difference between the guns is made up within a year. For
more expensive coatings, the cost difference is made up more quickly.
In addition, the expected life of a conventional spray gun is estimated
to be, at most, 2 years. The compliance period of the rule is three
years; therefore, no air assisted airless guns would be required to
replace a conventional spray gun before the end of its useful life as a
result of the revised Wood Furniture MACT standards. For more details,
see Impacts of Prohibiting the Use of Conventional Spray Guns in the
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations Source Category, dated October
19, 2010 in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on the
accuracy of our assumptions about coating use, coating costs, transfer
efficiency of spray guns, spray gun replacement frequency, any
additional cost associated with switching gun technology such as
attachment replacements, the need for additional training associated
with switching spray guns and the costs of training, if needed and the
extent to which facilities are already using air assisted airless spray
guns.
In summary, as a result of the technology review under section
112(d)(6) of the CAA, we are proposing to prohibit the use of
conventional spray guns by facilities regulated by the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations MACT standard. Existing sources would be
required to comply with this proposed change by 3 years after the
effective date.
6. What other actions are we proposing?
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in the Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards in this rule that apply
at all times. We are proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJ regarding the standards that apply during periods of SSM.
Specifically, we are proposing to revise Table 1 to Subpart JJ of Part
63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart JJ to indicate that the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) of the General Provisions do not
apply. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires owners or operators to act
according to the general duty to ``operate and maintain any affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.'' We are
separately proposing to incorporate this general duty to minimize
emissions into section 63.802(c). Section 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) also
requires the owner or operator of an affected source to develop a
written SSM plan. We are proposing to remove the SSM plan requirement.
We are also proposing to add SSM-associated reporting and recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR 63.806 and 63.807 to require reporting and
recordkeeping for periods of malfunction, add a requirement in 40 CFR
63.805 to require performance tests to be performed under normal
operating conditions, and to revise Table 1 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--
General Provisions Applicability to Subpart JJ to specify that 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 40
CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), and the last sentence of 63.8(d)(3), 40
CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (iv), and (v), 63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15),
and 63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do not apply. In addition, as
explained above, we are proposing to add an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits caused by
malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense in section 63.800. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not
included in the proposed regulatory language any provisions that are
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM
exemption. We are specifically seeking comment on whether there are any
such provisions that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.
VI. Proposed Action
A. What actions are we proposing as a result of the technology review?
For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source
category, we have determined that there have been no developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies since the promulgation of
the MACT standards that are feasible for the facilities in these source
categories to implement at this time, and we are proposing that it is
not necessary to revise the existing MACT requirements based on our CAA
section 112(d)(6) review.
For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category, we
are proposing to amend the rule to prohibit the use of conventional
spray guns under the authority of CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What actions are we proposing as a result of the residual risk
review?
For the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) source
category, we propose that the MACT standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental
effects. Thus, we are proposing to re-adopt these
[[Page 80249]]
standards for the purpose of meeting the requirements of CAA section
112(f)(2).
For the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category, to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent
adverse environmental effects for the purpose of meeting the
requirements of CAA section 112(f)(2), we propose to limit usage of
formaldehyde in coatings and contact adhesives to 400 pounds per
rolling 12 month period.
Existing sources would be required to comply with this proposed
change by 2 years after the effective date.
C. What other actions are we proposing?
We propose to amend the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface
Coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT standards to
remove the language that exempts facilities from the emissions
standards that would otherwise be applicable during periods of SSM, and
to add an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of
emission standards caused by malfunctions. These changes are being made
to ensure these rules are consistent with the court's ruling in Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008).
We also propose to clarify the applicability language for Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations to be consistent with surface
coating rules issued after the promulgation of the Wood Furniture MACT
standards in 1995. These include subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, and RRRR of
part 63. Subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, and RRRR exempt surface coating
operations that are subject to other subparts of Part 63, such as the
Wood Furniture Operations MACT standards. (See 40 CFR Sec. Sec.
63.3881(c)(6), 63.4481(c)(7), 63.4681(c)(2), 63.4881(c)(2)). Similarly,
we propose to amend the Wood Furniture Operations MACT standards to
acknowledge that surface coating operations that are subject to
subparts MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, or RRRR of Part 63 are not subject to the
Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations standards. Subparts MMMM, PPPP,
and QQQQ also include provisions providing compliance options for
facilities potentially subject to more than one subpart applicable to
surface coating operations. (See 40 CFR Sec. Sec. 63.3881(e),
63.4481(e), 63.4681(d)).
VII. Request for Comments
We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed action.
All comments received during the comment period will be considered. In
addition to general comments on the proposed actions, we are also
interested in any additional data that may help to reduce the
uncertainties inherent in the risk assessments. We are specifically
interested in receiving corrections to the datasets used for risk
modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or information. Please see the following
section for more information on submitting data. We are also interested
in comments and information regarding add-on controls and any lower-HAP
coatings available for use by these source categories and the types of
coating activities for which they could be used. We are also seeking
comments on the potential for lower HAP content in other products used
in the Wood Furniture Production industry, including glues, resins and
adhesives.
VIII. Submitting Data Corrections
The facility-specific data used in the source category risk
analyses, facility-wide analyses, and demographic analyses for each
source category subject to this action are available for download on
the RTR Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. These
data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release
point at each facility included in the source category and all other
HAP emissions sources at these facilities (facility-wide emissions
sources). However, it is important to note that the source category
risk analysis included only those emissions tagged with the MACT code
associated with the source category subject to the risk analysis.
If you believe the data are not representative or are inaccurate,
please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern,
and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if available. When you
submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for
the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit
comments on the data downloaded from the RTR Web page, complete the
following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may
be revised include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data element Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Measure................... Are control measures in place? (yes
or no).
Control Measure Comment........... Select control measure from list
provided, and briefly describe the
control measure.
Delete............................ Indicate here if the facility or
record should be deleted.
Delete Comment.................... Describes the reason for deletion.
Emission Calculation Method Code Code description of the method used
For Revised Emissions. to derive emissions. For example,
CEM, material balance, stack test,
etc.
Emission Process Group............ Enter the general type of emission
process associated with the
specified emission point.
Fugitive Angle.................... Enter release angle (clockwise from
true North); orientation of the y-
dimension relative to true North,
measured positive for clockwise
starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89
degrees).
Fugitive Length................... Enter dimension of the source in the
east-west (x-) direction, commonly
referred to as length (ft).
Fugitive Width.................... Enter dimension of the source in the
north-south (y-) direction,
commonly referred to as width (ft).
Malfunction Emissions............. Enter total annual emissions due to
malfunctions (TPY).
Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly.. Enter maximum hourly malfunction
emissions here (lb/hr).
North American Datum.............. Enter datum for latitude/longitude
coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if
left blank, NAD83 is assumed.
Process Comment................... Enter general comments about process
sources of emissions.
REVISED Address................... Enter revised physical street
address for MACT facility here.
REVISED City...................... Enter revised city name here.
REVISED County Name............... Enter revised county name here.
REVISED Emission Release Point Enter revised Emission Release Point
Type. Type here.
REVISED End Date.................. Enter revised End Date here.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate........ Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here
(ft\3\/sec).
REVISED Exit Gas Temperature...... Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature
here (F).
REVISED Exit Gas Velocity......... Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here
(ft/sec).
REVISED Facility Category Code.... Enter revised Facility Category Code
here, which indicates whether
facility is a major or area source.
[[Page 80250]]
REVISED Facility Name............. Enter revised Facility Name here.
REVISED Facility Registry Enter revised Facility Registry
Identifier. Identifier here, which is an ID
assigned by the EPA Facility
Registry System.
REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Enter revised HAP Emissions
Level Code. Performance Level here.
REVISED Latitude.................. Enter revised Latitude here (decimal
degrees).
REVISED Longitude................. Enter revised Longitude here
(decimal degrees).
REVISED MACT Code................. Enter revised MACT Code here.
REVISED Pollutant Code............ Enter revised Pollutant Code here.
REVISED Routine Emissions......... Enter revised routine emissions
value here (TPY).
REVISED SCC Code.................. Enter revised SCC Code here.
REVISED Stack Diameter............ Enter revised Stack Diameter here
(ft).
REVISED Stack Height.............. Enter revised Stack Height here
(Ft).
REVISED Start Date................ Enter revised Start Date here.
REVISED State..................... Enter revised State here.
REVISED Tribal Code............... Enter revised Tribal Code here.
REVISED Zip Code.................. Enter revised Zip Code here.
Shutdown Emissions................ Enter total annual emissions due to
shutdown events (TPY).
Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly..... Enter maximum hourly shutdown
emissions here (lb/hr).
Stack Comment..................... Enter general comments about
emission release points.
Startup Emissions................. Enter total annual emissions due to
startup events (TPY).
Startup Emissions Max Hourly...... Enter maximum hourly startup
emissions here (lb/hr).
Year Closed....................... Enter date facility stopped
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter e-
mail address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations, etc.).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0786 (through one of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To expedite
review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if you submitted a
copy of your revisions to the EPA directly at [email protected] in addition
to submitting them to the docket.
5. If you are providing comments on a facility with multiple source
categories, you need only submit one file for that facility, which
should contain all suggested changes for all source categories at that
facility. We request that all data revision comments be submitted in
the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Access files, which are provided
on the http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html Web page.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel legal
and policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for
review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to
OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number
1716.07.
The proposed revisions to the SSM provisions for the standards
being amended with this proposed rule will reduce the reporting burden
associated with having to prepare and submit a SSM report. However, we
are proposing new paperwork requirements to the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations MACT standards. The proposed standards would
require regulated entities to submit reports and keep records in
accordance with Section V.B. We are not proposing any new paperwork
requirements for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating)
source category.
We estimate that there are approximately 406 regulated entities
currently subject to the National Emission Standards for Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations and that approximately 150 of those entities
will be subject to the proposed rule involving the 12-month rolling
average formaldehyde limit. New and existing regulated entities would
have no capital costs associated with the information collection
requirements in the proposed rule.
The estimated annual average recordkeeping and reporting burden
after the effective date of the proposed rule is estimated to be 2,001
labor hours at a cost of approximately $200,000.00. This estimate
includes the cost of reporting, including reading instructions, and
information gathering. Recordkeeping cost estimates include reading
instructions, planning activities, calculation of formaldehyde usage,
and maintenance of 12-month rolling data. The average hours and cost
per regulated entity would be 15 hours and $1,400.00. About 406
facilities would respond per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for
this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 21,
2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it by January 20, 2011. The final rule will respond to any OMB
or
[[Page 80251]]
public comments on the information collection requirements contained in
this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other statute unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed
rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business that is a small industrial entity as defined by the SBA's
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The costs
associated with the proposed requirements in this proposed rule (i.e.,
the formaldehyde emissions limit and conventional spray gun
prohibition) are negligible as discussed above.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This proposed rule does not contain a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any
one year. This proposed rule does mandate a lowering of formaldehyde
usage and a ban on the use of conventional spray guns but the
nationwide annualized cost of these mandates are estimated to be
approximately $200,000 for affected sources. Thus, this proposed rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it
contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it
impose obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The burden to the respondents
and the states is less than $500,000 for the entire source category.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or
EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effect on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe
the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. This action would not
relax the control measures on existing regulated sources. EPA's risk
assessments (included in the docket for this proposed rule) demonstrate
that the existing regulations are associated with an acceptable level
of risk and that the proposed additional requirements for the Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations source category will provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This
action will not create any new requirements for sources in the energy
supply, distribution, or use sectors.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use VCS in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the EPA decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on EJ. Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
[[Page 80252]]
To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with each source category, we evaluated the distributions of HAP-
related cancer and non-cancer risks across different social,
demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near the
facilities where these source categories are located. The methods used
to conduct demographic analyses for this rule are described in section
IV.A of the preamble for this rule. The development of demographic
analyses to inform the consideration of EJ issues in EPA rulemakings is
an evolving science. The EPA offers the demographic analyses in this
proposed rulemaking as examples of how such analyses might be developed
to inform such consideration, and invites public comment on the
approaches used and the interpretations made from the results, with the
hope that this will support the refinement and improve utility of such
analyses for future rulemakings.
For the demographic analyses, we focused on the populations within
50 km of any facility estimated to have exposures to HAP which result
in cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, or non-cancer HI of 1 or
greater (based on the emissions of the source category or the facility,
respectively). We examined the distributions of those risks across
various demographic groups, comparing the percentages of particular
demographic groups to the total number of people in those demographic
groups nationwide. The results, including other risk metrics, such as
average risks for the exposed populations, are documented in source
category-specific technical reports in the docket for both source
categories covered in this proposal.
As described in the preamble, for the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
(Surface Coating) and Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations MACT
standard source categories, our risk assessments demonstrate that the
regulations are associated with an acceptable level of risk and that
the proposed additional requirements for the Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations source category will provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health.
Our analyses also show that, for these source categories, there is
no potential for an adverse environmental effect or human health multi-
pathway effects, and that acute and chronic non-cancer health impacts
are unlikely. EPA has determined that although there may be an existing
disparity in HAP risks from these sources between some demographic
groups, no demographic group is exposed to an unacceptable level of
risk.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 3, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart II--[AMENDED]
2. Section 63.781 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.781 Applicability.
* * * * *
(d) If you are authorized in accordance with 40 CFR 63.783(c) to
use an add-on control system as an alternative means of limiting
emissions from coating operations, in response to an action to enforce
the standards set forth in this subpart, you may assert an affirmative
defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such
standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined in 40 CFR 63.2.
Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if the respondent fails
to meet its burden of proving all the requirements in the affirmative
defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for
injunctive relief.
(1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, the owners or operators of facilities must timely meet
the notification requirements in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and
must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(i) The excess emissions:
(A) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
(iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
(iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage; and
(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human
health; and
(vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible; and
(vii) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(viii) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared to determine,
correct and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the
excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The
analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and
engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
(2) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business days
after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to avail
itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within
30 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in
this subpart to demonstrate, with all necessary supporting
documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section.
3. Section 63.782 is amended by adding a definition for
``affirmative defense'' to read as follows:
[[Page 80253]]
Sec. 63.782 Definitions.
* * * * *
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant,
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.783 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) as (b)(2) and (b)(3) and adding a new paragraph (b)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.783 Standards.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) At all times the owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source, including associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are
being used will be based on information available to the Administrator
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of
operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.785 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.785 Compliance procedures.
* * * * *
(e) Continuous compliance requirements. You must demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits
by using the performance test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.786
for each affected source.
(1) General requirements. (i) You must monitor and collect data,
and provide a site specific monitoring plan, as required by Sec. Sec.
63.783, 63.785, 63.786 and 63.787.
(ii) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring
system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required
intervals at all times the affected source is operating, and periods of
malfunction. Any period for which data collection is required and the
operation of the CEMS is not otherwise exempt and for which the
monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not available for
required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring
requirements.
(iii) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data.
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation are not malfunctions. The owner or operator must
use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the
operation of the control device and associated control system.
(2) [Reserved]
6. Section 63.786 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.786 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(e) For add-on control systems approved for use in limiting
emissions from coating operations pursuant to Sec. 63.783(c),
performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance of the affected source for the period being
tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
7. Section 63.788 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) and
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.788 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Each owner or operator that receives approval pursuant to Sec.
63.783(c) to use an add-on control system to control coating emissions
shall maintain records of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the required air
pollution control and monitoring equipment. Each owner or operator
shall maintain records of actions taken during periods of malfunction
to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.783(b)(1), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
(c) Reporting requirements. Before the 60th day following
completion of each 6-month period after the compliance date specified
in Sec. 63.784, each owner or operator of an affected source shall
submit a report to the Administrator for each of the previous six
months. The report shall include all of the information that must be
retained pursuant to paragraphs (b)(2) through (3) of this section,
except for that information specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through
(ii), (b)(2)(v), (b)(3)(i)(A), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and (b)(3)(iii)(A). If a
violation at an affected source is detected, the owner or operator of
the affected source shall also report the information specified in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section for the reporting period during which
the violation(s) occurred. To the extent possible, the report shall be
organized according to the compliance procedure(s) followed each month
by the affected source. If there was a malfunction during the reporting
period, the report must also include the number, duration, and a brief
description of each malfunction which occurred during the reporting
period and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission
limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a description
of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an
affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.783(b)(1), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
8. Table 1 to subpart II of part 63 is amended:
a. By removing entry 63.6(e)-(f);
b. By adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii),
63.6(e)(1)(iii); 63.6(e)(2), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1), and 63.6(f)(2)-
(f)(3);
c. By removing entry 63.7;
d. By adding entries 63.7(a)-(d), 63.7(e)(1), and 63.7(e)(2)-
(e)(4);
e. By revising entry 63.8;
f. By removing entry 63.10(a)-(b);
g. By adding entries 63.10(a), 63.10(b)(1), 63.10(b)(2)(i),
63.10(b)(2)(ii), 63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v),
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv), and 63.10(b)(3);
h. By removing entries 63.10(c);
i. By adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10)-(11),
63.10(c)(12)-(14), and 63.10(c)(15);
j. By removing entry 63.10(d); and
k. By adding entries 63.10(d)(1)-(4) and 63.10(d)(5).
The revisions read as follows:
[[Page 80254]]
Table 1 to Subpart II of Part 63--General Provisions of Applicability to Subpart II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Applies to subpart II Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.6(e)(1)(i)............................ No........................... See Sec. 63.783(b)(1) for general duty requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)........................... No........................... ..............................................................................
63.6(e)(1)(iii).......................... Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.6(e)(2)............................... No........................... Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3)............................... No........................... ..............................................................................
63.6(f)(1)............................... No........................... ..............................................................................
63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3)........................ No........................... If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec. 63.783(c), then
this section does apply.
* * * * * * *
63.7(a)-(d).............................. No........................... If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec. 63.783(c), then
these sections do apply.
63.7(e)(1)............................... No........................... If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec. 63.783(c), then
see Sec. 63.786(e).
63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)........................ No........................... If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec. 63.783(c), then
these sections do apply.
* * * * * * *
63.8..................................... No........................... If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec. 63.783(c), then
this section does apply, with the exception of Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i), Sec.
63.8(c)(1)(iii), and the last sentence of Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
* * * * * * *
63.10(a)................................. Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(1).............................. Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(i)........................... No........................... ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(ii).......................... No........................... See Sec. 63.788(b)(5) for recordkeeping of occurrence, duration, and actions
taken during malfunctions.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)......................... Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)................ No........................... ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv).............. Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(3).............................. Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.10(c)(1)-(9).......................... No........................... If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec. 63.783(c), then
these sections do apply.
63.10(c)(10)-(11)........................ No........................... If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec. 63.783(c), then
see Sec. 63.788(b)(5) for records of malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(14)........................ No........................... If an alternative means of limiting emissions (e.g., an add-on control system)
is used to comply with subpart II in accordance with Sec. 63.783(c), then
these sections do apply.
63.10(c)(15)............................. No........................... ..............................................................................
63.10(d)(1)-(4).......................... Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.10(d)(5).............................. No........................... See Sec. 63.788(c) for reporting malfunctions.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Table 3 to subpart II of part 63 is amended by revising entry
``Determination of whether containers meet the standards described in
Sec. 63.783(b)(2)'' to read as follows:
[[Page 80255]]
Table 3 to Subpart II of Part 63--Summary of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements a b c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Opts. Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Requirement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rec Rep Rec Rep Rec Rep Rec Rep
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Determination of whether X X ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........
containers meet the standards
described in Sec.
63.783(b)(3).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Affected sources that comply with the cold-weather limits must record and report additional information, as
specified in Sec. 63.788(b)(3)(ii)(C), (iii)(C), and (iv)(D).
\b\ Affected sources that detect a violation must record and report additional information, as specified in Sec.
63.788(b)(4).
\c\ OPTION 4: the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of Option 4 are identical to those of Options 1, 2,
or 3, depending on whether and how thinners are used. However, when using Option 4, the term ``VOHAP'' shall
be used in lieu of the term ``VOC,'' and the owner or operator shall record and report the Administrator-
approved VOHAP test method or certification procedure.
* * * * *
Subpart JJ--[AMENDED]
10. Section 63.800 is amended:
a. By redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (h) and
(i);
b. By redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (e) and
(f);
c. By adding new paragraphs (d) and (g); and
d. By adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.800 Applicability.
* * * * *
(d) This subpart does not apply to any surface coating or coating
operation that meets any of the criteria of paragraphs (d)(1) through
(4) of this section.
(1) Surface coating of metal parts and products other than metal
components of wood furniture that meets the applicability criteria for
miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating (subpart MMMM of
this part).
(2) Surface coating of plastic parts and products other than
plastic components of wood furniture that meets the applicability
criteria for plastic parts and products surface coating (subpart PPPP
of this part).
(3) Surface coating of wood building products that meets the
applicability criteria for wood building products surface coating
(subpart QQQQ of this part). The surface coating of millwork and trim
associated with cabinet manufacturing are subject to subpart JJ.
(4) Surface coating of metal furniture that meets the applicability
criteria for metal furniture surface coating (subpart RRRR of this
part). Surface coating of metal components of wood furniture performed
at a wood furniture or wood furniture component manufacturing facility
are subject to subpart JJ.
* * * * *
(g) Existing affected sources shall be in compliance with Sec.
63.802(a)(4) no later than [DATE 2 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and Sec. 63.803(h) no later
than [DATE three YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The owner or operator of an existing area source
that increases its emissions of (or its potential to emit) HAP such
that the source becomes a major source that is subject to this subpart
shall comply with this subpart one year after becoming a major source.
* * * * *
(j) If the owner or operator, in accordance with 40 CFR 63.804,
uses a control system as a means of limiting emissions, in response to
an action to enforce the standards set forth in this subpart, you may
assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for
exceedances of such standards that are caused by malfunction, as
defined in 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however,
if the respondent fails to meet its burden of proving all the
requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall
not be available for claims for injunctive relief.
(1) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce
such a limit, the owner or operator of facilities must timely meet the
notification requirements in paragraph (j)(2) of this section, and must
prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(i) The excess emissions:
(A) Were caused by a sudden, short, infrequent, and unavoidable
failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
(B) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
(C) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
(D) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate
design, operation, or maintenance; and
(ii) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these
repairs; and
(iii) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable
during periods of such emissions; and
(iv) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss
of life, severe personal injury, or severe property damage; and
(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human
health; and
(vi) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible; and
(vii) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(viii) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(ix) A written root cause analysis has been prepared to determine,
correct and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the
excess emissions resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The
analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and
engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
(2) Notification. The owner or operator of the facility
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile
transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business days
after the
[[Page 80256]]
initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself of
an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that malfunction. The
owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall also
submit a written report to the Administrator within 30 days of the
initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in this subpart to
demonstrate, with all necessary supporting documentation, that it has
met the requirements set forth in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
11. Section 63.801 is amended by:
a. Adding a definition for ``affirmative defense'' and revising the
definition for ``wood furniture'' in paragraph (a); and
b. Adding (b)(24) through (b)(28).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.801 Definitions.
(a) * * *
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or a defense put forward by a defendant,
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits
of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
Wood furniture means any product made of wood, a wood product such
as rattan or wicker, or an engineered wood product such as
particleboard that is manufactured at any facility that is engaged,
either in part or in whole, in the manufacture of wood furniture or
wood furniture components, including, but not limited to, facilities
under any of the following standard industrial classification codes:
2434, 2511, 2512, 2517, 2519, 2521, 2531, 2541, 2599, or 5712.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(24) Cf =the formaldehyde content of a finishing
material (c), in pounds of formaldehyde per gallon of coating (lb/gal).
(25) Ftotal= total formaldehyde emissions in each
rolling 12-month period.
(26) Gf =the formaldehyde content of a contact adhesive
(g), in pounds of formaldehyde per gallon of contact adhesive (lb/gal).
(27) Vc=the volume of formaldehyde-containing finishing
material (c), in gal.
(28) Vg=the volume of formaldehyde-containing contact
adhesive (g), in gal.
12. Section 63.802 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(4),
and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.802 Emission limits.
(a) * * *
(4) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) emissions from
finishing operations and contact adhesives to no more than 400 lb per
rolling 12-month period.
(b) * * *
(4) Limit total formaldehyde (Ftotal) emissions from
finishing operations and contact adhesives to no more than 400 lb per
rolling 12-month period.
(c) At all times, the owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source, including associated air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions.
Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are
being used will be based on information available to the Administrator
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of
operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
13. Section 63.803 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.803 Work practice standards.
* * * * *
(h) Application equipment requirements. Each owner or operator of
an affected source shall not use conventional air spray guns.
* * * * *
14. Section 63.804 is amended by adding paragraphs (g)(9) and (h)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.804 Compliance procedures and monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(9) Continuous compliance requirements. You must demonstrate
continuous compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits
by using the performance test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.805
for each affected source.
(i) General requirements. (A) You must monitor and collect data,
and provide a site specific monitoring plan as required by Sec. Sec.
63.804, 63.806 and 63.807.
(B) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring
system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required
intervals at all times the affected source is operating and periods of
malfunction. Any period for which data collection is required and the
operation of the CEMS is not otherwise exempt and for which the
monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not available for
required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring
requirements.
(C) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data.
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation are not malfunctions. The owner or operator must
use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the
operation of the control device and associated control system.
(ii) [Reserved]
(h) The owner or operator of an existing or new affected source
subject to Sec. 63.802(a)(4) or (b)(4) shall comply with those
provisions by using either of the methods presented in Sec.
63.804(h)(1) and (2).
(1) Calculate total formaldehyde emissions from all finishing
materials and contact adhesives used at the facility using Equation 5
and maintain a value of Ftotal no more than 400 lb per
rolling 12-month period.
Ftotal=(Cf1Vc1 +
Cf2Vc2 + * * * + CfnVcn +
Gf1Vg1 + Gf2Vg2 + * * * +
GfnVgn) Equation 5
(2) Use a control system with an overall control efficiency (R)
such that the calculated value of Ftotal in Equation 6 is no
more than 400 lb per rolling 12-month period.
Ftotal=(Cf1Vc1 +
Cf2Vc2 + * * * + CfnVcn +
GfiVg1 + Gf2Vg2 + * * * +
GfnVgn)* (1-R) Equation 6
15. Section 63.805 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.805 Performance test methods.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance of the affected source for the period being
tested. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
16. Section 63.806 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(e)(4)
[[Page 80257]]
and adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.806 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) The formaldehyde content, in lb/gal, as applied, of each
finishing material and contact adhesive subject to the emission limits
in Sec. 63.802.
* * * * *
(k) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart shall maintain records of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment. The owner or operator shall
maintain records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.802(c), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
17. Section 63.807 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text and (c)(3) and the first sentence in paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.807 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(c) The owner or operator of an affected source demonstrating
compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.804(g)(1), (2), (3), (5), (7),
(8), and (h)(1) shall submit a report covering the previous six months
of wood furniture manufacturing operations.
* * * * *
(3) The semiannual reports shall include the information required
by Sec. 63.804(g) (1), (2), (3), (5), (7), (8), and (h)(1), a
statement of whether the affected source was in compliance or
noncompliance, and, if the affected source was in noncompliance, the
measures taken to bring the affected source into compliance. If there
was a malfunction during the reporting period, the report shall also
include the number, duration, and a brief description for each type of
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused
or may have caused any applicable emission limitation to be exceeded.
The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner
or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize
emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.802(c), including actions taken
to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *
(d) The owner or operator of an affected source demonstrating
compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.804(g)(4), (6), and (h)(2) of
this subpart shall submit the excess emissions and continuous
monitoring system performance report and summary report required by
Sec. 63.10(e) of subpart A. * * *
* * * * *
Subpart JJ [Amended]
18. Table 1 to Subpart JJ of part 63 is amended:
a. By removing entry 63.6(e)(1);
b. By adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii),
63.6(e)(1)(iii);
c. By revising entries 63.6(e)(2) and (3);
d. By removing entries 63.7 and 63.8;
e. By adding entries 63.7(a)-(d), 63.7(e)(1), 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4),
63.8(a)-(b), 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(1)(iii),
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2), 63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)-(f);
f. By removing entry 63.10(b)(2);
g. By adding entries 63.10(b)(2)(i), 63.10(b)(2)(ii),
63.10(b)(2)(iii), 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v), 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-
(b)(2)(xiv);
h. By removing entry 63.10(c);
i. By adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10)-(11),
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14), and 63.10(c)(15); and
j. By revising entry 63.10(d)(5).
The revisions read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart JJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Applies to subpart JJ Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.6(e)(1)(i)............................ No........................... See 63.802(c) for general duty requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)........................... No........................... ..............................................................................
63.6(e)(1)(iii).......................... Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.6(e)(2)............................... No........................... Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3)............................... No........................... ..............................................................................
63.6(f)(1)............................... No........................... ..............................................................................
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d)....................... Yes.......................... Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
rule.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)........................ No........................... See 63.805(a)(1).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)................. Yes.......................... Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
rule.
63.8(a)-(b).............................. Yes.......................... Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
rule.
63.8(c)(1)(i)............................ No........................... ..............................................................................
63.8(c)(1)(ii)........................... Yes.......................... Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
rule.
63.8(c)(1)(iii).......................... No........................... ..............................................................................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)........................ Yes.......................... Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
rule.
63.8(d)(3)............................... Yes, except for last sentence Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
rule.
63.8(e)-(g).............................. Yes.......................... Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
rule.
* * * * * * *
63.10(b)(2)(i)........................... No........................... ..............................................................................
[[Page 80258]]
63.10(b)(2)(ii).......................... No........................... See 63.806(k) for recordkeeping of occurrence and duration of malfunctions and
recordkeeping of actions taken during malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)......................... Yes.......................... Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
rule.
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)................ No........................... ..............................................................................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv).............. Yes.......................... Applies only to affected sources using a control device to comply with the
rule.
* * * * * * *
63.10(c)(1)-(9).......................... Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.10(c)(10)-(11)........................ No........................... See 63.806(k) for recordkeeping of malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)..................... Yes.......................... ..............................................................................
63.10(c)(15)............................. No........................... ..............................................................................
* * * * * * *
63.10(d)(5).............................. No........................... See 63.807(c)(3) for reporting of malfunctions.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Table 3 to Subpart JJ of part 63 is amended by adding entry (e)
under ``Finishing Operations'' to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart JJ of Part 63--Summary of Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing
Emission point source New source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(e) Achieve total free formaldehyde emissions 400 400
across all finishing operations and contact
adhesives, lb per rolling 12-month period, as
applied......................................
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 to Subpart JJ of Part 63 [Amended]
20. Table 5 to Subpart JJ of part 63 is amended by removing the
entry for ``Formaldehyde.''
[FR Doc. 2010-31091 Filed 12-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P