[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65068-65149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23839]
[[Page 65067]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Hard
and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks;
Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations;
Pharmaceuticals Production; The Printing and Publishing Industry; and
Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid
Regeneration Plants; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 203 / Thursday, October 21, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65068]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600; FRL-9203-7]
RIN 2060-AO91
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks; Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Tank Vessel
Loading Operations; Pharmaceuticals Production; The Printing and
Publishing Industry; and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; and supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes how EPA will address the residual risk
and technology reviews conducted for two national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), and this action is a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking for an October 2008 action
that proposed how EPA would address the residual risk and technology
reviews for four NESHAP. The six NESHAP include 16 source categories,
12 of which are the subject of residual risk and technology reviews in
this package. This action proposes to modify the existing emissions
standards for eight source categories in three of the six NESHAP to
address certain emission sources not currently regulated under these
standards. It also proposes for all six NESHAP to address provisions
related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. Finally, this action proposes changes to two of the six
NESHAP to correct editorial errors, make clarifications, or address
issues with implementation or determining compliance.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 6,
2010. 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 (OMB) receives a copy of your comments
on or before November 22, 2010.
Public Hearing. We will hold a public hearing on November 5, 2010.
Persons requesting to speak at the public hearing must contact EPA by
November 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600, 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 No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0600.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0600, 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 (OMB), 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 No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600. 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 No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0600. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI 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 No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600. 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., CBI 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. We will hold a public hearing concerning this
proposed rule on November 5, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Persons
interested in presenting oral testimony at the hearing should contact
Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number,
(919) 541-4516, by November 1, 2010. The public hearing will be held at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Research Triangle Park
Campus, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. If
no one requests to speak at the public hearing by November 1, 2010,
then the public hearing will be cancelled and a notification of
cancellation posted on the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3main.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone (919) 541-
[[Page 65069]]
4516; fax number: (919) 541-0246; 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, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5499; fax number:
(919) 541-0840; and e-mail address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of these six NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 to this
preamble.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Proposed Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP for: OECA contact \1\ OAQPS contact \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard and Decorative Chromium Scott Throwe, (202) 564-7013, [email protected].... Phil Mulrine, (919) 541-5289, [email protected].
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
Tanks.
Group I Polymers and Resins Production.. Scott Throwe, (202) 564-7013, [email protected].... Randy McDonald, (919) 541-5402,
[email protected].
Marine Vessel Loading Operations........ Maria Malave, (202) 564-7027, [email protected].... Steve Shedd, (919) 541-5397, [email protected].
Pharmaceuticals Production.............. Marcia Mia, (202) 564-7042, [email protected]........ Randy McDonald, (919) 541-5402,
[email protected].
Printing and Publishing Industry........ Len Lazarus, (202) 564-6369, [email protected].. David Salman, (919) 541-0859, [email protected].
Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities Maria Malave, (202) 564-7027, [email protected].... Phil Mulrine, (919) 541-5289, [email protected].
and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration
Plants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
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:
AERMOD--The air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
AEGL--Acute Exposure Guideline Levels
ANPRM--Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ASTM--An international standards organization that develops and
publishes voluntary consensus technical standards
ATCM--Airborne Toxics Control Measure
ATSDR--Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT--Best Available Control Technology
bbl/yr--Barrels per Year
BID--Background Information Document
CalEPA--California Environmental Protection Agency
CARB--California Air Resources Board
CAA--Clean Air Act
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CEEL--Community Emergency Exposure Levels
CIIT--Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CMP--Composite Mesh Pad
CO--Carbon Monoxide
CO2--Carbon Dioxide
D/F--Dioxin/Furan
EED--Emission Elimination Device
EPA--Environmental Protection Agency
EPS--Eco Pickled Surface
ERPG--Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
HAP--Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCl--Hydrochloric Acid
HI--Hazard Index
HEM-3--Human Exposure Model version 3
HEPA--High Efficiency Particulate Air
HON--Hazardous Organic National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants
HQ--Hazard Quotient
ICR--Information Collection Request
IRIS--Integrated Risk Information System
Km--Kilometer
LAER--Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MACT Code--A code within the NEI used to identify processes included
in a source category
mg/dscm--Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter
MIR--Maximum Individual Risk
MTVLO--Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations
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
NOX--Nitrogen Oxide
NRC--National Research Council
NSR--New Source Review
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OECA--Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OLD--Organic Liquids Distribution
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP--Hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PFC--Perfluorinated Chemical
PFOS--Perfluorooctyl Sulfonate
PM--Particulate Matter
POM--Polycyclic Organic Matter
RACT--Reasonably Available Control Technology
RBLC--RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL--CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC--Reference Concentration
RfD--Reference Dose
RTR--Residual Risk and Technology Review
SAB--Science Advisory Board
SCC--Source Classification Codes
SCS--Smooth Clean Surface
SF3--2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 3
SO2--Sulfur Dioxide
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
TTN--Technology Transfer Network
UF--Uncertainty Factor
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE--Unit Risk Estimate
VOC--Volatile Organic Compounds
WAFS--Wetting Agent/Fume Suppressant
WCSC--Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center
WWW--Worldwide Web
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 to 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
[[Page 65070]]
regulated categories affected by this proposed action include:
Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS code \1\ MACT code \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chromium Electroplating....................... Chromium Anodizing Tanks........ 332813 1607
Decorative Chromium 332813 1610
Electroplating.
Hard Chromium Electroplating.... 332813 1615
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group I Polymers and Resins................... Butyl Rubber Production......... 325212 1307
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers 325212 1311
Production.
Ethylene Propylene Rubber 325212 1313
Production.
Hypalon\TM\ Production \3\...... 325212 1315
Neoprene Production............. 325212 1320
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber 325212 1321
Production.
Polybutadiene Rubber Production. 325212 1325
Polysulfide Rubber Production 325212 1332
\3\.
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and 325212 1339
Latex Production.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Vessel Loading Operations................................................ 4883 0603
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceuticals Production...................................................... 3254 1201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printing and Publishing Industry................................................ 32311 0714
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants 3311, 3312 0310
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
\3\ There are no longer any operating facilities in either the Hypalon\TM\ or Polysulfide Rubber source
categories. Therefore, this proposal does not address these source categories.
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 World Wide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (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 residual risk and
technology review (RTR) Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and
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, NC 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600.
D. How is this document organized?
The information in this preamble is organized as follows:
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?
D. How is this document organized?
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?
D. What specific RTR actions have previously been taken for
these source categories?
IV. Analyses Performed
A. How did we estimate risk posed by the source categories?
B. How did we perform the technology review?
C. How did we perform the analyses for the other actions being
proposed?
V. Analyses Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Chromium
Electroplating source categories?
B. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Group I
Polymers and Resins Production source categories?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions for Marine Tank
Vessel Loading Operations source category?
D. What are the results and proposed decisions for the
Pharmaceuticals Production source category?
E. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Printing
and Publishing Industry source category?
F. What are the results and proposed decisions for Steel
Pickling-HCl Process
[[Page 65071]]
Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants source
category?
VI. Summary of Proposed Actions
A. What actions are we proposing as a result of the technology
reviews?
B. What actions are we proposing as a result of the residual
risk reviews?
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
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
III. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage
regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants
(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 any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons
per year (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 non-air
quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to
as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
MACT standards are to 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 standard may take the form of a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard where EPA
first determines either that (A) a pollutant cannot be emitted through
a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutant,
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 emission limitation achieved by the
best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
The EPA is then 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 (District of Columbia
Circuit, 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 risk 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.
CAA section 112(f)(2) 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. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (District of
Columbia Circuit, 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.'') EPA must also adopt more stringent standards, if
necessary, to prevent an adverse environmental effect,\1\ but must
consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of a 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
[[Page 65072]]
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 United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, concluded
that EPA's interpretation of section 112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See
NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 (District of Columbia Circuit,
``[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''). (District of Columbia Circuit
2008). 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 Agency 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 Agency
went on to conclude that ``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 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 Agency 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-kilometer (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 Agency
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 Agency 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 maximum individual
lifetime [cancer] risk (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
[[Page 65073]]
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 hazard index
(HI); and the maximum acute non-cancer hazard. In estimating risks, EPA
considered source categories under review that are located near each
other and that affect the same population. EPA provided estimates of
the expected difference in actual emissions from the source category
under review and emissions allowed pursuant to the source category MACT
standard. EPA also discussed and considered risk estimation
uncertainties. EPA is providing this same type of information in
support of these actions.
However, in contrast to past determinations, this notice presents
and considers additional measures of health information to support our
decision-making. These are discussed in more detail in later sections
of this notice, and include:
Estimates of ``total facility'' cancer and non-cancer risk
(risk from all HAP emissions from the facility at which the source
category is located).
Demographic analyses (analyses of the distributions of
HAP-related cancer risks and non-cancer risks, across different social,
demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near the
facilities where these source categories are located).
Additional estimates of the risks associated with
emissions allowed by the MACT standard.
The Agency is considering all of this 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 and 38046, September 14, 1989. Similarly,
with regard to making the ample margin of safety determination, the
Benzene NESHAP state that ``[I]n the ample margin decision, the Agency
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 Agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provide flexibility
regarding what factors the EPA might consider in making our
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. The Benzene NESHAP explain ``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
Agency 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, the Benzene NESHAP state
that: ``* * * EPA believes the relative weight of the many 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 have not presented estimates
of total HAP inhalation risks from all sources in the vicinity of the
covered sources (i.e., the sum of risks from ambient levels, emissions
from the source category, facility-wide emissions, and emissions from
other facilities nearby).
The Agency 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. This is
particularly important when assessing non-cancer risks, where
pollutant-specific exposure levels (e.g., Reference Concentration
(RfC)) are based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse
health effects. For example, the Agency 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 EPA Science Advisory Board
(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.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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
[[Page 65074]]
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 an 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 in our
assessments, and, in particular, on whether and how it might be
appropriate to use information from EPA's National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) to support such estimates. 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
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?
In this proposal, we are addressing three additional types of
action for some or all of these six MACT standards. For eight source
categories subject to three of the MACT standards, we identified
significant emission sources within the categories for which standards
were not previously developed. We are proposing MACT standards for
these emission sources pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). For
four source categories subject to two of the MACT standards, we are
also proposing changes to correct editorial errors, to make
clarifications, and to address issues with implementation or
determining compliance. We are also proposing to revise requirements in
each of the six MACT standards related to emissions during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (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 (District of Columbia Circuit, 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 (h)(1),
that is part of a regulation, commonly referred to as the General
Provisions Rule, that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA.
When incorporated into a CAA section 112(d) standard for a specific
source category, these two provisions exempt sources within that source
category from the requirement to comply with the otherwise applicable
emission standard during periods of SSM. We are proposing to eliminate
the SSM exemption in each of the six MACT standards addressed in this
proposal. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing that the
established standards in these rules apply at all times. We are also
proposing to revise the General Provisions table in each of the six
MACT standards in several respects. For example, we are removing the
General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We
are also removing certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM exemption, but we are retaining the recordkeeping
and related requirements for malfunctions and request public comment on
the requirements. EPA has attempted to ensure that regulatory language
relating to the SSM exemption has been removed. We solicit comment on
whether we have overlooked any regulatory provisions that might be
inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant based on our proposal to
remove the exemption from compliance with the emission limit during
periods of SSM.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. In 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 believes that a malfunction should not be
viewed as a distinct operating mode, and, therefore, any emissions that
occur during malfunctions 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 (District of Columbia Circuit 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 account for the
innumerable types of potential malfunction events in setting emission
standards. See, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (District
of Columbia Circuit 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. 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.
Under this proposal, 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 CRF
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
[[Page 65075]]
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions
(February 15, 1983)). Therefore, consistent with our recently
promulgated final amendments to regulations addressing the Portland
Cement category (75 FR 54970, September 9, 2010), we are proposing to
add regulatory language providing an affirmative defense against civil
penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by
malfunctions in each of the six MACT standards addressed in this
proposal. We are proposing to define ``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 are also
proposing regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are
necessary to establish this affirmative defense. (See 40 CFR 22.24).
The proposed criteria would 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). The proposed criteria also
are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction,
to minimize emissions, and to prevent future malfunctions. In any
judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator would be able
to 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 could be assessed in
accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.77).
D. What specific RTR actions have previously been taken for these
source categories?
For some of the 16 source categories covered by these six MACT
standards, we have previously taken certain actions under the RTR
program. Following is a summary of these previous actions and also a
summary of additional reviews we have subsequently conducted for each
source category.
1. Categories for Which RTR Decisions Have Been Finalized
There are nine source categories regulated under the Group I
Polymers and Resins MACT standard. For four of these source categories
(Butyl Rubber Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production,
Neoprene Production, and Polysulfide Rubber Production), we previously
proposed and promulgated a decision not to revise the standards for
purposes of the RTR provisions in CAA sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2).\4\
See 72 FR 70543, December 12, 2007 (proposed rule), and 73 FR 76220,
December 16, 2008 (final rule). These four categories were determined
to be ``low-risk,'' as the maximum lifetime individual cancer risks
were less than 1-in-1-million, and there were no other health concerns
of significance. Therefore, we determined that conducting additional
risk analyses for these categories was not warranted. We are not re-
opening the RTR in this notice for these four source categories, and do
not seek additional comments on that prior RTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ There are no longer any operating facilities in the United
States that produce polysulfide rubber, and we do not anticipate any
will begin to operate in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, for three of these four Group I Polymers and Resins source
categories (Butyl Rubber Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber
Production, and Neoprene Production), we have identified significant
emission sources for which MACT standards were not previously
developed. In this proposal, we are proposing MACT standards for these
emission sources, and we are also proposing that the residual risks
after implementation of these new MACT standards will not change our
previous finding that these source categories present low risks and
that our obligation to review the residual risk under CAA section
112(f) has also been satisfied.
2. Categories for Which RTR Decisions Have Been Proposed, but Not
Promulgated
For eight source categories covered under four of the MACT
standards addressed in this proposal, we previously performed an RTR
review and proposed that no revisions of the MACT standards were
necessary to address residual risk and that it was not necessary to
revise the existing standards under CAA section 112(d)(6). See 73 FR
60423, October 10, 2008. The MACT standards addressed in this proposal
included Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations (MTVLO), Printing and
Publishing Industry, Pharmaceuticals Production, and five of the source
categories covered under Group I Polymers and Resins (Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers, Hypalon\TM\ Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production).\5\ Comments were received on that
proposal, but no final action has been taken. This proposal presents
additional analyses we have performed since the proposal, for each of
these source categories with regard to the RTR. In addition, we are
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions in the existing standards for
these source categories, and, for several of the source categories, we
are proposing MACT standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) for
emission points that were not previously regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Mineral Wool Production source category was also
addressed in that same October 2008 proposal. We are not proposing
any additional action for that source category in this proposal, but
will do so in a separate future action. We note that there are no
longer any operating facilities in the United States that produce
Hypalon\TM\, and we do not anticipate that any will begin operation
in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Categories for Which RTR Decisions Have Not Been Proposed
We have not previously proposed any RTR actions for the four source
categories (Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating, Chromium
Anodizing Tanks, and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and
Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants) covered by the Chromium
Electroplating and Steel Pickling MACT standards. Therefore, this is
our initial proposed action for these two MACT standards to address the
RTR requirement. In addition, we identified significant advances in the
housekeeping requirements in the chromium source categories for which
we are proposing MACT standards. We are also proposing revisions to the
provisions addressing SSM to ensure they are consistent with the Court
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, and we are proposing
changes to correct editorial errors, make clarifications, or address
issues with implementation or determining compliance.
IV. Analyses Performed
As discussed above, in this notice, we are taking the following
actions: (1) We are newly proposing action or supplementing our
previous proposal to address the RTR requirements of CAA sections
112(d)(6) and (f)(2) for 16 source categories covered by six different
MACT standards; (2) for eight of the source categories, we are
proposing MACT standards for significant emission sources that are not
currently subject to emission standards under the MACT standards; (3)
we are proposing to revise the provisions in each of these six MACT
standards to address SSM to ensure that the SSM provisions are
consistent with the Court
[[Page 65076]]
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019; and (4) for two of the
MACT standards, we are proposing amendments to correct editorial
errors, to make clarifications, and to address issues with
implementation or determining compliance.
A. How did we estimate risk posed by the source categories?
To support the proposed decision under the RTR for each source
category, 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 non-cancer health effects, hazard quotients (HQ) for acute
exposures to HAP with 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 9 Source Categories, Draft
Residual Risk Assessment for Steel Pickling, and Draft Residual Risk
Assessment for Chromium Electroplating, as well as the memoranda for
the Printing and Publishing Industry, MTVLO, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Styrene Butadiene Rubber
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Production, and Pharmaceuticals
Production source categories.
1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual Emissions and
Identifying the Emissions Release Characteristics
For the source categories included in the October 10, 2008,
proposal, we compiled preliminary data sets using readily-available
information, reviewed the data, and made changes where necessary, and
shared these data with the public via an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM). 72 FR 29287, March 29, 2007. The data sets were
then updated based on comments received on the ANPRM and, in some
cases, with additional information gathered by EPA. For the five Group
I Polymers and Resins I Production source categories included in the
October 2008 proposal (Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production,
Hypalon\TM\ Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production,
Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production), the preliminary data sets were based on information we
collected directly from industry on emissions data and emissions
release characteristics. For the MTVLO, Pharmaceuticals Production, and
the Printing and Publishing Industry source categories, we created the
preliminary data sets using data in the 2002 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) Final Inventory, Version 1 (made publicly available on
February 26, 2006), supplemented by data collected directly from
industry when available. 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, nonpoint, 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 3 years.
In the March 29, 2007, ANPRM, we specifically requested comment on,
and updates to, these preliminary data sets. We received comments on
emissions data and emissions release characteristics data for
facilities in these source categories. These comments were reviewed,
considered, and the emissions information was adjusted where we
concluded the comments supported such adjustment. After incorporation
of changes to the data sets from this public data review process, data
sets were created that were used to conduct the risk assessments and
other analyses that formed the basis for the proposed actions included
in the October 10, 2008, proposal.
Since the proposal, we have continued to scrutinize the data sets
for these source categories and to review additional data that has
become available since the October 10, 2008, proposal. For the Printing
and Publishing Industry source category, we became aware that some
facilities had closed. We also reviewed the emissions data and had
questions about the emissions of certain HAP. After contact with
industry, it was determined that those emissions did not occur from
those facilities. We updated the Printing and Publishing Industry data
set to reflect these changes in operating facilities and emissions. For
the MTVLO data set, we had concerns that several emission points in our
existing data set were mislabeled, and, thus, we extracted more recent
data from the NEI. For this source category, the data set is based on
the 2005 NEI. For the Pharmaceuticals Production source category data
set, no changes are necessary to the data set used for the proposal.
For the Polymers and Resins I MACT standard source categories included
in the October 10, 2008, proposal, updates have been made based on
information received in response to an industry information collection
survey. Documentation for industry contacts, surveys, and other
information gathered to support these changes is available in the
docket for this action.
For the four source categories not included in the December 10,
2008, proposal, we compiled preliminary data sets using the best
available information, reviewed the data, and made changes where
necessary. For the three Chromium Electroplating MACT standard source
categories (Chromium Anodizing Tanks, Decorative Chromium
Electroplating, and Hard Chromium Electroplating) and the Steel
Pickling source category, we compiled the preliminary data sets using
data in the 2005 NEI. Then, for the Steel Pickling source category,
seven facilities were contacted to verify their emissions and emissions
release characteristic data, and we updated the data set based on the
information collected. This updated data set was used to conduct the
risk assessments and other analyses that form the bases for the
proposed actions.
For the Chromium Electroplating source categories, a review of the
2005 NEI data indicated that not all chromium electroplating facilities
were included in the data set. To develop an emissions inventory for
the entire industry that could be used for modeling, an additional data
set was developed based on facilities with known addresses--a total of
1,629 facilities compared to 122 facilities in the NEI. Emissions for
each type of plant were estimated based on the model plants developed
for the original Chromium Electroplating MACT standard,\6\ with hard
chromium model plants having the highest emissions, followed by
decorative chromium electroplating, and then chromium anodizing. If the
type of electroplating performed at a specific plant was unknown, we
assumed these facilities were hard chrome electroplating when we
estimated emissions and risks for those facilities. Although we knew
that, by doing so, we would be overestimating emissions of chromium,
and, therefore, also of risk, we made this conservative assumption
because we did not have complete information, and we chose to
overestimate to preserve an
[[Page 65077]]
ample margin of safety in the risk assessment upon which our risk
modeling would be based. This analysis and a supplemental assessment
are fully described in section V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600, Model Plant Data Used to Estimate
Risk from Chromium Electroplating Sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 mass of emissions actually emitted during the
specified annual time period. These ``actual'' emission levels are
often lower than the level of emissions that a facility might be
allowed to emit and still comply with the MACT standard. The emissions
level allowed to be emitted by the MACT standard is referred to as the
``MACT-allowable'' emissions level. This represents the highest
emission level that could be emitted by the facility without violating
the MACT standard.
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 Hazardous Organic NESHAP
(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 facilities and States, and
information received in response to the ANPRM for several of the source
categories. 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 standard 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 a source category were
controlling storage tank emissions by 98 percent while the MACT
standards required only 92-percent control, we would estimate that
MACT-allowable emissions from these emission points could be as much as
four times higher (8-percent allowable emissions compared with 2-
percent actually emitted), and the ratio of MACT-allowable to actual
would be 4:1 for this emission point type 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 values from the
inhalation risk assessment to obtain facility-specific maximum risk
values based on MACT-allowable emissions.
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 Human Exposure Model (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.\7\ 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 1 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 \8\ internal point locations
and populations provides the basis of human exposure calculations
(Census, 2000). In addition, the census library includes the elevation
and controlling hill height for each census block, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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).
\8\ 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 lifetime (70-year period) of exposure to the maximum concentration at
the centroid of an inhabited census block. Individual cancer risks were
calculated as the lifetime exposure to the ambient concentration of
each of the HAP multiplied by its Unit Risk Estimate (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 Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS).\9\ For carcinogenic pollutants without EPA IRIS values, we look
to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using
California Environmental Protection Agency (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The IRIS information is available at http://www.epa.gov/IRIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65078]]
We note here that several carcinogens have a mutagenic mode of
action.\10\ For these compounds, the age-dependent adjustment factors
described in EPA's Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility
from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens \11\ were applied. This
adjustment has the effect of increasing the estimated lifetime risks
for these pollutants by a factor of 1.6.\12\ In addition, although only
a small fraction of the total polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions
were 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 have the same
mutagenic mechanism of action as does benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason,
EPA's Science Policy Council \13\ 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 Supplemental Guidance to all unspeciated POM mixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. EPA, 2006. Performing risk assessments that include
carcinogens described in the Supplemental Guidance as having a
mutagenic mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines
Implementation Workgroup Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland
dated June 14, 2006. http://epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/CGIWGCommunication_II.pdf.
\11\ 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.
\12\ Only one of these mutagenic compounds, benzo[a]pyrene, is
emitted by any of the sources covered by this proposal.
\13\ U.S. EPA, 2005. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines
Implementation Workgroup Communication I: Memo from W.H. Farland
dated October 4, 2005, to Science Policy Council. http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/canguid1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 potential \14\) 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 modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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 is the estimated exposure divided by the
chronic reference level, which is either the U.S. 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
is not available, the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL),
defined as ``the concentration level at or below which no adverse
health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' As
noted above, 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 those dose-response values in place of, or in addition to,
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. In each case, acute HQ values were calculated using
best available, short-term health threshold values. These acute
threshold values include REL, Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGL),
and Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (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 is termed the REL. REL
values are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect
reported in the medical and toxicological literature. 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 REL
value does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.''
AEGL values were derived in response to recommendations from the
National Research Council (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),\15\ ``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 8 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing
Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65079]]
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.''
ERPG 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 for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \16\ 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 1 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 1 hour without
experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects
or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability to take
protective action.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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 1 and 2. For many
chemicals, a severity level 1 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 1-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
threshold (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 to use 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, and the highest peak
emission event was 8.5 times the annual average hourly emission
rate.\17\ This analysis is provided in Appendix 4 of the Draft Residual
Risk Assessment for Source Categories Report and is available in the
docket for this action. Considering this analysis, unless specific
process knowledge provided an alternate value, a conservative screening
multiplication factor of 10 was applied to the average annual hourly
emission rate in these acute exposure screening assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 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 considered included
using a peak-to-mean hourly emissions ratio based on source category-
specific knowledge or data (rather than the default factor of 10) and
using the site-specific facility layout to distinguish facility
property from an area where the public could be exposed. 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 Multipathway Exposure and Risk Modeling
The potential for significant human health risks due to exposures
via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multipathway 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 persistent and bio-accumulative in the
environment (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.
In the second step of the screening process, 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 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.
[[Page 65080]]
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 data sets.
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 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, for some source categories, where
appropriate, we also estimated risks considering the potential emission
reductions that would be achieved by the particular control options
under consideration. The inhalation and multi-pathway risks estimated,
as described above, at the actual and MACT-allowable levels represent
the actual and maximum allowable operating conditions of the facilities
in the source categories analyzed. For source categories where emission
reduction options were available, we estimated risk based on the
expected emissions reductions that would be realized with those
additional emissions controls. In these cases, the expected emissions
reductions were applied to the specific HAP and emissions sources in
the source category data set. The results of the risk analyses
considering the application of emissions controls 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.
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 NEI (available at http://www.epa.gov/chief/net/2005inventory.html). We analyzed 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 each of the six source categories being
addressed in this proposal, we specifically examined the facility that
was associated with the highest estimate 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 environmental justice 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 environmental justice issues in EPA rulemakings is an
evolving science. The EPA offers the demographic analyses in this
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 this analysis, we analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP
in two separate ways. In the first approach, we focus the analysis on
the total populations residing within 5 km of each facility (source
category and facility-wide), regardless of their estimated risks, and
examine the distributions of estimated risk across the various
demographic groups within those 5 km circles. The distance of 5 km was
chosen for the first approach to be consistent with previous
demographic analyses performed at EPA, such as the one which was
performed in support of the recent proposal for the Boilers NESHAP. In
the second approach, we focus the analysis only on the populations
within 5 km \18\ of any facility estimated to have exposures to HAP
which result in cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater or non-cancer
hazard indices of 1 or greater (based on the emissions of the source
category or the facility, respectively). Once again, we examine the
distributions of those risks across various demographic groups. In each
approach, we compare the percentages of particular demographic groups
to the total number of people in those demographic groups nationwide.
In this preamble, we only present the results of the second approach
since it focuses on the significant risks from either the source
category or the facility-wide emissions. The results of both approaches
including other risk metrics such as average risks for the exposed
populations are documented in source category-specific technical
reports in the docket for each of the source categories covered in this
proposal.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Generally, we have found that using a 5 km radius in the
analysis will capture more than 90 percent of all the individuals
with cancer risks above 1-in-1 million. In the future, we plan to
extend these analyses to cover the entire modeled domain for a
facility (50 km radius) to capture all individuals with risks above
1-in-1 million from the affected facilities.
\19\ For example, the report pertaining to the Hard Chromium
Electroplating source category is entitled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living
Near Hard Chromium Electroplating Facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for the risk values used in these analyses were the
modeling results 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 [supreg] database
was the source of the data on race and ethnicity, and the
[[Page 65081]]
data on age distributions, poverty status, household incomes, and
education level was obtained from the 2000 Census of Population and
Housing Summary File 3 (SF3) Long Form. While race and ethnicity census
data are available at the block group level, the age and income census
data are only available at the census block 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 blocks within the block group have the same
distribution of ages and incomes as the block group.
For each source category, the analysis results include the
distribution of estimated lifetime inhalation cancer and chronic non-
cancer risks for 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 among the population living near these
facilities. 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
the category ``Minorities,'' which is defined as all race population
categories except white. Since these demographic analysis methods are
still evolving, EPA specifically solicits comment on the inclusion of
other demographic categories (e.g., ``Hispanic and Non-white'') in our
future analyses.
For further information about risks to the populations local to the
facilities in these source categories, we also evaluated the estimated
distribution of inhalation cancer and chronic non-cancer risks
associated 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 the residual risk documentation as
referenced in section IV.A of this preamble, which is 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 the
approach that we took, which used conservative tools and assumptions,
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A brief discussion of
the uncertainties in the emissions data sets, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in
the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Steel Pickling Source
Category (July 2010), Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the Chromium
Electroplating Source Category (July 2010), Draft Residual Risk
Assessment for 9 Source Categories (August 2008), and the Risk and
Technology Review (RTR) Assessment Plan (November 2006), each of which
are available in the docket for this action.
a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Data Sets
Although the development of the RTR data sets 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
is incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to
complete the data sets are inaccurate, errors in estimating emissions
values, and other factors. The emission values considered in this
analysis generally are annual totals that do not reflect short-term
fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to
year. In contrast, 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
is 10), which are intended to account for emission fluctuations due to
normal facility operations. In some cases, more refined estimates were
used for source categories where the screening estimates did not
``screen out'' all sources and more specific information was available.
Additionally, for some source categories our estimate of the number of
facilities may not represent the number of facilities that we have in
our notice of proposed rulemaking data set. There is also significant
uncertainty for some source categories in the identification of sources
as major or area in the NEI.
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.
Where possible, model options (e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion,
chemistry) were selected to provide an overestimate of ambient air
concentrations of the HAP. 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.\20\
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
[[Page 65082]]
impact, but is an unbiased estimate of average risk and incidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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 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 likely result in an overestimate (or possibly an
underestimate in the extreme case where a facility maintains or
increases its emission levels beyond 70 years and residents live beyond
70 years at the same location) both in individual risk levels and in
the total estimated number of cancer cases. 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 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 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 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 1 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
reference 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
variabilities 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).\22\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as
low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could also be
greater.\23\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).
\23\ 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 uncertainty factor (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. UF are commonly default
values,\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 65083]]
(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. UF
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 observable adverse effect
(exposure) level to no observable effect (exposure) level adjustments;
and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an incomplete database on toxic
effects of potential concern. Additional adjustments are often applied
to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations at one
exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute reference value at
another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour).
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 threshold 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 pollutants have no peer-
reviewed 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.
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 Multipathway 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. We generally rely on the facility-
specific levels of PB-HAP emissions to determine whether a full
assessment of the multi-pathway and environmental effects is necessary.
Because facility-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
The same uncertainties discussed above exist with regard to the
facility-wide risk assessments. Additionally, the degree of uncertainty
associated with facility-wide emissions and risks is generally greater
because we have not completed our 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.'' 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 standard, 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. In these subsequent air
toxic regulatory actions, we consistently evaluated any new practices,
processes, and control technologies. 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 RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (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
(Reasonably Available Control Technology), BACT (Best Available Control
Technology), or LAER (Lowest Achievable Emission Rate) apply to
stationary sources depending on whether the sources are existing or
new, and on the size, age, and location of the facility. BACT and
[[Page 65084]]
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 data base 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 sources (e.g., tanks or vents) 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.
C. How did we perform the analyses for the other actions being
proposed?
For several of the source categories considered in this proposal,
we identified significant emission points that were not previously
regulated under MACT. For these emission points, consistent with the
requirements of CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we identified the MACT
floor for existing and new sources and considered beyond-the-floor
options.
We also reviewed the SSM provisions of each of the six MACT
standards in light of Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019. As part of
this review, we evaluated available information and engaged industry
concerning the type of activities and emissions that occur during
periods of startup or shutdown.
Finally, we identified potential revisions to these MACT standards
to correct or clarify regulatory requirements. In the years since
promulgation and compliance with the MACT standards, EPA has received
comments and suggestions for improving the clarity of the MACT
standards in general, as well as rule-specific comments for some
individual MACT standards. These comments include such things as
identification of editorial errors in the rule, clarification of
existing rule text, regulatory obstacles to effective implementation of
or compliance with the rule provisions. EPA has also independently
identified these types of issues. We are proposing rule changes where
appropriate.
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, our proposed actions to address significant
unregulated emission points for a number of source categories, our
proposed decisions concerning the SSM provisions in each of the six
MACT standards, and the specific clarifications we are proposing for
selected MACT standards.
A. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Chromium
Electroplating source categories?
1. Overview of the Source Categories and MACT Standard
National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks
(Chromium Electroplating MACT standards) were promulgated on January
25, 1995 (60 FR 4963), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart N. The
Chromium Electroplating MACT standards regulate emissions of chromium
compounds from three related source categories: Hard Chromium
Electroplating, Decorative Chromium Electroplating, and Chromium
Anodizing. Within these source categories, the MACT standards apply to
all plants, both major and area sources, regardless of size.
The Hard Chromium Electroplating source category consists of
facilities that plate base metals with a relatively thick layer of
chromium using an electrolytic process. Hard chromium electroplating
provides a finish that is resistant to wear, abrasion, heat, and
corrosion. These facilities plate large cylinders and industrial rolls
used in construction equipment and printing presses, hydraulic
cylinders and rods, zinc die castings, plastic molds, engine
components, and marine hardware.
The Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category consists of
facilities that plate base materials such as brass, steel, aluminum, or
plastic with layers of copper and nickel, followed by a relatively thin
layer of chromium to provide a bright, tarnish- and wear-resistant
surface. Decorative chromium electroplating is used for items such as
automotive trim, metal furniture, bicycles, hand tools, and plumbing
fixtures.
The Chromium Anodizing source category consists of facilities that
use chromic acid to form an oxide layer on aluminum to provide
resistance to corrosion. The chromium anodizing process is used to coat
aircraft parts (such as wings and landing gears), as well as
architectural structures that are subject to high stress and corrosive
conditions.
The HAP emission sources subject to the Chromium Electroplating
NESHAP are the tanks in which the chromium deposition takes place. For
hard chromium and decorative chromium electroplating facilities, the
emission sources are electroplating tanks. For the Chromium Anodizing
source category, the emission sources are anodizing tanks.
The primary emission controls used by the facilities in these
source categories include packed bed scrubbers, mesh pad mist
eliminators, composite mesh pad (CMP) systems, high efficiency
particulate air (HEPA) filters, and wetting agent/fume suppressants
(WAFS). Most decorative chromium electroplating plants comply with the
MACT standards by using WAFS in the tank bath to control surface
tension, which in turn reduces emissions. Some plants use a combination
of WAFS and add-on control to meet the MACT emission limits. If a
facility controls emissions using an add-on control device, the tank is
generally equipped with a hood and duct work to exhaust emissions
through the control device and out the stack. However, when WAFS are
used as the only means of emission control, the tanks often are not
equipped with exhaust hoods. In such cases, emissions from the tank are
fugitive and are exhausted to the outside using wall-mounted exhaust
fans.
We estimate that there are approximately 1,770 plants that are
currently subject to the Chromium Electroplating MACT standards. Of
these, we estimate that there are 790 hard chromium electroplating
plants, 740 decorative chromium electroplating plants, and 240 chromium
anodizing plants. A detailed description of how the number of each type
of plant was estimated can be found in the Estimated Number of Chromium
Electroplating Plants document available in the docket for this action.
Some facilities perform more than one type of chromium electroplating
or anodizing. For purposes of our estimates, we classified facilities
as hard chromium, decorative chromium, or chromium anodizing based on
the primary type of electroplating operation performed at the facility.
Some chromium
[[Page 65085]]
electroplating facilities electroplate items that are used internally
in the manufacturing process at the same facility or within the same
company. For example, some large printing facilities electroplate their
printing rollers in house, and the chromium electroplating processes
are located at the same site as the printing and publishing processes.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
For the Chromium Electroplating source categories, we compiled a
preliminary data set using data in the 2005 NEI. A review of the NEI
resulted in the identification of data for 122 chromium electroplating
facilities. These data were reviewed and the data for eight hard
chromium and six decorative chromium electroplating plants were revised
based on information in the facilities' permits or permit applications.
Additional data were available for 44 facilities through responses to a
CAA section 114 information request that was sent to facilities for the
Plating and Polishing Area Source rule. The data for these facilities
were added to the NEI data set, and, as with the original data,
represent actual emission levels for these electroplating and anodizing
facilities. Most of these facilities have low emissions, which are
generally less than 2 pounds per year (lbs/yr). These 166 facilities
now included in the 2005 NEI comprise approximately 9 percent of the
estimated 1,770 facilities covered by the MACT standards, and include
63 hard chromium electroplating, 96 decorative chromium electroplating,
and 7 chromium anodizing facilities.\25\ This data set of 166
facilities was modeled to determine the maximum individual cancer risk,
the population cancer risk, the cancer incidence, and the maximum
chronic non-cancer risk for the three source categories based on actual
emissions. The maximum individual cancer risk and the maximum chronic
non-cancer risk estimated from this data set were also compared to the
maximum individual cancer risk and the maximum chronic non-cancer risk
estimated from MACT-allowable emissions for the three source
categories.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The National Association of Surface Finishers provided OMB
with data for 15 plants. We have placed this information in the
docket for this rulemaking.
\26\ The Occupational Safety and Health Administration adopted a
lower permissible exposure limit for hexavalent chromium in 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the possibility that the small number of facilities
included in the 166-facility data set might not be fully representative
of the source categories and their risks, we developed an additional
data set. In the development of this data set, we used ``model plants''
developed for the original MACT standard to represent the individual
facilities. For hard and decorative chromium electroplating, we used
three model plants (large, medium, and small) that represent average
characteristics for each of these groups. For each of these plant
sizes, there is an annual emissions rate (lbs/yr) that is derived from
the design and operating parameters, and is specific to the size and
type of model plant. For chromium anodizing, we have two model plants
(large and small). The model plants were based on data collected during
development of the original MACT standards from 1988 to 1993 from more
than 100 facilities that responded to an Information Collection Request
(ICR) for the chromium electroplating and anodizing industry. Data from
site visits and other information also were used in developing the
model plants. A complete description of the model plants developed for
the MACT standard is provided in the Background Information Document
(BID) for the original MACT standard (Chromium Electroplating BID).
The basis for this additional data set is 1,629 chromium
electroplating facilities with known addresses.\27\ For about half of
these facilities, the type of electroplating performed is known, but
the size of the facility is not known. For the remaining facilities,
neither the type of chromium electroplating process or processes, nor
the facility size is known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ There is some overlap between the 1,629 facilities with
known addresses and the 166 facilities for which we have emissions
data based on the NEI and the data collection request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For use in the risk analysis, the limited available data were used
to divide these facilities into six groups. Facilities in three of the
six groups were assigned to be hard chromium electroplating facilities.
Those groups include: hard chromium facilities; facilities with
combined hard chromium operations and other electroplating or
anodizing; and facilities with unknown processes. Together, these three
groups yielded a total of 1,219 plants, all of which we modeled as hard
chromium electroplating facilities. This total, in addition to the 63
hard chromium electroplating facilities in the 2005 NEI data set,
yields a total of 1,282 facilities, which is substantially higher than
the 790 hard chromium facilities that we estimate exist in the United
States. However, because hard chromium facilities have the highest
emissions among the three source categories, we made these selections
as a conservative or health-protective assumption.
To represent the decorative chromium electroplating facilities, we
combined two of the six groups of facilities; decorative chromium
facilities and facilities that perform both decorative chromium and
chromium anodizing. This results in 319 decorative chromium facilities
in this data set, which, even when combined with the 96 decorative
chromium electroplating facilities in the 2005 NEI data set, is less
than the 740 facilities that we believe exist in the industry. Because
we modeled all of the unknown electroplating type facilities as the
highest-emitting hard chromium electroplating facilities, we consider
this assessment to be conservative, even though it appears to under-
represent decorative chromium facilities.
Similarly, the last of the six groups are all known chromium
anodizing facilities. This group includes 73 facilities, and, when
combined with the 7 chromium anodizing facilities in the 2005 NEI data
set, still represents only about a third of the 240 facilities chromium
anodizing facilities. Again, we believe this is conservative because
those facilities not modeled as chromium anodizing plants were modeled
as the higher emitting hard chromium facilities in the analysis.
To estimate the risks for this assessment, we needed to establish
estimated emissions for each of the electroplating and anodizing types.
To ensure that we did not underestimate cancer risk to the most exposed
individual, we originally planned to use the large plant emission
factors that we had developed for the original MACT standard to
represent all model plants for each type of chromium electroplating
processing. In reviewing available emissions data, we found that, while
the large plant emission factors adequately represent the average
chromium emissions from known large decorative chromium electroplating
and large chromium anodizing facilities, they are not representative of
the average chromium emissions from large hard chromium electroplating
facilities.
The emission factor for large hard chromium electroplating
developed for the original MACT standard was 35.3 lbs/yr. However, in
comparing this emission factor to available emissions data for
individual facilities, we find that this emissions factor is
unrealistically high and does not represent the average level of
emissions for large facilities as we would expect to see under the
current MACT standard. As explained more fully in the Model Plant Data
Used to Estimate Risk from
[[Page 65086]]
Chromium Electroplating Sources document available in the docket for
this action, based on the large model plant design flow rate and
operating hours, a large hard chromium model plant operating at the
MACT emission limit of 0.015 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
(mg/dscm) would emit a maximum of only 23.6 lbs/yr of chromium
compounds. Moreover, the available data on actual emissions for hard
chromium electroplating plants indicate there are only 4 plants with
annual emissions greater than 10 lbs/yr. As a result, we determined
that the large size model plant emissions factor, as defined for the
original MACT standard, is not representative of existing large hard
chromium electroplating facilities on a nationwide basis. On the other
hand, the emission factor associated with a medium size hard chromium
electroplating model plant (9.26 lbs/yr) falls between the 90th
percentile (8.04 lbs/yr) and the 95th percentile (11.6 lbs/yr) of the
available emissions data for hard chromium electroplating facilities.
Because this emission factor, which was originally developed for medium
sized facilities at the time the MACT standard was developed, is
representative of the emissions from large facilities, the emissions
factor of 9.26 lbs/yr was used to represent current large hard chromium
electroplating facilities. Thus, for purposes of this residual risk
review, we refer to 9.26 lbs/yr as the emissions factor for a ``large''
hard chromium electroplating facility.
We believe the approach of using the ``large'' facility emissions
factor to represent all facility sizes is reasonable to ensure that we
did not underestimate maximum individual cancer risk. Although we
believe that only a small percentage of the facilities are large, we
recognize that we do not have emissions data for approximately 90
percent of the sources. Thus, by assuming all sources are large, we
have ensured that we will not underestimate the maximum individual
risk.
For hard chromium electroplating, the model plant emission factors
for small, medium, and large facilities range from 0.55 to 9.26 lbs/yr.
While we expect only 10 percent of the facilities to be large, based on
the distribution of model plant sizes developed for the MACT standard,
we used the emissions factor for a large facility (9.26 lbs/yr) for all
of the 1,219 facilities that we considered as hard chromium
electroplating facilities. Similarly, for decorative chromium
electroplating, the emission factors for small, medium, and large
facilities are 0.065, 0.27, and 2.65 lbs/yr, respectively, and the
large facility emissions factor was used in the risk assessment for
decorative chromium. For the Decorative Chromium category, we estimate
that only 5 percent of the facilities are large, based upon the
distribution of decorative chromium plants nationwide when the original
NESHAP were developed. Finally, for chromium anodizing, the emission
factor for small facilities is 0.036 lb/yr, and for large facilities,
is 0.44 lb/yr. The large facility emissions factor (0.44 lb/yr) was
used in the conservative analysis for all of the anodizing facilities
even though we estimate that only 25 percent are large.
Population risk indicators can be greatly overstated when highly
conservative emission estimates are applied to every facility in the
source category. Recognizing this fact, we performed a supplemental
analysis to better address nationwide average emission levels and
assess the sensitivity of our population risk estimates. Thus, as
described further below, the supplemental analysis was performed to
understand the degree to which the risk might be overstated, and, thus,
how much weight to attach to the conservative analysis. The
conservatism of this risk assessment is one factor that we consider in
determining whether the risk is acceptable within the meaning of the
Benzene NESHAP.
For the supplemental analysis, we assigned unique emission factors
to each of the 6 groups of facilities in our 1,629 facility data set.
These emission factors were developed to better estimate the average
emissions for all of the sources within each group. The new emission
factors are:
2.24 lbs/yr for known hard chromium electroplating
facilities,
0.225 lb/yr for known decorative chromium electroplating
facilities,
0.137 lb/yr for known chromium anodizing facilities,
1.23 lbs/yr for facilities with combinations of hard
chromium electroplating and either decorative electroplating or
anodizing,
0.181 lb/yr for facilities with combinations of decorative
electroplating and anodizing, and
1.11 lbs/yr for facilities where the type of process
(electroplating or anodizing) is unknown.
A detailed explanation for how these emission factors were derived
can be found in the Model Plant Data Used to Estimate Risk from
Chromium Electroplating Sources available in the docket for this
action. These weighted average emission factors account for the plant
type (hard chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating,
or chromium anodizing) and the distribution of plant sizes (large,
medium, or small). For example, the average emissions factor for hard
chromium electroplating (2.24 lbs/yr) is the weighted average of the
model plant emission factors for large plants (10 percent of plants at
9.26 lbs/yr per plant), medium plants (20 percent of plants at 4.63
lbs/yr per plant, and small plants (70 percent of plants at 0.55 lb/yr
per plant). This distribution of plant sizes is based on actual data
collected during development of the original MACT rule. We have no
reason to believe the distribution of facility sizes has changed
significantly since then.
The uncertainties associated with both the conservative analysis
and the supplemental analysis include the estimated distribution of
plant types and sizes as well as the facility emissions factors.
Although the type of plants used in the NEI analysis is based on a
variety of reliable sources, including ICR responses for the Plating
and Polishing NESHAP, trade association data, data from State agencies,
and information from Web sites, we were unable to identify the plant
type for nearly half of the data set. For those plants of unknown type,
we used the highest emissions factor, which corresponds to a large hard
chromium plant, in the conservative analysis. For the supplemental
analysis, we developed an emissions factor using a weighted average
across all plant types and sizes. For all plants that were modeled, we
are soliciting additional information on actual and MACT-allowable
emissions, plant type, and plant size. More information about the
development of the model plants can be found in the Model Plant Data
Used to Estimate Risk from Chromium Electroplating Sources document
available in the docket for this action.
In all the data sets, chromium compounds account for all the HAP
emissions from the Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
source categories. For the Hard Chromium Electroplating source
category, in the NEI-based data set, chromium VI compounds account for
98 percent of the emissions, with chromium III and chromium trioxide
compounds comprising the remaining HAP. In both the NEI and model plant
emission estimates, we made the conservative assumption that 100
percent of the emissions are chromium VI compounds. For the Decorative
Chromium Electroplating source category, in the NEI-based data set,
chromium VI compounds account for 94 percent of the emissions, with
chromium III and chromium trioxide compounds comprising the remaining
HAP. In both emission estimates, we
[[Page 65087]]
made the conservative assumption that 100 percent of the emissions are
chromium VI compounds. For the Chromium Anodizing source category, in
the NEI-based data set, chromium VI compounds account for 99 percent of
the emissions with chromium III compounds comprising the remaining HAP.
In both emission estimates, we made the conservative assumption that
100 percent of the emissions are chromium VI compounds.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We conducted an inhalation risk assessment for each of the three
source categories: Hard Chromium Electroplating, Decorative Chromium
Electroplating, and Chromium Anodizing. Also, for each source category,
we conducted an assessment of facility-wide risk, and performed a
demographic analysis of population risks. As noted above, we developed
two data sets for these source categories, one based primarily on NEI
data for 166 sources, and one based on model plant data for 1,629
sources.
The following tables present the combined results from the data
sets. Table A.1 provides an overall summary of the maximum individual
inhalation risk assessment results, and Table A.2 provides population
risk assessment results for the Hard Chromium Electroplating,
Decorative Chromium Electroplating, and Chromium Anodizing source
categories.
Table A.1--Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Maximum Individual Inhalation Risk Assessment Results*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Maximum chronic non-cancer
cancer risk (in 1 TOSHI \3\
Number of million) \2\ ----------------------------
Source category facilities -------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-cancer HQ \4\
(NEI/model Actual Allowable Actual Allowable
plant) \1\ emissions emissions emissions emissions
level level level level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard Chromium Electroplating............... 63/1,219 70 90 0.06 0.09 Not applicable \5\.
Decorative Chromium Electroplating......... 96/337 70 70 0.06 0.06 Not applicable \5\.
Chromium Anodizing......................... 7/73 5 5 0.004 0.004 Not applicable \5\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from each source in the categories.
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis: the first number refers to the NEI data set, and the second number applies to the conservative
emission estimate.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Hard Chromium Electroplating, Decorative Chromium Electroplating, and Chromium
Anodizing source categories is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
lowest available acute threshold. See section IV.A. of this preamble for explanation of acute threshold values.
\5\ NA = not applicable. There are no HAP with acute dose-response benchmark values, so no acute HQ were calculated for these source categories. See
section IV.A of this preamble for an explanation of acute threshold values.
Table A.2--Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Population Risk Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservative assessment Conservative Supplemental assessment Supplemental
Number of population at risk annual cancer population at risk annual cancer
Source category facilities -------------------------------- incidence -------------------------------- incidence
(NEI/model >= 1-in-1 >= 10-in-1 (cases per >= 1-in-1 >= 10-in-1 (case per
plant) million million year) million million year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard Chromium Electroplating............ 63/1,219 14,200,000 71,000 0.8 360,000 5,100 0.1
Decorative Chromium Electroplating...... 96/337 390,000 4,000 0.08 30,000 1,300 0.01
Chromium Anodizing...................... 7/73 2,700 0 0.003 540 0 0.001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table A.1, the results of the inhalation risk
assessment for the Hard Chromium Electroplating source category
indicate the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high
as 70-in-1 million, based on actual emissions, and as high as 90-in-1
million based on allowable emissions. This maximum individual cancer
risk is based on the highest risk facility out of the 63 actual
facilities and the 1,219 model plants. The highest risk facility is one
for which we have design and operating data, and we believe it is also
both the largest and highest emitting hard chromium electroplating
facility in the United States. Thus, we believe this level accurately
reflects the maximum individual exposure. The maximum chronic non-
cancer TOSHI value could be 0.06, based on the actual emissions level,
and up to 0.09 based on allowables. This value is also based on known
emission levels from the largest facility in the nation. A non-cancer
TOSHI of one or less is not of human health concern.
The total estimated national cancer incidence from hard chromium
electroplating facilities based on actual emission levels is 0.8 excess
cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1.25 years for the
conservative assessment. Our risk assessment shows 14.2 million people
exposed to a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million and 71,000 people
exposed to a cancer risk of at least 10-in-1 million.
As noted above, we conducted a supplemental analysis to determine
the weight to give to the conservative risk analysis. That supplemental
analysis estimates 0.1 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 10 years. Additionally, it estimates a population exposure of
360,000 people at 1-in-1 million cancer risk. For a cancer risk of at
least 10-in-1 million, the population exposed decreases to 5,100.
Based on the 2005 NEI data set for the Decorative Chromium
Electroplating
[[Page 65088]]
source category, the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could be
as high as 70-in-1 million, and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI
value could be up to 0.06, based on the actual emissions level.\28\ We
do not believe the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk and the
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value would be any higher than this
based on allowable emissions. The total estimated population risks from
the conservative risk assessment of the decorative chromium
electroplating facilities based on actual emission levels is 390,000
people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million and 0.08
excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 12 years.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ There is uncertainty regarding the operating status of the
facility (reported to be closed) associated with the maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk. Prior to any final rulemaking
action, we will investigate this situation and revise the risk
analysis and results accordingly.
\29\ Based on our conservative risk assessment, we believe the
risks are low, and, as explained further below, are proposing that
the risks are acceptable for the Decorative Chromium source
category. Although we did not need to consider the supplemental
analysis that we conducted for Decorative Chromium to help guide our
conclusion about the uncertainty of the risk assessment results, we
note that the supplemental assessment shows 30,000 people exposed to
a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million and 0.01 excess cancer
case per year, or one case in every 100 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the 2005 NEI data set for the Chromium Anodizing source
category, the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high
as 5-in-1 million and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could
be up to 0.004, based on the actual emissions level. The total
estimated population risks from the conservative assessment of the
chromium anodizing facilities based on actual emission levels is 2,700
people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million and 0.003
excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 333 years.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Based on our conservative risk assessment, we believe the
risks are low, and, as explained further below, are proposing that
the risks are acceptable for the Chromium Anodizing source category.
Although we did not need to consider the supplemental analysis that
we conducted for Chromium Anodizing to help guide our conclusion
about the uncertainty of the risk assessment results, we note that
the supplemental assessment shows 540 people exposed to a cancer
risk greater than 1-in-1 million and 0.001 excess cancer case per
year, or one case in every 1,000 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, as there were no reported emissions of PB-HAP for these three
source categories, we do not expect the potential for human health
multipathway risks or adverse environmental impacts.
Our analyses of potential differences between actual emission
levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standards are based on
emissions test data from specific facilities. A comparison of these
test results to allowable emissions at these facilities indicates that
the ratio of MACT-allowable to actual emissions varies considerably
from facility to facility. As a result, a uniform factor was not
available to apply to all facilities. However, for the Hard Chromium
Electroplating source category, we did evaluate the facility that was
modeled as having the highest maximum individual lifetime cancer risk
(70-in-1 million) based on actual emissions. Our analysis indicates
that this facility, if operated at the allowable emissions limit, could
have a maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as high as 90-in-1
million. Furthermore, the available data indicate that no other hard
chromium electroplating facility would have a cancer risk that high if
operated at the allowable emissions limit.
For the Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category, we
performed a similar analysis of the available data and concluded that
the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk would not exceed 70-in-1
million for any facility that operated at the allowable emissions
limit. As stated earlier, because most chromium anodizing facilities
use WAFS, we believe actual emissions are essentially the same as
allowable emissions. Thus, we believe that the MIR based on allowable
emissions would be the same as that based on actual emissions, i.e., 5-
in-1 million.
Table A.3 displays the results of the facility-wide risk assessment
for actual emissions of all sources at the facility as reported in the
NEI. We did not perform a facility-wide risk assessment based on
allowable emissions, as explained in the documentation referenced in
section IV.A of this preamble, which is available in the docket for
this action.
Table A.3--Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Facility-Wide Risk Assessment Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Source
category category
Maximum contribution contribution
facility-wide to this Maximum to this
Source category individual maximum facility-wide maximum
cancer risk facility-wide chronic non- facility-wide
(in 1 million) individual cancer TOSHI chronic non-
cancer risk cancer TOSHI
\1\ \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hard Chromium Electroplating................... 90 < 1% 2 < 1%
Decorative Chromium Electroplating............. 90 7% 0.8 < 1%
Chromium Anodizing............................. 20 75% 0.2 < 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentage shown reflects source category contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the facility
with the maximum risk value shown.
As shown in Table A.3, the maximum individual cancer risks from all
HAP emissions at facilities that perform hard chromium electroplating,
decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium anodizing are
estimated to be 90-in-1 million, 90-in-1 million, and 20-in-1 million,
respectively. For the facilities where these maximum risk values occur,
the estimated proportion of the cancer risk attributable to the hard
chromium electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and
chromium anodizing processes is less than 1 percent, 7 percent, and 75
percent, respectively. The highest facility-wide cancer risk for a
facility that includes a hard chromium electroplating source is
primarily driven by chemical production processes. We are currently
developing a chemical manufacturing sector project \31\ and plan to
address risk from these chemical production processes as part of that
action. The highest facility-wide cancer risk for a facility that
includes a decorative chromium electroplating
[[Page 65089]]
source is primarily driven by aerospace processes that will be
addressed in a future residual risk review for the Aerospace
Manufacturing and Rework Facilities source category. The highest
facility-wide cancer risk for a facility that includes a chromium
anodizing source is primarily driven by the chromium anodizing
processes. The facility-wide maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI values
for facilities that include Hard Chromium Electroplating, Decorative
Chromium Electroplating, and Chromium Anodizing source category
processes are estimated to be 2, 0.8, and 0.2, respectively. At the
facilities where these maximum risk values occur, the estimated
proportion of the non-cancer risk attributable to the Hard Chromium
Electroplating, Decorative Chromium Electroplating, and Chromium
Anodizing source category processes is less than 1 percent for each
source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ This is one of several projects EPA is undertaking to
establish and implement national emission-control measures for
specific sectors of the economy by taking an integrated
multipollutant approach to assessing and implementing additional
emission controls using our existing regulatory frameworks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of risks above 1-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions levels for the population living within 5 km of the
facilities, among various demographic groups are provided in a report
available in the docket for this action and summarized in Tables A.4,
A.5, and A.6 below. These estimates of total population with risk
exceeding 1-in-1 million differ from the risk estimates presented above
because the demographic analysis uses a 5 km radius and the risk
assessment results provided above reflect use of a 50 km radius around
all chromium electroplating facilities.
Table A.4--Hard Chrome Electroplating Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 Other and Below the Over 25 w/
million) Total Minority % African multiracial Hispanic or Native poverty o a HS
(millions) American % % Latino % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide......................... n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source Category.................... 70 13.1 52 23 29 34 0.6 22 20
Facility-wide...................... 90 13.1 52 23 29 34 0.6 22 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A.5--Decorative Chromium Electroplating Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 Other and Below the Over 25 w/
million) Total Minority % African multiracial Hispanic or Native poverty o a HS
(millions) American % % Latino % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide......................... n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source Category.................... 70 0.35 50 18 32 47 0.8 24 23
Facility-wide...................... 90 0.43 54 21 32 48 0.7 24 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A.6--Chromium Anodizing Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 Other and Below the Over 25 w/
million) Total Minority % African multiracial Hispanic or Native poverty o a HS
(millions) American % % Latino % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide......................... n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source Category.................... 5 0.0027 36 16 0 0 0.4 25 19
Facility-wide...................... 20 0.0079 22 10 12 13 0.8 19 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis show that, for the
population located within 5 km of Hard Chromium Electroplating source
category, there are about 13.1 million people with cancer risks greater
than 1-in-1 million for both the source category and facility-wide. Of
this population at risk, 52 percent could be classified as a
``Minority,'' 34 percent are included in the ``Hispanic or Latino''
demographic group, 29 percent are included in the ``Other and
Multiracial'' demographic group, 23 percent are included in the
``African-American'' demographic group, 22 percent are included in the
``Below Poverty Level'' demographic group, and 20 percent are included
in the ``Over 25 Without a High School Diploma'' demographic group. The
percentage of the population within 5 km of a hard chromium
electroplating facility and with a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1
million is higher than the typical distribution of these demographic
groups across the United States. These demographic analyses are based
on the conservative assessment results.
For the Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category, there
are about 350,000 people with cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million
for the source category and 430,000 people with
[[Page 65090]]
cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million facility-wide. Of this
population at risk, 50 percent could be classified as a ``Minority,''
47 percent are included in the ``Hispanic or Latino'' demographic
group, 32 percent are included in the ``Other and Multiracial,''
demographic group, 18 percent are included in the ``African-American''
demographic group, 24 percent are included in the ``Below Poverty
Level'' demographic group, and 23 percent are included in the ``Over 25
Without a High School Diploma'' demographic group. The percentage of
the population within 5 km of a decorative chromium electroplating
facility and with a cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million is higher
than the typical distribution of these demographic groups across the
United States. The results of the demographic analysis for facility-
wide emissions are similar to the results for the source category.
For the Chromium Anodizing source category, there are about 2,700
people with cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million and 7,900 people
with cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million facility-wide. Of the
population with cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million, 36 percent
could be classified as a ``Minority,'' 16 percent are included in the
``African-American'' demographic group, 25 percent are included in the
``Below Poverty Level'' demographic group, and 19 percent are included
in the ``Over 25 Without a High School Diploma'' demographic group. The
percentage of the population within 5 km of a chromium anodizing
facility and with a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million is higher
than the typical distribution of these demographic groups across the
United States. The results of the facility-wide demographic analysis
are higher than the typical distribution of risks to the demographic
groups across the United States, for the ``Below Poverty Level'' and
the ``Over 25 Without a High School Diploma'' demographic groups, but
are lower than these levels for the other demographic groups.
Details of these assessments and analyses can be found in the
residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
a. Risk Acceptability
The risk analysis we performed for this proposal indicates that for
the Hard Chromium Electroplating source category, the cancer risks to
the individual most exposed is 70-in-1 million based on actual
emissions and 90-in-1 million based on MACT-allowable emissions. The
maximum non-cancer risk level, which is low, is a TOSHI of 0.06 based
on actual emissions and 0.09 based on allowable emissions. These risks
are due to estimated emissions of hexavalent chromium, which EPA
describes as a known human carcinogen by the inhalation route of
exposure. As explained above, both the MIR and the maximum non-cancer
risk levels are based on emissions from what we believe is the highest
risk hard chromium facility operating in the United States.
We further estimate that the excess cancer incidence could be as
high as 0.8 cases per year, and that over 14 million people could be
exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or greater. These risk
levels are based on a highly conservative risk assessment as described
above. In summary, in this assessment we used (1) actual emissions data
for 63 facilities and (2) emissions estimates that are reflective of
average emissions for the highest emitting facilities for each one of
an additional 1,219 facilities not in the original dataset. Because
there are only 790 hard chromium facilities, and because only ten
percent of the facilities would have this high an emissions rate, we
believe that these conservative risk assessment results overstate
cancer incidence and population exposure.
As noted above, we performed a supplemental analysis to assess the
degree to which the conservative risk assessment may overstate risks,
and, thus, to determine how heavily to weigh those risks in determining
whether to find the risks acceptable. In this supplemental analysis we
assessed these risks based on (1) the emissions data used in the
conservative assessment for the 63 facilities for which we have actual
facility emission information, and (2) revised emission data that
better represent nationwide average emission levels for the 1,219
facilities. The supplemental assessment indicates that the excess
cancer risks from hard chromium electroplating facilities is 0.1 cancer
cases per year and 360,000 people exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-1
million or more, which is substantially less than we found with the
conservative assessment. These results indicate that the estimated
risks are uncertain and are highly sensitive to input assumptions and
that the conservative assessment may substantially overstate risks.
The results of our demographic analysis indicate that minorities
face disproportionate risks \32\ from exposure to emissions from this
category (Tables A.4-A.6). Although the demographic analysis was based
on our conservative risk assessment modeling, we have no reason to
believe that the results would be substantially different were we to
re-run that analysis using the assumptions underlying the supplemental
assessment. This is because the disparate impacts identified through
our demographic analysis are reflective of the fact that many chrome
facilities are located in inner city urban areas, and in or near
residential neighborhoods more likely to be inhabited by minority and
low income persons. We are concerned about the potential
disproportionate health risks from these urban facilities on minorities
and those below the poverty level. We solicit comment on whether there
may be pollution prevention efforts or other HAP emission reduction
approaches that could mitigate the impacts that these facilities have
on their immediate surroundings. We also recognize that, in addition to
whatever controls are required in the final rulemaking for the Hard
Chromium Electroplating source category, there may be other approaches,
such as facility-specific compliance assistance, that could mitigate
the impacts that these facilities have on their immediate surroundings.
We solicit comment and supporting information to assist EPA in
identifying measures to mitigate these disproportionate risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Using census data on race and ethnicity, we estimated the
percentage of people in the United States that are minority. We also
estimated the percentage of people that live within 5 km of each
facility and have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million that are
minority. Where the percentage of people at risk is higher than the
percentage nationwide, those minorities face disproportionate risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP,
EPA weighed all health risk measures and information, including the
maximum individual cancer risk, the cancer incidence, the number of
people exposed to a risk greater than 1-in-1 million, the distribution
of risks in the exposed population, and the uncertainty of our risk
calculations in determining whether the risk posed by emissions from
hard chromium facilities is acceptable.
As an initial matter, we note that the 90-in-1 million risk based
on allowable emissions is approaching the ``presumptive limit on
maximum individual lifetime risk of approximately 1-in-10 thousand
[100-in-1 million]'' recognized in the Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38045). We
also note
[[Page 65091]]
that, based on our conservative analysis, there is a high level of
cancer incidence of 0.8 excess cancer cases per year nationwide, and a
very large number (14.2 million) of people potentially exposed to a
cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million.\33\ However, we also recognize
that our supplemental assessment based on alternative input assumptions
concerning emissions (that better represent nationwide average
emissions) indicate that the results of the conservative assessments
are substantially overstated. Thus, there is great uncertainty about
both the cancer incidence and the number of people exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ These comparisons refer to estimates of incidence and
populations from risk assessments performed for other source
categories previously covered by RTR risk assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the one hand, we acknowledge that the cancer incidence and
number of people exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater
are high based on our conservative analysis. On the other hand, we
recognize the significant uncertainty of these risk estimates and the
likelihood that they are overstated, based on the conservative nature
of the assessment. The supplemental analysis highlights the sensitivity
of our risk analysis to highly uncertain input assumptions and supports
a determination that the population exposure and cancer incidence risk
numbers are overstated. It shows substantially lower cancer incidence
(0.1 excess cases per year nationwide as opposed to 0.8) and number of
people potentially exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more
(360 thousand as opposed to 14.2 million). In addition, the
distribution of risks in the exposed population shows the number of
people exposed to a cancer risk greater than 10-in-1 million is 71,000
for the conservative assessment and 5,100 for the supplemental
analysis.
In determining whether risk is acceptable, we focus on the results
of all aspects of the risk assessment. Because the MIR is less than
100-in-1 million, and because of the significant uncertainty of the
cancer incidence and number of people exposed, which we believe are
overstated based on the fact that our risk analysis was highly
conservative, at this time, we are proposing that the risks from the
Hard Chromium Electroplating source category are acceptable. We are
proposing that the risks are acceptable, in large part, because we
believe that the assumptions underlying the supplemental analysis may
present a more realistic estimate of the emissions from hard chromium
facilities.
However, we are very concerned by the results of our conservative
risk analysis, especially the large number of people (including
disproportionately affected populations) estimated to be exposed at a
cancer risk above 1-in-1 million. We are also concerned about the level
of uncertainty with our analysis given that we have very limited
information as to the number (and size) of the facilities. While our
current proposal is supported by recognizing the uncertainty associated
with the high risk levels from our conservative assessment and, as
explained above, that uncertainty (as demonstrated by the supplemental
analysis) points in the direction of an overstatement of risk, we would
prefer to base a final rule on more complete and reliable information.
The purpose of the residual risk standards under CAA section 112(f) is
to ensure protection of public health and the environment. Thus, we
believe it is important to develop a conservative risk analysis and err
on the side of potential overestimation of risk analyses where we are
missing data. In this case, we recognize that the assessment may be
overly conservative, and we are considering additional methods for
performing a conservative analysis. However, we believe additional
information and data regarding the location, type and size of
facilities will be important to performing any additional analysis that
would err on the side of protectiveness without being overly
conservative. At this time, we are not certain that we would take final
action finding the risk to be acceptable based on the limited
information currently available to the Agency.
The comments and information that we receive on this proposal will
be critical in making a final decision on acceptability. We are
soliciting comment and data to help the Agency make an informed
decision as it moves forward with this rulemaking. Specifically, with
regard to each of the facilities listed in Appendix A to this preamble,
we are seeking to identify (1) the actual annual emissions, if known;
(2) which of the three source categories it falls within; and (3)
whether, for hard chromium, it is a ``large'' or ``small'' facility
within the definitions in 40 CFR 63.341(a). In particular, we are
encouraging the States to provide EPA with better inventory data for
sources within their States. Moreover, we are encouraging States to
help identify sources that may be located near sensitive populations or
other populations of concern, such as located near schools or that may
be located in communities with a significant minority population. To
feel comfortable with a final decision finding the risk acceptable, we
believe it is important to reduce the level of uncertainty associated
with our current analyses. Thus, in light of the comments and any
additional data (or lack thereof) that we receive during the comment
period, we may determine that it is appropriate to issue a supplemental
proposal in which we propose to find the risk unacceptable. If we issue
a supplemental proposal in which we propose to find the risk
unacceptable, we would be required to propose emissions standards or
work practices that reduce risk to a level that is acceptable and
provides an ample margin of safety.
For the Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category, the
cancer risks to the individual most exposed is 70-in-1 million, based
on both actual and MACT-allowable emissions. Based on this cancer risk
level and in consideration of other health measures and factors,
including the cancer incidence (one case in every 12.5 years) and the
low maximum non-cancer risk level (TOSHI of 0.06 based on both actual
and MACT-allowable emissions), we propose that the risks from the
Decorative Chromium Electroplating source category are acceptable.
For the Chromium Anodizing source category, the cancer risks to the
individual most exposed is 5-in-1 million, based on both actual and
allowable emissions. Based on this low cancer risk level and in
consideration of other health measures and factors, including the
cancer incidence (one case in every 250 years) and the low maximum non-
cancer risk level (TOSHI of 0.004 based on actual emissions), we
propose that the risks from the Chromium Anodizing source category are
acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety
Although we are proposing that the risks from these source
categories are acceptable, risk estimates for individuals in the
exposed population are above 1-in-1 million. Consequently, we
considered whether the MACT standard provides an ample margin of
safety. As part of this analysis, we investigated available emissions
control options that might reduce the risk associated with chromium
compound emissions from the nationwide estimated 1,770 hard chromium
electroplating, decorative chromium electroplating, and chromium
anodizing operations. Once we identified the available emissions
control options, we estimated the cost of these options and
[[Page 65092]]
estimated the emission reduction associated with each control option.
To determine controlled baseline emissions nationwide, assumptions were
made about the numbers and types of emission control technologies in
use, and the control efficiencies achieved by those technologies. The
distribution of emission control methods among the various types of
chromium electroplating plants and plant sizes was estimated based on
general knowledge of the industry. Table A.7 summarizes the nationwide
costs and cost-effectiveness of these regulatory control options.
Table A.7--Costs of Control Options for Chromium Electroplating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Cost-
Number of Emission Capital costs effectiveness MIR after
Type of facility Control option affected reduction costs ($million/ ($million/ control (in-
facilities (TPY) ($million) yr) ton) 1-million)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large hard chromium electroplating.... HEPA filter retrofit............ 132 1.0 35.1 18.4 36.3 6
Small hard chromium electroplating.... HEPA filter retrofit............ 658 0.4 66.0 33.9 59.3 6
CMP retrofit.................... 392 0.2 36.6 11.1 33.1 10
Decorative chromium electroplating.... HEPA filter retrofit............ 740 0.1 109.0 47.8 486 4
CMP retrofit.................... 644 \1\ 0.05 63.1 17.1 367 10
Chromium anodizing.................... HEPA filter retrofit............ 240 0.02 43.9 17.9 895 < 1
CMP retrofit.................... 198 \1\ 0.009 22.9 5.6 649 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on an estimated control efficiency of 99.9 percent.
For large hard chromium electroplating facilities, we evaluated the
costs and emissions reductions associated with retrofitting existing
tanks with HEPA filters. For small hard chromium electroplating
facilities, we evaluated the same HEPA filter retrofit option, and also
the option of retrofitting CMP systems on all tanks currently
controlled with packed bed scrubbers. Retrofitting HEPA filters on
existing tanks at large hard chromium electroplating plants would
reduce nationwide emissions of chromium compounds by an estimated 1.0
TPY from the estimated baseline level of 1.10 TPY. The estimated
capital and annualized costs for this option would be $35,100,000 and
$18,430,000, respectively. The cost-effectiveness would be $36,300,000
per ton of HAP emissions reduced. Retrofitting HEPA filters on existing
tanks at small hard chromium electroplating plants would reduce
nationwide emissions of chromium compounds by an estimated 0.40 TPY
from the estimated baseline level of 0.42 TPY. The estimated capital
and annualized costs for this option would be $65,980,000 and
$33,860,000, respectively. The cost-effectiveness would be $59,300,000
per ton of HAP emissions reduced. Retrofitting CMP systems on all tanks
currently controlled with packed bed scrubbers at small hard chromium
electroplating plants would reduce nationwide emissions of chromium
compounds by an estimated 0.19 TPY from the estimated baseline level of
0.37 TPY. The estimated capital and annualized costs for this option
would be $36,640,000 and $11,050,000, respectively. The cost-
effectiveness would be $33,100,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced.
The Benzene NESHAP emphasize the need to consider ``costs and the
economic impacts of control,'' which implies some knowledge of
affordability (54 FR 38046). The cost of the control options for hard
chromium electroplating would impact over half of these facilities with
estimated cost to sales ratios ranging from 8 percent to 22 percent. A
cost to sales ratio greater than 3 percent may have a significant
impact, including plant closure for many of these facilities.
These additional control requirements would reduce the maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk from the Hard Chromium Electroplating
source category to approximately 4-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions. We estimate that, considering MACT-allowable emissions
levels, the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk from the Hard
Chromium Electroplating source category would be reduced to
approximately 6-in-1 million. The cancer incidence would be reduced to
approximately 0.05 and the estimated number of people exposed higher
than 1-in-1 million would be about 1 million.
For decorative chromium electroplating, we evaluated the options of
retrofitting HEPA filters on all existing tanks and the option of
retrofitting CMP systems on the existing tanks that currently are not
equipped with add-on control devices. Retrofitting HEPA filters on all
existing decorative chromium electroplating tanks would reduce
nationwide emissions of chromium compounds by an estimated 0.098 TPY
from the estimated baseline level of 0.10 TPY. The estimated capital
and annualized costs for this option would be $108,970,000 and
$47,800,000, respectively. The cost-effectiveness would be $486,000,000
per ton of HAP emissions reduced. Retrofitting CMP systems on all
decorative chromium electroplating tanks that currently do not have
add-on controls would reduce nationwide emissions of chromium compounds
by an estimated 0.05 TPY from the estimated baseline level of 0.10 TPY.
The estimated capital and annualized costs for this option would be
$63,100,000 and $17,100,000, respectively. The cost-effectiveness for
this option would be $367 million per ton of HAP emissions reduced. The
additional control requirements for HEPA filters would reduce the
maximum lifetime individual cancer risk from the Decorative Chromium
Electroplating source category to approximately 4-in-1 million, based
on actual emissions. Because we believe the actual emissions are
essentially the same as the MACT-allowable emissions for the Decorative
Chromium Electroplating source category, we estimate no difference
between the risks from the allowable emission level and the actual
emission level.
For chromium anodizing, we evaluated the options of retrofitting
HEPA filters on all existing tanks and the option of retrofitting CMP
systems on the existing tanks that currently are not equipped with add-
on control devices. Retrofitting HEPA filters on all existing chromium
anodizing tanks
[[Page 65093]]
would reduce nationwide emissions of chromium compounds by an estimated
0.020 TPY from the estimated baseline level of 0.021 TPY. The estimated
capital and annualized costs for this option would be $43,860,000 and
$17,900,000, respectively. The cost- effectiveness would be
$895,000,000 per ton of HAP emissions reduced. Retrofitting CMP systems
on all chromium anodizing tanks that currently do not have add-on
controls would not significantly reduce emissions. The estimated
capital and annualized costs for this option would be $22,900,000 and
$5,600,000, respectively. The cost-effectiveness for this option would
be $649 million per ton of HAP emissions reduced. The additional
control requirements for HEPA filters would reduce the maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk from the Chromium Anodizing source category to
less than 1-in-1 million, based on actual emissions. Because we believe
the actual emissions are essentially the same as the MACT-allowable
emissions for the Chromium Anodizing source category, we estimate the
risk reduction based on allowable emissions to be the same as that for
the actual emissions.
Our risk analysis results show cancer risks to the individual most
exposed of 70-in-1 million and 5-in-1 million based on actual and MACT-
allowable emissions, respectively, for the Decorative Chromium
Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing source categories. For both of
these categories, the cancer incidence is less than 0.01 cases per
year. For decorative chromium electroplating, the number of people
exposed to a cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more is approximately
390,000. For chromium anodizing, the number of people exposed to a
cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more is approximately 2,700.
For the Hard Chromium Electroplating source category, our risk
analysis shows cancer risks to the individual most exposed are 70-in-1
million based on actual emissions levels and 90-in-1 million based on
MACT-allowable emissions. The cancer incidence for this source category
could be as high as 0.8 cases per year, and could be over 14 million
people exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater due to
emissions from hard chromium electroplating sources using highly
conservative assumptions. As we stated previously, we believe we
overestimated hard chromium electroplating emissions, the number of
plants that perform hard chromium electroplating, and, therefore, that
the risks from the resulting analyses are also overstated. Our
supplemental risk analysis for this source category indicates a cancer
incidence of 0.1 cases per year and 360,000 people exposed to cancer
risks of greater than 1-in-1-million. This analysis indicates that the
risk levels in the assessment are highly uncertain and err on the side
of being conservative.
Our analyses also show that, for these source categories, there is
no potential for an adverse environmental effect or human health
multipathway effects, and that acute and chronic non-cancer health
impacts are unlikely. Our additional analysis of facility-wide risks
showed that the maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 90-in-1 million,
and that the maximum chronic non-cancer risks are unlikely to cause
health impacts. Our additional analysis of the demographics of the
exposed population shows that minorities face disproportionate risk
from exposure to emissions from this category
We do not believe there is a significant risk reduction from the
housekeeping measures we are proposing under CAA section 112(d)(6).
However, we are requesting information on any risk reductions from
these housekeeping practices and whether we should consider adopting
these practices under CAA section 112(f)(2).
We considered all these factors in our ample margin of safety
decision, and concluded that the costs of the options analyzed are not
reasonable considering the emissions reductions and cancer health
benefits potentially achievable with the controls. As a result, we
propose that the existing MACT standard provides an ample margin of
safety (considering cost, technical feasibility, and other factors) to
protect public health for all three of these source categories. Thus,
we are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy
section 112(f) of the CAA.
While we propose that the existing MACT standard for the Hard
Chromium Electroplating source category is acceptable and provides an
ample margin of safety, we are proposing additional requirements under
CAA section 112(d)(6), as discussed below. Notwithstanding our proposal
that the risks are acceptable, we remain concerned that up to 14.2
million people may be exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or
greater, and that there are disparities in risks for some demographic
groups. While we are rejecting the option of adding HEPA filters or CMP
as not cost-effective, we are specifically requesting comment on
whether there are any cost-effective controls that may be able to
reduce these risks. In particular, we are requesting States to identify
any controls they have already required for these facilities, any
controls they are currently considering, or any other controls of which
they may be aware. We are also soliciting comment on whether our cost
estimates for these options are accurate and whether these controls may
be more cost-effective.
In summary, we propose that the risks posed by these source
categories are acceptable. We are also proposing that the current MACT
standard provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health
based on our conclusion that the controls available are not cost-
effective in light of the additional health protection the controls
would provide. Thus, we are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT
standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
5. What is our proposed decision on the technology review?
To evaluate developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies for the chromium electroplating source categories, several
activities were performed. Public comments received on the proposed
2002 amendments to the Chromium Electroplating MACT standards (67 FR
38810, June 5, 2002) were reviewed to determine whether they identified
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
warrant further consideration. A review was performed of the supporting
documentation for the 2007 amendments to California's Airborne Toxic
Control Measure (ATCM) for Chromium Plating and Chromium Anodizing
Facilities. Finally, searches of the RBLC and the Internet were
conducted to identify other practices, processes, or control
technologies that could be applied to chromium electroplating.
The 2004 amendments to the Chromium Electroplating MACT standards
addressed three specific technology developments that occurred
following promulgation of the original MACT standard: The use of WAFS
for hard chromium electroplating emission control; instrumental
differences in surface tension measurements for demonstrating
compliance with electroplating bath surface tension limits; and
enclosing hoods for electroplating tanks. Because those technology
developments have already been addressed and we are not aware of any
improvements to them, they are not discussed further. The following
paragraphs describe all developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies that we identified and that
[[Page 65094]]
were thus considered for the technology review, along with our
conclusions.
a. Emission Elimination Device
An emission elimination device (EED), which is also referred to as
a ``Merlin cover,'' consists of a tank cover that includes a porous
membrane that allows gases to escape, but captures droplets and mist
emanating from the electroplating tank. While these tank covers are
available, we do not believe any chromium electroplating or anodizing
facilities are currently using an EED due to the impracticality of
covering the electroplating tank while plating is underway. Because
these devices are not known to be used in this industry and because it
is unclear that they are feasible for these operations, we concluded
that it is not necessary to revise the MACT standard to require this
control under section 112(d)(6). However, we request comment on tanks
or processes in which an EED could practicably be used by chromium
electroplating or anodizing facilities.
b. HEPA Filters
Although HEPA filters have been on the market for decades, they
were not considered to be a practical control method for electroplating
tank emissions when the MACT standards were developed due to potential
problems with clogging and the availability of several other types of
mist eliminator technologies that had been proven to be effective in
reducing emissions from electroplating tanks. However, in the past
decade, facilities in California have increasingly used HEPA filters to
meet the emission limits of the State's ATCM for Chromium Plating and
Chromic Acid Anodizing Facilities. In October 2007, the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) amended the ATCM to further tighten emission
limits and to require HEPA filters on all new chromium electroplating
and anodizing tanks. In those applications, HEPA filters act as a
second stage of control, with the first stage generally consisting of a
mesh pad mist eliminator or other device that removes large particles
from the exhaust stream prior to the HEPA filter. Discussions with
State and local agency staff in California indicate no technological
problems with using HEPA filters for chromium electroplating emissions
control. As part of this technology review, HEPA filters have been
considered as a possible control option for sources subject to the
Chromium Electroplating MACT standards. The costs of requiring HEPA
filters were estimated, and are discussed above in section V.A.4.b of
this preamble. In light of the high cost of this option as compared
with the risk reductions it would achieve, we are proposing that it is
not necessary to revise the MACT standard under section 112(d)(6) to
require HEPA filters. However, we request comment on whether we should
require HEPA filters for new source MACT.
c. Wetting Agent Fume Suppressants (WAFS)
The MACT standard allows the use of WAFS as a compliance
alternative for meeting the applicable emission limit. WAFS are used in
most decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks
and in many hard chromium electroplating tanks for emission control.
Historically, the most effective types of WAFS have been based on
perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). The PFOS-based WAFS used in the
chromium electroplating industry are part of a family of chemical
compounds categorized as long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (PFC). As
noted in a 2010 California Office of Health Hazard Assessment report,
Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and Its Salts and Transformation and
Degradation Precursors,\34\ these compounds have persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic characteristics and are a particular concern
for children's health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ This report is available at http://www.oehha.org/prop65/CRNR_notices/pdf_zip/070910_PFOS_CIC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last several years there have been developments associated
with the use of WAFS as a compliance alternative. There are now several
types of WAFS on the market that do not include PFOS chemicals and have
been proven effective for use in hard chromium and decorative chromium
electroplating baths that we believe are cost-effective. Furthermore,
these non-PFOS WAFS are not associated with any known adverse health
effects. Although the non-PFOS WAFS have not been used extensively in
the chromium anodizing industry, we are not aware of any technical
reasons to preclude their use and effectiveness for chromium anodizing
baths. However, we seek comment on this, as well as on our assessment
that their use is cost-effective. Because of the adverse non-air
quality health and environmental impacts associated with using PFOS-
based WAFS (i.e., the increasing concern over the presence of long-
chain PFC in the environment), we are proposing under CAA section
112(d)(6) to revise the scope of the compliance alternative to no
longer allow the addition of PFOS-based WAFS to tanks as a control
method for these source categories. We solicit comment on all aspects
of this change, including the non-air quality health and environmental
impacts associated with using PFOS based WAFS.
For new sources, we are proposing that no PFOS-based WAFS could be
used upon startup. For existing sources, we are proposing that no PFOS-
based WAFS could be added to the electroplating or anodizing tanks
beginning 3 years after promulgation of the final amendments; however,
the tanks may continue operating with the remaining PFOS-based WAFS in
them after that date until it is depleted. Under these amendments,
these requirements would be specified in 40 CFR 63.342(c)(1)(iv) and
(2)(vi) for hard chromium electroplating tanks, 40 CFR 63.342(d)(3) for
decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks, and 40
CFR 63.342(e)(2) for decorative chromium electroplating tanks that use
a trivalent chromium bath. A definition of PFOS-based fume suppressants
also would be added to 40 CFR 63.341.
d. Housekeeping Procedures
We are also proposing under CAA section 112 (d)(6) to incorporate
several housekeeping requirements into 40 CFR 63.342(f). In our review
of the 2007 amendments to California's ATCM for Chromium Plating and
Chromic Acid Anodizing Facilities, we found this rule required several
housekeeping procedures that were not included in the housekeeping
procedures required by the Chromium Electroplating MACT standards.
These measures would potentially reduce fugitive chromium emissions
from chromium electroplating and anodizing operations. In view of the
implementation of these procedures in California and the potential for
fugitive emissions reductions, we are proposing to add these procedures
to the Chromium Electroplating MACT standards. The proposed
housekeeping procedures would include storage requirements for any
substance that contains hexavalent chromium as a primary ingredient;
controls for the dripping of bath solution resulting from dragout;
splash guards to minimize overspray and return bath solution to the
electroplating or anodizing tank; a requirement to promptly clean up or
contain all spills of any substance containing hexavalent chromium;
requirements for the routine cleaning or stabilizing of storage and
work surfaces, walkways, and other surfaces potentially contaminated
with hexavalent chromium; a requirement to
[[Page 65095]]
install a barrier between all buffing, grinding, or polishing
operations and electroplating or anodizing operations; and requirements
for the storage, disposal, recovery, or recycling of chromium-
containing wastes. The proposed housekeeping procedures would be listed
in a new Table 2 to 40 CFR 63.342. In addition, this proposed action
would require owners and operators to incorporate these housekeeping
procedures in the facility Operation and Maintenance Plan specified in
section 40 CFR 63.342(f)(3) and implement them, and a new definition
would be added to 40 CFR 63.341(a) to clarify what is meant by the term
``contains hexavalent chromium as a primary ingredient.'' The proposed
compliance date for implementing the housekeeping procedures would be 6
months after promulgation of the final amendments.
6. What are the other actions we are proposing?
a. SSM Provisions
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing that standards
in this rule would apply at all times. The existing MACT standards for
these three source categories already specifies that the emission
limitations apply ``during periods of startup and shutdown'' but not
during malfunctions. We are proposing to revise this paragraph to
remove the sentence indicating that the emission limitations do not
apply during malfunctions. We are maintaining the malfunction-
associated reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.346
and 40 CFR 63.347 with minor revisions. We are proposing to add
language to 40 CFR 63.344(a) to clarify the conditions during which
performance tests shall be conducted and to specify in Table 1 that the
performance test specifications in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) of the General
Provisions do not apply. We are also proposing to add a general duty
provision to minimize emissions into 40 CFR 63.342(a)(1). In addition,
we are proposing to promulgate an affirmative defense against civil
penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions,
as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense. EPA has
attempted to ensure that we have not incorporated into 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.
b. Rule Improvements
In addition, we identified the need for revisions of the standards
to correct editorial errors, make clarifications, or address issues
with implementation or determining compliance with the rule provisions.
Monitoring and Testing Requirements. We are proposing to revise 40
CFR 63.344(e), which addresses compliance provisions for multiple
sources controlled by a common add-on air pollution control device.
This section of the MACT standard references testing by Method 306,
without any mention of Method 306A. Since Method 306A is an alternative
to Method 306, we are proposing to revise section 40 CFR 63.344(e) to
clarify that testing can be performed by either Method 306 or Method
306A.
To correct inconsistencies between the amendments made to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart N in 2004 (69 FR 42885) and Method 306B, we are
proposing to revise Method 306B, which specifies procedures for
measuring the surface tension of chromium electroplating and anodizing
baths. In addition, the proposed amendments would help to ensure that
surface tension measurements made using stalagmometers are accurate.
Under the proposed amendments, section 1.2 of Method 306B would be
revised to clarify that the method also applies to hard chromium
electroplating tanks. Section 11.1 would be revised to include
procedures for checking the accuracy of, and cleaning, a stalagmometer
before using the stalagmometer to measure surface tension. The proposed
revisions to section 11.1 are consistent with the CARB ATCM for
Hexavalent Chromium for Decorative and Hard Chrome plating and Chromic
Acid Anodizing Facilities. Maintaining surface tension measuring
devices is critical for obtaining accurate measurements. Method 306B
currently references standard procedures for the use of tensiometers
(ASTM Method D 1331-89), but not for the use of stalagmometers. The
proposed amendment to section 11.1 would help to ensure that
stalagmometers used to demonstrate compliance with surface tension
limits are maintained and used properly. Finally, section 11.2 would be
revised to account for the differences in surface tension limits,
depending on the type of instrument used (tensiometer or
stalagmometer).
Rule Corrections. To eliminate a discrepancy between the Chromium
Electroplating MACT standards in subpart N of part 63 and the General
Provisions in subpart A of part 63, this proposed action would also
revise the trigger for semiannual compliance reports specified in 40
CFR 63.347(h)(2)(A) to be consistent with the trigger specified in the
General Provisions. Subpart N currently provides that a semiannual
report must be submitted if both the duration of excess emissions
exceeds 1 percent of the source operating time and the duration of air
pollution control device malfunctions exceeds 5 percent of the source
operating time during the reporting period; however, 40 CFR
63.10(e)(3)(viii) of the General Provisions requires submitting a
semiannual report if either condition occurs. We are proposing to
revise 40 CFR part 63, subpart N to require semiannual reports to be
submitted if either condition occurs.
B. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Group I Polymers
and Resins Production source categories?
The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins were promulgated on September 5,
1996 (62 FR 46925), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart U. The
Polymers and Resins I MACT standard applies to major sources and
regulates HAP emissions from nine source categories: Butyl Rubber
Production, Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Ethylene Propylene
Rubber Production, Hypalon\TM\ Production, Neoprene Production, Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production,
Polysulfide Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production.
The Polymers and Resins I MACT standards regulate HAP emissions
resulting from the production of elastomers (i.e., synthetic rubber).
An elastomer is a synthetic polymeric material that can stretch to at
least twice its original length and then return rapidly to
approximately its original length when released. Elastomers are
produced via a polymerization/copolymerization process, in which
monomers undergo intermolecular chemical bond formation to form a very
large polymer molecule. Generally, the production of elastomers entails
four processes: (1) Raw material (i.e., solvent) storage and refining;
(2) polymer formation in a reactor (either via the solution process,
where monomers are dissolved in an organic solvent, or the emulsion
process, where monomers are dispersed in water using a soap solution);
(3) stripping and material recovery; and (4) finishing (i.e., blending,
aging, coagulation, washing, and drying).
[[Page 65096]]
Sources of HAP emissions from elastomers production include raw
material storage vessels, front-end process vents, back-end process
operations, wastewater operations, and equipment leaks. The ``front-
end'' processes include pre-polymerization, reaction, stripping, and
material recovery operations; and the ``back-end'' process includes all
operations after stripping (predominately drying and finishing).
Typical control devices used to reduce organic HAP emissions from
front-end process vents include flares, incinerators, absorbers, carbon
adsorbers, and condensers. In addition, hydrochloric acid formed when
chlorinated organic compounds are combusted are controlled using
scrubbers. Emissions from storage vessels are controlled by floating
roofs or by routing them to a control device.
While emissions from back-end process operations can be controlled
with control devices such as incinerators, the most common method of
reducing these emissions is the pollution prevention method of reducing
the amount of residual HAP that is contained in the raw product going
to the back-end operations. Emissions from wastewater are controlled by
a variety of methods, including equipment modifications (e.g., fixed
roofs on storage vessels and oil water separators; covers on surface
impoundments, containers, and drain systems), treatment to remove the
HAP (steam stripping, biological treatment), control devices, and work
practices.
Emissions from equipment leaks are typically reduced by leak
detection and repair work practice programs, and in some cases, by
equipment modifications. Each of the seven Group I Polymers and Resins
Production source categories addressed in this proposal are discussed
further below.
1. Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production is one of the source
categories for which we proposed RTR decisions on October 10, 2008.
a. Overview of the Source Category
Epichlorohydrin elastomers are prepared from the polymerization or
copolymerization of epichlorohydrin or other monomers. Epichlorohydrin
elastomers are produced by a solution polymerization process, typically
using toluene as the solvent in the reaction. The main epichlorohydrin
elastomers are polyepichlorohydrin, epi-ethylene oxide (EO) copolymer,
epi-allyl glycidyl ether (AGE) copolymer, and epi-EOAGE terpolymer.
Epichlorohydrin elastomers are widely used in the automotive industry.
We identified one currently operating epichlorohydrin elastomers
production facility subject to the Polymers and Resins I MACT standard.
Toluene accounts for the majority of the HAP emissions from the
epichlorohydrin elastomers production processes at this facility
(approximately 44 TPY and 99 percent of the total HAP emissions by
mass). This facility also reported relatively small emissions of
epichlorohydrin and ethylene oxide. The majority of HAP emissions are
from back-end process vents (approximately 82 percent of the total HAP
by mass). We estimate that the MACT-allowable emissions (i.e., the
maximum emission levels allowed if in compliance with the MACT
standard) from this source category are approximately equal to the
reported, actual emissions. For more detail about this estimate of the
ratio of actual to MACT-allowable emissions, see the memo in the docket
for this action describing the estimation of MACT-allowable emission
levels and associated risks and impacts.
b. What data were used in our risk analyses?
We initially created a preliminary data set for the Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers Production source category using information we collected
directly from industry on emissions data and emissions release
characteristics. 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 on and updates to this data set, as well as to the
data sets for the other source categories addressed in that ANPRM.
Comments received in response to the ANPRM were reviewed and
considered, and we made adjustments to the data set where we concluded
the comments supported such adjustment. After making appropriate
changes to the data set based on this public data review process, the
data set on which we based the initial proposal was created. This data
set was used to conduct the risk assessment and other analyses for the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production source category that formed the
basis for the proposed RTR included in the October 10, 2008, proposal.
We have continued to scrutinize the existing data set and have
evaluated any additional data that became available subsequent to the
October 10, 2008, proposal. Specific questions we had concerning
current operations led us to develop a questionnaire and ask for
updated emissions and emissions release characteristics information.
This information was requested from the facility in May 2010 using the
authority of section 114 of the CAA. We updated our data set for this
source category based on the information received through this request.
c. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We have conducted a revised inhalation risk assessment for the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production source category. We have also
conducted an assessment of facility-wide risk, and performed a
demographic analysis of population risks. Table B.1.1 provides an
overall summary of the results of the revised inhalation risk
assessment.
Table B.1.1--Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production Revised Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Maximum chronic non-
cancer risk (in 1 Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
million) \2\ Population cancer --------------------------
Number of facilities\1\ -------------------------- at risk >= incidence Maximum off-site acute non-
Actual Allowable 1-in-1 (cases per Actual Allowable cancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions million year) emissions emissions
level level level level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... 10 10 800 0.0001 0.1 0.1 HQREL = 0.2 epichlorohydrin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
[[Page 65097]]
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Epichlorohydrin Elastomer Production source category is the respiratory system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
lowest available acute threshold. See section IV.A. of this preamble for explanation of acute threshold values.
The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions
level data. As shown in Table B.1.1, the results of the revised
inhalation risk assessment indicated the maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk could be as high as 10-in-1 million, the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value could be as high as 0.1, and the maximum off-
facility-site acute HQ value could be as high as 0.2, based on the
actual emissions level and the REL value for epichlorohydrin. The total
estimated national cancer incidence from these facilities based on
actual emission levels is 0.0001 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 10,000 years.
Based on our analysis, we believe that actual emissions approximate
emissions allowable under the MACT standard. Therefore, the risk
results for MACT-allowable emissions are approximately equal to those
for actual emissions. For more detail about the estimate of the ratio
of actual to MACT-allowable emissions, see the memo in the docket for
this action describing the estimation of MACT-allowable emission levels
and associated risks and impacts.
There were no reported emissions of PB-HAP; therefore, we do not
expect potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
Table B.1.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels.
Table B.1.2--Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production Facility-Wide Risk
Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 10
million)............................................
Epichlorohydrin Elastomer Production source 100%
category contribution to this maximum facility-
wide individual cancer risk \1\.................
Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI....... 0.1
Epichlorohydrin Elastomer Production source 100%
category contribution to this maximum facility-
wide non-cancer TOSHI \1\.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentage shown reflects Epichlorohydrin Elastomer Production
source category contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the
facility with the maximum risk value shown.
As shown in Table B.1.2, the maximum individual cancer risk from
all HAP emissions at the one facility that contains epichlorohydrin
elastomers production processes subject to the Group I Polymers and
Resins MACT standard is estimated to be 10-in-1 million, and the
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 0.1. The
estimated proportion of the risk attributable to Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers Production source category processes at this facility is
approximately 100 percent for cancer risks and 100 percent for chronic
non-cancer risk.
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of risks above 1-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions levels for the population living within 5 km of the
facilities, among various demographic groups are provided in a report
available in the docket for this action and summarized in Table B.1.3
below.
Table B.1.3--Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 Other and Hispanic Below the Over 25 W/
million) Total Minority % African multiracial or Latino Native poverty O a HS
(millions) American % % % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................ n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source Category........................... 10 0.0008 54 53 1 1 0.4 20 11
Facility-wide............................. 10 0.01 52 50 2 1 0.2 23 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis show that, for the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production source category, of the
population of 800 people with cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million,
54 percent could be classified as a ``Minority,'' 53 percent are
included the ``African-American'' demographic group, and 20 percent are
included the ``Below Poverty Level,'' demographic group. The percentage
of the population within 5 km of a epichlorohydrin elastomers
production facility and with a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million
is higher than expected for these demographic categories based on the
typical distribution of these demographic groups across the United
States. The table also shows that the results of the demographic
analysis for the facility-wide emissions are similar to the results for
the source category.
Details of these assessments and analyses can be found in the
residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A. of this
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
d. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
October 2008 Proposed Decision. In our October 10, 2008, proposal,
we proposed that the risks 0f 30-in-1 million were acceptable because
the risks results indicated that cancer risks to the individual most
exposed to emissions from the category were greater than 1-in-1
million, but less than 100-in-1 million. We then analyzed other risk
factors in the ample margin of safety determination. In this analysis,
we proposed that emissions from the source category posed no potential
for
[[Page 65098]]
an adverse environmental effect, did not pose potential for human
health multipathway risks, and were unlikely to cause acute or chronic
non-cancer health impacts. We also identified one emissions control
option that would reduce risks. We proposed that such control was not
necessary to protect public health with an ample margin of safety in
light of the high cost and limited addition health protection it would
provide. Therefore, we proposed that the existing standard provided an
ample margin of safety and proposed to re-adopt the existing MACT
standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
Risk Acceptability. The revised risk analysis we performed for this
proposal indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed
is 10-in-1 million based on both actual and MACT-allowable emissions.
The cancer incidence and the number of people exposed to cancer risks
of 1-in-1 million or greater are not significantly changed from the
risk identified in the October 2008 proposal. Similarly, the risk
analysis continued to show no potential for an adverse environmental
effect or human health multipathway effects, and that acute or chronic
non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. Our additional analysis of
facility-wide risks showed that the maximum facility-wide cancer risk
is 10-in-1 million and that the maximum chronic non-cancer risks are
unlikely to cause health impacts. Our additional analysis of the
demographics of the exposed population shows disparities in risks
between demographic groups for the 800 people exposed at risks of 1-in-
1 million. Based on this low cancer risk level and in consideration of
other health measures and factors, including the low cancer incidence
(one case in every 10,000 years) and the low maximum non-cancer risk
level (TOSHI of 0.1), we propose that the risks from the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production are acceptable.
Ample Margin of Safety. Because we are proposing that the risks are
acceptable, but still above 1-in-1 million, we then reconsidered our
2008 ample margin of safety decision. We have not identified any
additional control options or any changes to the previously analyzed
control option. Our analysis does not indicate a change in the
emissions reductions that could be achieved or the cost of control for
the control option considered in the October 2008 proposal. Therefore,
we continue to propose that the current MACT standard provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and the environment, and we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
e. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
In the October 10, 2008 proposal, we identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control technologies applicable to the
emission sources in the Group I Polymers and Resins Production source
categories in our technology review, and we proposed to re-adopt the
existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In that
review, we examined the regulatory requirements and/or technical
analyses for subsequently promulgated air toxics regulations with
similar types of emissions sources as those in the Group I Polymers and
Resins Production source categories, and we conducted a search of the
RBLC for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in the Group I
Polymers and Resins Production source categories. We have not
identified any additional developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies since the proposal date for the Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers Production source category. Thus, we are proposing that it
is not necessary to revise the MACT standard pursuant to section
112(d)(6) of the CAA.
f. What other actions are we proposing?
SSM Provisions. We are proposing to eliminate the SSM exemption in
the Group 1 Polymers and Resins MACT standard. Consistent with Sierra
Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing that standards in this rule would apply
at all times. We are proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart U. Specifically, we are proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate
that the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e) of the General Provisions do
not apply. The 40 CFR 63.6(e) requires owner 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 63.483(a). The 40 CFR 63.6(e) 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 proposing to
remove the explanation of applicability of emissions standards during
periods SSM in 40 CFR 63.480(j); remove the malfunction plan from 40
CFR 63.482 and revise the definition of initial start-up to remove
references to malfunctions in this section; clarify that representative
conditions do not include periods of SSM throughout the rule; remove
references to periods of SSM in monitoring; and revise the SSM-
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.506 to
require reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are
also proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate that SSM-related
provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), and 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) of the General Provisions do not apply. In addition, we
are proposing to promulgate an affirmative defense against civil
penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions,
as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not incorporated into
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.
Significant Emission Points Not Previously Regulated Review. We
identified the absence of a limit for a significant emissions source
within the provisions of the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standard
that apply to the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production source
category. Specifically, there are no back-end process operation
emission limits for this source category.\35\ As these processes are
major sources of emissions for the one facility in the source category,
we are proposing to set standards for back-end process operations under
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Note that these uncontrolled emissions were included in the
baseline risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As there is only one facility in the source category, the emissions
level currently being achieved by this facility represents the MACT
floor. The annual HAP emissions from the back-end process operations at
this facility are approximately 36 TPY of toluene. There are two
separate dryer vents, one emitting around 24 TPY of toluene, and the
other emitting around 12 TPY of toluene. Neither of these vents is
controlled. Therefore, we have determined that the MACT floor for these
processes is 36 TPY based on the current level of HAP stripping and
recovery, given current production levels, but which would fluctuate
proportionally with an increase or decrease in production levels.
As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we considered
alternatives
[[Page 65099]]
more stringent than the MACT floor option. We identified one option
using add-on emission controls that would require the ducting of
emissions from the back-end process operations to a control device,
such as an incinerator. This option would also require an initial
performance test of the incinerator and continuous parameter monitoring
averaged daily. The capital costs of this option are estimated to be
approximately $600,000 and the total annual costs are estimated to be
approximately $1,100,000. We estimate that an incinerator would achieve
an emissions reduction of 98 percent, resulting in a HAP decrease of
approximately 35 TPY, with a cost- effectiveness of approximately
$31,000/ton. Table B.2.4 summarizes the cost and emission reduction
impacts of the proposed options. Because the reduction in HAP would be
due to toluene, no reduction of cancer risk would result from this
control option.
Table B.1.4--Epichlorohydrin Elastomer Production Facility Back-End Options Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
effectiveness as
compared to
Regulatory alternatives HAP emissions Capital cost Annual cost baseline
(TPY HAP) ($million) ($million/yr) -----------------
$/Ton HAP
Removed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 36 ................ ................ ................
1 (MACT floor).......................... 36 0 0 ................
2 (Beyond-the-floor).................... 1 0.6 1.1 31,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cost and emission reduction impacts shown in
Table B.1.4, we estimate that the beyond-the-floor option would result
in increases in criteria pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions (PM-0.2
TPY, SO2-0.03 TPY, NOX-12 TPY, CO-2 TPY, and
CO2-7,000 TPY), and an increase in energy use of
approximately 117,000 million British thermal units (BTU)/year at a
cost of approximately $33,000/year.
We believe that the costs and other impacts of this beyond-the-
floor option are not reasonable, given the level of emission reduction.
Therefore, we are proposing an emission standard that reflects the MACT
floor option. We are requesting comment on this analysis and these
options.
As noted above, we are proposing that the MACT standard, prior to
the implementation of the proposed emission limitation to the back-end
process operations discussed in this section, provides an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. Therefore, we maintain that after
the new standard's implementation, the rule will continue to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. Consequently, we do
not believe it will be necessary to conduct another residual risk
review under CAA section 112(f) for this source category 8 years
following promulgation of new back-end process limitations, merely due
to the addition of this new MACT requirement.
2. Polybutadiene Rubber Production
Polybutadiene Rubber Production is one of the source categories for
which we proposed RTR decisions on October 10, 2008.
a. Overview of the Source Category
Polybutadiene rubber is a homopolymer of 1,3-butadiene (i.e., 1,3-
butadiene is the only monomer used in the production of this polymer).
While both the solution and emulsion polymerization processes can be
used to produce polybutadiene rubber, all currently operating
facilities in the United States use a solution process. In the solution
process, the reaction is conducted in an organic solvent (hexane,
toluene, or a non-HAP organic solvent), which helps to dissipate heat
generated by the reaction and control the reaction rate. While
polybutadiene rubber is the primary product at these facilities,
styrene-butadiene rubber can also be produced as a minor product by
adding styrene as a monomer. Most of the polybutadiene rubber
manufactured in the United States is used in the production of tires in
the construction of the tread and sidewalls. Polybutadiene rubber is
also used as a modifier in the production of other polymers and resins
(e.g., polystyrene).
We identified five currently operating polybutadiene rubber
production facilities subject to the Polymers and Resins I MACT
standard. Some of these facilities are located at plant sites that also
have other HAP-emitting sources regulated under separate MACT
standards, which have been or will be addressed in separate regulatory
actions. Three of the polybutadiene rubber production facilities use
hexane as the solvent in their solution process, one facility uses
toluene as its solvent, and the fifth uses a non-HAP organic solvent.
Overall, hexane and toluene account for the majority of the HAP
emissions from this source category (approximately 1,600 TPY hexane,
which represents 70 percent of the total HAP emissions by mass, and 500
TPY toluene, which represents 23 percent). The facilities in this
source category also reported emissions of styrene, 1,3-butadiene,
ethylbenzene, and relatively minor quantities of other HAP. The
majority of HAP emissions are from back-end process operations
(approximately 70 percent of the total HAP by mass). For all emission
sources except the back-end process operations, the actual emissions
level is representative of the MACT-allowable level. For back-end
process operations, we estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from this
source category could be as high as seven times the actual emissions.
Because these back-end limitations are production-based, this estimate
was made by comparing the actual emissions levels to the emissions
calculated using the limitations and production levels. For more detail
about the estimate of the ratio of actual to MACT-allowable emissions,
see the memo in the docket for this action describing the estimation of
MACT-allowable emission levels and associated risks and impacts.
b. What data were used in our risk analyses?
We initially created a preliminary data set for the Polybutadiene
Rubber Production source category using information we collected
directly from industry on emissions data and emissions release
characteristics. 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 on, and updates
[[Page 65100]]
to, this data set, as well as to the data sets for the other source
categories addressed in that ANPRM. Comments received in response to
the ANPRM were reviewed and considered. We made adjustments to the data
set where we concluded the comments supported such adjustment. After
making appropriate changes to the data set based on this public data
review process, the data set on which we based the initial proposal was
created. This data set was used to conduct the risk assessment and
other analyses for the Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category
that formed the basis for the proposed actions included in the October
10, 2008, proposal. We have continued to scrutinize the data set and
any additional data that have become available since the October 10,
2008, proposal.
c. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We have conducted a revised inhalation risk assessment for the
Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category. We have also conducted
an assessment of facility-wide risk and performed a demographic
analysis of population risks. Table B.2.1 provides an overall summary
of the results of the revised inhalation risk assessment.
Table B.2.1--Polybutadiene Rubber Revised Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI
(in 1 million) \2\ Annual cancer \3\
---------------------------------- Population at incidence ----------------------------------
Number of facilities\1\ Allowable risk >= 1-in-1 (cases per Actual Allowable Maximum off-site acute non-cancer HQ \4\
Actual emissions million year) emissions emissions
emissions level level level level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................................. 30 30 24,000 0.003 0.3 0.3 HQREL = 1 toluene
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category is the reproductive system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute
threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest available acute threshold. See section IV.A. of this preamble for
explanation of acute threshold values.
The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions
level data. As shown in Table B.2.1, the results of the revised
inhalation risk assessment indicated the maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk could be as high as 30-in-1 million, the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.3, and the maximum off-
facility-site acute HQ value could be as high as 1, based on the actual
emissions level and the REL value for toluene. The total estimated
national cancer incidence from these facilities based on actual
emission levels is 0.003 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 333 years.
Our analysis of potential differences between actual emission
levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standard indicated that
MACT-allowable emission levels are equal to actual emissions for all
emissions sources other than back-end process operations and may be up
to seven times greater than actual emission levels for back-end process
operations. When these ratios of actual to MACT-allowable emissions are
applied to each emission source type, the result is that the cancer
risks at the MACT-allowable level are equal to those at the actual
level shown in Table B.2.1.
There were no reported emissions of PB-HAP; therefore, we do not
expect potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
Table B.2.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels.
Table B.2.2--Polybutadiene Rubber Production Facility-Wide Risk
Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million).. 30
Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category 100%
contribution to this maximum facility-wide individual
cancer risk) \1\........................................
Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI............... 0.3
Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category 100%
contribution to this maximum facility-wide non-cancer
TOSHI \1\...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentage shown reflects Polybutadiene Rubber Production source
category contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the
facility with the maximum risk value shown.
The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a
facility that contains polybutadiene rubber production processes
subject to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standard is estimated
to be 30-in-1 million, and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value
is estimated to be 0.3. At the facilities where these maximum risk
values occur, the estimated proportion of the risk attributable to the
Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category processes is 100
percent for both cancer and non-cancer risk.
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of risks above 1-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions levels for the population living within 5 km of the
facilities, among various demographic groups are provided in a report
available in the docket for this action and summarized in Table B.2.3
below.
[[Page 65101]]
Table B.2.3--Polybutadiene Rubber Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 African Other and Hispanic Below the Over 25 W/
million) Total Minority American multiracial or Latino Native poverty O a HS
(millions) % % % % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................ n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source Category........................... 30 0.017 11 6 4 4 0.5 11 13
Facility-wide............................. 30 0.02 12 7 5 4 0.5 12 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Polybutadiene Rubber Production source category
demographic analysis show that the percentage of the population within
5 km of a polybutadiene rubber production facility and with a cancer
risk greater than 1-in-1 million is less than the distribution of these
demographic groups across the United States as displayed in Table
B.2.3, with the exception of those ``Over 25 Without a High School
Diploma'', where the levels are equal to the distribution of these
demographic groups across the United States. The table also shows that
the facility-wide emissions demographic analysis shows similar results.
Details of these assessments and analyses can be found in the
residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
d. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
October 2008 Proposed Decision. In our October 10, 2008 proposal,
we proposed that the risks were acceptable because the risks results
indicated that cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions
from the category were 10-in-1 million which is greater than 1-in-1
million but less than 100-in-1 million. We then analyzed other risk
factors in the ample margin of safety determination. In this analysis,
we proposed that emissions from the source category posed no potential
for an adverse environmental effect, did not pose potential for human
health multipathway risks, and were unlikely to cause acute or chronic
non-cancer health impacts. We also identified two emissions control
options that would reduce risks. We proposed that these controls were
not necessary to protect public health with an ample margin of safety
in light of the high cost and limited addition health protection they
would provide. Therefore, we proposed that the existing standard
provided an ample margin of safety and proposed to re-adopt the
existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
Risk Acceptability. The revised risk analysis we performed for this
proposal indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed
is 30-in-1 million based on both actual and MACT-allowable emissions.
The cancer incidence and the number of people exposed to cancer risks
of 1-in-1 million or greater are not significantly changed from the
risk identified in the October 2008 proposal. Similarly, the risk
analysis continued to show no potential for an adverse environmental
effect or human health multipathway effects, and that chronic non-
cancer health impacts are unlikely. The revised assessment did indicate
that an acute non-cancer HQ as high as 1 could occur, based on the REL
value at an area adjacent to the facility fenceline. Our additional
analysis of facility-wide risks showed that the maximum facility-wide
cancer risk is 30-in-1 million and that the maximum chronic non-cancer
risks are unlikely to cause health impacts. Our additional analysis of
the demographics of the exposed population suggests there are no
disparities in risks for the various demographic groups. Based on this
low cancer risk level and in consideration of other health measures and
factors, including the low cancer incidence (one case in every 333
years) and the low maximum non-cancer risk level (TOSHI of 0.3), we
propose that the risks from the Polybutadiene Rubber Production source
category are acceptable.
Ample Margin of Safety. Because we are proposing that the risks are
acceptable, but still above 1-in-1 million, we then re-considered our
2008 ample margin of safety decision. We have not identified any
additional control options or any changes to the previously analyzed
control option. Our analysis does not indicate a change in the
emissions reductions that could be achieved or the cost of control for
the control option considered in the October 2008 proposal. Therefore,
we continue to propose that the current MACT standard provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and the environment, and we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
e. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
In the October 10, 2008 proposal, we identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control technologies applicable to the
emission sources in the Group I Polymers and Resins Production source
categories in our technology review, and we proposed to re-adopt the
existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In that
review we examined the regulatory requirements and/or technical
analyses for subsequently promulgated air toxics regulations with
similar types of emissions sources as those in the Group I Polymers and
Resins Production source categories, and we conducted a search of the
RBLC for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in the Group I
Polymers and Resins Production source categories. We have not
identified any additional developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies since the proposal date for the Polybutadiene
Rubber Production source category. In addition, we have not identified
the need for revisions of the standards to correct editorial errors,
make clarifications, or address issues with implementation or
determining compliance with the rule provisions. Thus, we are
continuing to propose to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
f. What other actions are we proposing?
The proposed changes to the SSM provisions for the Group I Polymers
and Resins MACT, which apply to the Polybutadiene Rubber Production
source category, are discussed above in section V.B.1.f.
3. Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production is one of the source
categories for which we proposed RTR decisions on October 10, 2008.
[[Page 65102]]
a. Overview of the Source Category
Styrene butadiene rubber and latex are elastomers prepared from
styrene and butadiene monomer units. The source category is divided
into three subcategories due to technical process and HAP emission
differences: (1) The production of styrene butadiene rubber by
emulsion, (2) the production of styrene butadiene rubber by solution,
and (3) the production of styrene butadiene latex. Styrene butadiene
rubber is coagulated and dried to produce a solid product, while latex
is a liquid product. For both styrene butadiene rubber processes, the
monomers used are styrene and butadiene; either process can be
conducted as a batch or a continuous process. These elastomers are
commonly used in tires and tire-related products. We identified three
currently operating styrene butadiene rubber production facilities
using the emulsion process and three styrene butadiene rubber latex
production facilities subject to the Polymers and Resins I MACT
standard. Other than the polybutadiene plants that produce styrene
butadiene rubber as a minor product, we did not identify any styrene
butadiene rubber produced in a solution process. Some of these
facilities are located at plant sites that also have other HAP-emitting
sources regulated under separate MACT standards, for which we have
addressed or will address in future rulemaking actions. Overall,
styrene accounts for the majority of the HAP emissions from these
facilities (approximately 276 TPY and 90 percent of the total HAP
emissions by mass). These facilities also reported relatively small
emissions of other HAP. The majority of HAP emissions are from back-end
process operations (approximately 78 percent of the total HAP by mass).
For all emission sources except the back-end process operations, the
actual emissions level is representative of the MACT-allowable level.
For back-end process operations, we estimate that MACT-allowable
emissions from this source category could be as high as four times the
actual emissions. Since these back-end limitations are production-
based, this estimate was made by comparing the actual emissions levels
to the emissions calculated using the limitations and production
levels. For more detail about the estimate of the ratio of actual to
MACT-allowable emissions, see the memo in the docket for this action
describing the estimation of MACT-allowable emission levels and
associated risks and impacts.
b. What data were used in our risk analyses?
We initially created a preliminary data set for the Styrene
Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source category using information
we collected directly from industry on emissions data and emissions
release characteristics. 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 on and updates to this data set, as well as to
the data sets for the other source categories addressed in that ANPRM.
Comments received in response to the ANPRM were reviewed and
considered, and we made adjustments to the data set where we concluded
the comments supported such adjustment. After making appropriate
changes to the data set based on this public data review process, the
data set on which we based the initial proposal was created. This data
set was used to conduct the risk assessment and other analyses for the
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source category, which
formed the basis for the proposed RTR actions included in the October
10, 2008 proposal.
We have continued to scrutinize the existing data set and have
evaluated any additional data that became available subsequent to the
October 2008 proposal. Specific questions we had concerning current
operations led us to develop a questionnaire and ask for updated
emissions and emissions release characteristics information. This
information was requested from the facilities in May 2010 using the
authority of section 114 of the CAA. We updated our data set for this
source category based on the information received through this request.
c. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We have conducted a revised inhalation risk assessment for the
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source category. We have
also conducted an assessment of facility-wide risk and performed a
demographic analysis of population risks. Table B.3.1 provides an
overall summary of the results of the revised inhalation risk
assessment.
Table B.3.1--Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production Revised Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI
(in 1 million) \2\ Population at Annual cancer \3\
Number of facilities \1\ ---------------------------------- risk >= 1-in-1 incidence ---------------------------------- Maximum off-site acute non-cancer HQ \4\
Actual Allowable million (cases per Actual Allowable
emissions level emissions level year) emissions level emissions level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6............................................ 10 10 25,000 0.004 0.2 0.2 HQREL = 0.4 styrene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source category is the reproductive system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute
threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest available acute threshold. See section IV.A. of this preamble for
explanation of acute threshold values.
The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions
level data. As shown in Table B.3.1, the results of the revised
inhalation risk assessment indicated the maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk could be as high as 10-in-1 million, the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.2, and the maximum off-
facility-site acute HQ value could be as high as 0.4, based on the
actual emissions level and the REL value for styrene. The total
estimated national cancer incidence from these facilities based on
actual emission levels is 0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one
case in every 250 years.
Our analysis of potential differences between actual emission
levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standard indicated that
MACT-
[[Page 65103]]
allowable emission levels are equal to actual emissions for all
emissions sources other than back-end process operations. While the
emissions may be up to four times greater than actual emission levels
for back-end process operations, the compounds emitted do not have
cancer potency values so this potential increase in emissions does not
effect risk. When these ratios of actual to MACT-allowable emissions
are applied to each emission source type, the result is that the cancer
risks at the MACT-allowable level are equal to those at the actual
level shown in Table B.3.1.
There were no reported emissions of PB-HAP; therefore, we do not
expect potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
Table B.3.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels.
Table B.3.2--Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production Facility-Wide
Risk Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 70
million).............................................
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source 5%
category contribution to this maximum facility-wide
individual cancer risk \1\.........................
Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI........ 1
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source 10%
category contribution to this maximum facility-wide
non-cancer TOSHI \1\...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentage shown reflects the Styrene Butadiene Rubber Production
source category contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the
facility with the maximum risk value shown.
As shown in Table B.3.2, the maximum individual cancer risk from
all HAP emissions at a facility that contains styrene butadiene rubber
and latex production processes subject to the Group I Polymers and
Resins MACT standard is estimated to be 70-in-1 million, and the
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 1. At the
facilities where these maximum risk values occur, the estimated
proportion of the risk attributable to Styrene Butadiene Rubber and
Latex Production source category processes is approximately 5 percent
for cancer risks and 10 percent for chronic non-cancer risk. Both the
cancer and non-cancer risks at this facility are primarily due to a
nitrile butadiene rubber process, which has recently closed.
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of risks above 1-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions levels for the population living within 5 km of the
facilities, among various demographic groups are provided in a report
available in the docket for this action and summarized in Table B.3.3
below.
Table B.3.3--Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 Other and Hispanic Below the Over 25 W/
million) Total Minority % African multiracial or Latino Native poverty O a HS
(millions) American % % % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................ n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source Category........................... 10 0.02 40 3 36 54 0.6 18 24
Facility-wide............................. 70 0.1 50 29 20 32 0.5 23 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production
source category demographic analysis show that of the population with
cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million, 40 percent could be classified
as a ``Minority,'' 54 percent are included in the ``Hispanic or
Latino'' demographic group, 36 percent are included in the ``Other and
Multiracial,'' demographic group, 18 percent are included in the
``Below Poverty Level,'' and 24 percent are included in the ``Over 25
Without a High School Diploma'' demographic group. These percentages of
the population within 5 km of a styrene butadiene rubber and latex
production facility and with a cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million
is higher than the percentages for these demographic categories based
on the distribution of these demographic groups across the United
States. The table also shows that the results of the facility-wide
demographic analysis are higher than the national percentages for the
those that could be classified as a ``Minority'' and for those included
in the ``Hispanic or Latino,'' ``African American,'' ``Other and
Multiracial,'' ``Below Poverty Level,'' and the ``Over 25 Without a
High School Diploma'' demographic groups.
Details of these assessments and analyses can be found in the
residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
d. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
October 2008 Proposed Decision. In our October 10, 2008 proposal,
we proposed that the risks were acceptable because the risks results of
7-in-1 million indicated that cancer risks to the individual most
exposed to emissions from the category were greater than 1-in-1 million
but less than 100-in-1 million. We then analyzed other risk factors in
the ample margin of safety determination. In this analysis, we proposed
that emissions from the source category posed no potential for an
adverse environmental effect, did not pose potential for human health
multipathway risks, and were unlikely to cause acute or chronic non-
cancer health impacts. We also identified one emissions control option
that would reduce risks. We proposed that such control was not
necessary to protect public health with an ample margin of safety in
light of the high cost and limited addition health protection it would
provide. Therefore, we proposed that the existing standard provided an
[[Page 65104]]
ample margin of safety and proposed to re-adopt the existing MACT
standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
Risk Acceptability. The revised risk analysis we performed for this
proposal indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed
is 10-in-1 million based on both actual and MACT-allowable emissions.
The cancer incidence and the number of people exposed to cancer risks
of 1-in-1 million or greater are not significantly changed from the
risk identified in the October 2008 proposal. Similarly, the risk
analysis continued to show no potential for an adverse environmental
effect or human health multipathway effects, and that chronic non-
cancer health impacts are unlikely. The revised assessment indicated
that an acute non-cancer HQ as high as 0.4 could occur, based on the
REL value. Our additional analysis of facility-wide risks showed that
the maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 70-in-1 million and the
maximum facility-wide non-cancer TOSHI is 1. It also showed that the
styrene butadiene rubber production processes located at the facilities
with these maximum risk values contribute approximately 5 and 10
percent to such risks, respectively. Our additional analysis of the
demographics of the exposed population may show disparities in risks
between demographic groups. Based on this low cancer risk level and in
consideration of other health measures and factors, including the low
cancer incidence (one case in every 250 years) and the low maximum non-
cancer risk level (TOSHI of 0.2), we propose that the risks from the
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production source category are
acceptable.
Ample Margin of Safety. Because we are proposing that the risks are
acceptable, but still above 1-in-1 million, we then re-considered our
2008 ample margin of safety decision.
We have not identified any additional control options or any
changes to the previously analyzed control option to reduce risks. Our
analysis does not indicate a change in the emissions reductions that
could be achieved or the cost of control for the control option
considered in the October 2008 proposal. Therefore, we continue to
propose that the current MACT standard provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and the environment, and we are
proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
e. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
In the October 10, 2008 proposal, we identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control technologies applicable to the
emission sources in the Group I Polymers and Resins Production source
categories in our technology review, and we proposed to re-adopt the
existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In that
review we examined the regulatory requirements and/or technical
analyses for subsequently promulgated air toxics regulations with
similar types of emissions sources as those in the Group I Polymers and
Resins I Production source categories, and we conducted a search of the
RBLC for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in the Group I
Polymers and Resins Production source categories. We have not
identified any additional developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies since the proposal date for the Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production source category. Thus, we are continuing to
propose to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section
112(d)(6) of the CAA.
f. What other actions are we proposing?
The proposed changes to the SSM provisions for the Group I Polymers
and Resins MACT, which apply to the Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production source category, are discussed above in section V.B.1.f.
4. Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production is one of the source categories
for which we proposed RTR decisions on October 10, 2008.
a. Overview of the Source Category
Nitrile butadiene rubber is a copolymer of 1,3-butadiene and
acrylonitrile, and the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source
category includes any facility that polymerizes 1,3-butadiene and
acrylonitrile. While nitrile butadiene rubber is the primary product at
these facilities, styrene-butadiene rubber can also be produced as a
minor product by substituting styrene for acrylonitrile as a monomer.
Depending on its specific composition, nitrile butadiene rubber can be
resistant to oil and chemicals, a property that facilitates its use in
disposable gloves, hoses, seals, and a variety of automotive
applications.
We identified one nitrile butadiene rubber production facility
currently subject to the Polymers and Resins I MACT standard. This
facility is at a plant site that also has other HAP-emitting sources
that are regulated under separate MACT standards, for which we have
addressed or will address in future rulemaking actions. Acrylonitrile
and 1,3-butadiene account for the HAP emissions from this source
category (approximately 2 TPY). The majority of HAP emissions are from
back-end process operations (approximately 97 percent of the total HAP
by mass) for this source category. We estimate that MACT-allowable
emissions from this source category are approximately equal to
reported, actual emissions. For more detail about this estimate of the
ratio of actual to MACT-allowable emissions, see the memo in the docket
for this action describing the estimation of MACT-allowable emission
levels and associated risks and impacts.
b. What data were used in our risk analyses?
We initially created a preliminary data set for the Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber Production source category using information we
collected directly from industry on emissions data and emissions
release characteristics. 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 data set, as well as to the
data sets for the other source categories addressed in that ANPRM.
Comments received in response to the ANPRM were reviewed and
considered, and we made adjustments to the data set where we concluded
the comments supported such adjustment. After making appropriate
changes to the data set based on this public data review process, the
data set on which we based the initial proposal was created. This data
set was used to conduct the risk assessment and other analyses for the
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source category, which formed the
basis for the proposed RTR actions included in the October 10, 2008
proposal.
Since the proposal, we have continued to scrutinize the existing
data set and have evaluated any additional data that became available
subsequent to the October 10, 2008 proposal. Specific questions we had
concerning current operations led us to develop a questionnaire and ask
for updated emissions and emissions release characteristics
information. This information was requested from the facility in May
2010 using the authority of section 114 of the CAA. We updated our data
set for this source category based on the information received through
this request.
[[Page 65105]]
c. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We have conducted a revised inhalation risk assessment for the
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source category. We have also
conducted an assessment of facility-wide risk and performed a
demographic analysis of population risks. Table B.4.1 provides an
overall summary of the results of the revised inhalation risk
assessment.
Table B.4.1--Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production Revised Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic non-cancer
(in 1 million) \2\ Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
---------------------------------- Population at incidence ----------------------------------
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable risk >= 1-in-1 (cases per Actual Allowable Maximum off-site acute non-cancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions million year) emissions emissions
level level level level
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................ 2 2 70 0.0004 0.009 0.009 HQAEGL 1 = 0.002 acrylonitrile
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source category is the reproductive system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute
threshold value, which in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest available acute threshold. See section III.A of this preamble for
explanation of acute threshold values.
The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions
level data. As shown in Table B.4.1, the results of the revised
inhalation risk assessment indicated the maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk could be as high as 2-in-1 million, the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.009, and the maximum off-
facility-site acute HQ value could be as high as 0.002, based on the
actual emissions level and the AEGL-1 value for acrylonitrile. The
total estimated national cancer incidence from these facilities based
on actual emission levels is 0.0004 excess cancer cases per year, or
one case in every 2,500 years.
Our analysis of potential differences between actual emission
levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standard indicate that
actual and allowable emissions are approximately the same. Therefore,
the risk results for MACT-allowable emissions are equal to those for
actual emissions.
There were no reported emissions of PB-HAP; therefore, we do not
expect potential for human health multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
Table B.4.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels.
Table B.4.2--Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production Facility-Wide Risk
Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 5
million).............................................
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source 33%
category contribution to this maximum facility-
wide individual cancer risk \1\..................
Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI........ 0.03
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source 30%
category contribution to this maximum facility-
wide non-cancer TOSHI \1\........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentage shown reflects Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source
category contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the
facility with the maximum risk value shown.
The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a
facility that contains nitrile butadiene rubber production processes
subject to the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standard is estimated
to be 5-in-1 million, and the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is
estimated to be 0.03. The estimated proportion of the risk attributable
to Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source category processes at
this facility is approximately 33 percent for cancer risks and 30
percent for chronic non-cancer risk. This facility also has processes
subject to the Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT standard, 40 CFR part
63, subpart JJJ.
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of risks above 1-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions levels for the population living within 5 km of the
facilities, among various demographic groups are provided in a report
available in the docket for this action and summarized in Table B.4.3
below.
Table B.4.3--Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 Other and Hispanic Below the Over 25 W/
million) Total Minority % African multiracial or Latino Native poverty O a HS
(millions) American % % % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................ n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source Category........................... 2 0.00007 94 94 0 0 0 33 14
Facility-wide............................. 5 0.006 95 93 2 0.4 0.1 23 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65106]]
The results of the demographic analysis show that, for the Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber Production source category, of the population of 70
people with cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million, 94 percent could
be classified as a ``Minority,'' 94 percent are included in the
``African-American'' demographic group, 33 percent are included in the
``Below Poverty Level'' demographic group, and 14 percent are included
in the ``Over 25 Without a High School Diploma'' demographic group. The
percentage of the population for these demographic categories within 5
km of a nitrile butadiene rubber production facility and with a cancer
risk greater than 1-in-1 million is higher than distribution of these
demographic groups across the United States. The table also shows that
the results of the demographic analysis for the 6,000 people at cancer
risk greater than 1-in-1 million from facility-wide emissions are
similar to the results for the source category.
Details of these assessments and analyses can be found in the
residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
d. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
October 2008 Proposed Decision. In our October 2008 proposal, we
proposed that the risks were acceptable because the risks results
indicated that cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions
from the category of 60-in-1 million were greater than 1-in-1 million
but less than 100-in-1 million. We then analyzed other risk factors in
the ample margin of safety determination. In this analysis, we proposed
that emissions from the source category posed no potential for an
adverse environmental effect, did not pose potential for human health
multipathway risks, and were unlikely to cause acute or chronic non-
cancer health impacts. We also identified one emissions control option
that would reduce risks. We proposed that such control was not
necessary to protect public health with an ample margin of safety in
light of the high cost and limited addition health protection it would
provide. Therefore, we proposed that the existing standard provided an
ample margin of safety and proposed to re-adopt the existing MACT
standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
Risk Acceptability. The revised risk analysis we performed for this
proposal indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed
is 2-in-1 million based on both actual and MACT-allowable emissions.
The cancer incidence and the number of people exposed to cancer risks
of 1-in-1 million or greater are much less than the risk identified in
the October 2008 proposal. Similarly, the risk analysis continued to
show no potential for an adverse environmental effect or human health
multipathway effects, and that acute or chronic non-cancer health
impacts are unlikely. Our additional analysis of facility-wide risks
showed that the maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 5-in-1 million and
that the maximum chronic non-cancer risks are unlikely to cause health
impacts. Our additional analysis of the demographics of the exposed
population may show disparities in risks between demographic groups,
but only for the 60 people at cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million.
Based on this low cancer risk level and in consideration of other
health measures and factors, including the low cancer incidence (one
case in every 2,500 years) and the low maximum non-cancer risk level
(TOSHI of 0.009), we propose that the risks from the Nitrile Butadiene
Rubber Production source category are acceptable.
Ample Margin of Safety. Because we are proposing that the risks are
acceptable, but still above 1-in-1 million, we then re-considered our
October 2008 ample margin of safety decision.
We have not identified any additional control options or any
changes to the previously analyzed control option. Our analysis does
not indicate a change in the emissions reductions that could be
achieved or the cost of control for the control option considered in
the October 2008 proposal. Therefore, we continue to propose that the
current MACT standard provides an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and the environment, and we are proposing to re-adopt the
existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
e. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
In the October 10, 2008 proposal, we identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control technologies applicable to the
emission sources in the Group I Polymers and Resins Production source
categories in our technology review, and we proposed to re-adopt the
existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In that
review we examined the regulatory requirements and/or technical
analyses for subsequently promulgated air toxics regulations with
similar types of emissions sources as those in the Group I Polymers and
Resins Production source categories, and we conducted a search of the
RBLC for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in the Group I
Polymers and Resins Production source categories. We have not
identified any additional developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies since the proposal date for the Nitrile Butadiene
Rubber Production source category. Thus, we are continuing to propose
to re-adopt the existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(d)(6) of
the CAA.
f. What other actions are we proposing?
SSM Provisions. The proposed changes to the Group I Polymers and
Resins MACT, which apply to the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
source category, are discussed above in section V.B.1.f.
Significant Emission Points Not Previously Regulated. We identified
the absence of a standard for a significant emissions source in the
category in the provisions of the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT
standard that apply to the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production source
category. Specifically, there are no back-end process operation
emission limits for this source category.\36\ As these processes are
major sources of emissions for the one facility in the source category,
we are proposing to set standards for back-end process operations under
CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Note that these uncontrolled emissions were included in the
baseline risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission limit we are proposing today represents the MACT floor
level of control. As there is only one facility in the source category,
the emissions limitation achieved by this facility is the MACT floor.
The annual emissions from the back-end process operations at this
facility are approximately 2 TPY. There are 11 separate dryer vents;
one is controlled, while the others are uncontrolled. The controlled
vent emits around 0.003 TPY of 1,3-butadiene and 0.002 TPY of
acrylonitrile. The regenerative thermal oxidizer used on this vent
achieves approximately 96 percent control of the acrylonitrile
emissions, but no control of 1,3-butadiene. The collection of 10
uncontrolled vents emit around 0.8 TPY of 1,3-butadiene and 0.9 TPY of
acrylonitrile.
As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we considered
alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor option. We identified
one option using add-on emission controls that would require the
ducting of emissions from the currently uncontrolled back-end process
operations emission source to a control device, such as an incinerator.
[[Page 65107]]
This option would also require an initial performance test of the
incinerator and continuous parameter monitoring averaged daily. The
capital costs of this option are estimated to be approximately
$1,600,000 and the total annual costs are estimated to be approximately
$11,400,000/year. We estimate that an incinerator would achieve an
emissions reduction of 98 percent, resulting in a HAP decrease of
approximately 1.7 TPY, with a cost-effectiveness of approximately
$6,700,000/ton. Table B.4.4 summarizes the cost and emission reduction
impacts of the proposed options.
Table B.4.4--Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production Facility Back-End Option Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
effectiveness as
HAP emissions Capital cost Annual cost compared to
Regulatory alternatives (TPY) (million $) (million $/yr) baseline
(million $/ton
HAP removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 1.7 ................ ................ ................
1 (MACT floor).......................... 1.7 0 0 ................
2 (Beyond-the-floor).................... 0.04 1.6 11.4 6.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cost and emission reduction impacts shown in
Table B.4.4, we estimate that the beyond-the-floor option will result
in increases in criteria pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions (PM-2
TPY, SO2-0.4 TPY, NOX-133 TPY, CO-23 TPY, and
CO2-80,000 TPY) and an increase in energy use of
approximately 1,400,000 BTU/year at a cost of approximately $385,000/
year.
We believe that the costs and other impacts of this beyond-the-
floor option are not reasonable, given the level of emission reduction.
Therefore, we are proposing Option 1, the MACT floor option. We are
requesting comment on this analysis and these options.
As noted above, we are proposing that the MACT standard, prior to
the implementation of the proposed emission limitation to the back-end
process operations discussed in this section, provides an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. Since the proposed emission
limitation represents the existing level of control for the single
plant in the source category, this proposed emission limitation will
not have an impact on risk. Therefore, we maintain that after its
implementation, the rule will continue to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Consequently, we do not believe it
will be necessary to conduct another residual risk review under CAA
section 112(f) for this source category 8 years following promulgation
of new back-end process limitations, merely due to the addition of this
new MACT requirement.
5. Neoprene Rubber Production
Neoprene Rubber Production is one of the source categories for
which we proposed and finalized RTR decisions on December 12, 2007 (72
FR 70543) and December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76220), respectively.
a. Overview of the Source Category
Neoprene is a polymer of chloroprene. Neoprene was originally
developed as an oil-resistant substitute for natural rubber, and its
properties allow its use in a wide variety of applications, including
wetsuits, gaskets and seals, hoses and tubing, plumbing fixtures,
adhesives, and other products. We have identified one neoprene rubber
production facility currently subject to the Polymers and Resins I MACT
standards.
For the Neoprene Rubber Production source category, we have
proposed and finalized a decision not to revise the standards for those
source categories based on our RTR. As noted above, this decision was
proposed on December 12, 2007 and finalized on December 16, 2008. Since
the Neoprene Production source category was determined to be ``low
risk'' (maximum lifetime cancer risk less than 1-in-1 million), we did
not believe it was necessary to conduct a facility-wide or demographic
risk analysis. Therefore, we are not addressing the RTR in today's
notice for this source category.
b. What other actions are we proposing?
SSM Provisions. The proposed changes to the Group I Polymers and
Resins MACT, which apply to the Neoprene Rubber Production source
category, are discussed above in section V.B.1.f.
Significant Emission Points Not Previously Regulated. We identified
in the provisions of the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standard that
apply to the Neoprene Rubber Production source category the absence of
a standard for a significant emissions source in the category.
Specifically, there are no back-end process operation emission limits
for this source category. As these processes are major sources of
emissions for the one facility in the source category, we are proposing
to set standards for back-end process operations under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) in this action.
As there is only one facility in the source category, the emissions
level currently being achieved by this facility represents the MACT
floor. The annual emissions from the back-end process operations at
this facility are approximately 14 TPY. There are 11 separate dryer
vents collectively emitting around 14 TPY of toluene. None of the vents
are controlled. Therefore, we have determined that the MACT floor for
the back-end process is 14 TPY based on stripping and HAP recovery,
given current production levels, but which would fluctuate
proportionally with an increase or decrease in production levels.
As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we considered
alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor option. We identified
one option using add-on emission controls that would require the
ducting of emissions from the back-end process operations to a control
device, such as an incinerator. This option would also require an
initial performance test of the incinerator and continuous parameter
monitoring averaged daily. The capital costs of this option are
estimated to be approximately $1,300,000 and the total annual costs are
estimated approximately $4,800,000 per year. We estimate that an
incinerator would achieve an emissions reduction of 98 percent,
resulting in a HAP decrease of approximately 22.6 TPY, with a cost-
effectiveness of approximately $213,000 per ton. Table B.5.1 summarizes
the impacts of the proposed options.
[[Page 65108]]
Table B.5.1--Neoprene Rubber Production Facility Back-End Option Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
effectiveness as
Regulatory alternatives HAP emissions Capital cost Annual cost compared to
(TPY) (million $) (million$/yr) baseline ($/ton
HAP removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 23 ................ ................ ................
1 (MACT floor).......................... 23 0 0 ................
2 (Beyond-the-floor).................... 0.5 1.3 4.8 213,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cost and emission reduction impacts shown in
Table B.5.1, we estimate that the beyond-the-floor option will result
in increases in criteria pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions (PM -
0.8, SO2 - 0.2 TPY, NOX - 55 TPY, CO - 10 TPY,
and CO2 - 33,000 TPY) and an increase in energy use of
approximately 560,000 million BTU/year at a cost of approximately
$159,000/year.
We believe that the costs and other impacts of this beyond-the-
floor option are not reasonable, given the level of emission reduction.
Therefore, we are proposing Option 1, the MACT floor option. We are
requesting comment on this analysis and these options.
As noted above, we have proposed and finalized a decision that the
MACT standard for neoprene rubber production, prior to the
implementation of the proposed emission limitation to the back-end
process operations discussed in this section, provides an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. Since this source category was
``low risk'' prior to this proposed emission limitation, we maintain
that after their implementation, the rule will continue to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. Consequently, we do
not believe it will be necessary to conduct another residual risk
review under CAA section 112(f) for this source category 8 years
following promulgation of new back-end process limitations, merely due
to the addition of this new MACT requirement.
6. Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production
Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production is one of the source
categories for which we proposed and finalized RTR decisions on
December 12, 2007 (72 FR 70543) and December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76220),
respectively.
a. Overview of the Source Category
Ethylene propylene rubber is an elastomer prepared from ethylene
and propylene monomers. Common uses for these elastomers include
radiator and heater hoses, weather stripping, door and window seals for
cars, construction plastics blending, wire and cable insulation and
jackets, and single-ply roofing membranes.
For the Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production source category, we
have proposed and finalized a decision not to revise the standards for
this source category based on our RTR. As noted above, this decision
was proposed on December 12, 2007 and finalized on December 16, 2008.
Since the Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production source category was
determined to be ``low risk'' (maximum lifetime cancer risk less than
1-in-1 million), we did not believe it was necessary to conduct a
facility-wide or demographic risk analysis. Therefore, we are not
addressing the RTR in this notice for this source category.
b. What other actions are we proposing?
SSM Provisions. The proposed changes to the SSM provisions for the
Group I Polymers and Resins MACT, which apply to the Ethylene Propylene
Rubber Production source category, are discussed above in section
V.B.1.f.
Significant Emission Points Not Previously Regulated. We identified
in the provisions of the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standard that
apply to the Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production source category the
absence of a standard for a significant emissions source in the
category. Specifically, the rule requires that emissions from Group 1
front-end process vents be routed to a control device that achieves 98
percent reduction in organic HAP emissions but does not require the
control of hydrogen halides and halogens from the outlet of combustion
devices. All three currently-operating facilities in this source
category control the organic HAP emissions in accordance with the
requirements in the rule (i.e., reduce organic HAP emissions by 98
percent). This represents the MACT floor for this source category.
However, one facility routes a chlorinated organic compound to a flare,
which results in emissions of HCl that are not regulated by the current
MACT requirements. When chlorinate organics are burned in a flare,
there are variations in the combustion which likely results in the
formation of combustion by-products. These combustion by-products could
include trace chlorinated compounds such as dioxins and furans. Due to
the level of HCl emissions resulting from the combustion of chlorinated
organic compounds in Group 1 streams, we are proposing to require
control of these HCl emissions for the Ethylene Propylene Rubber
Production source category.
As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we considered
alternatives to reduce these HCl emissions, which are more stringent
than the MACT floor option. We identified the option of eliminating the
exemption from the requirement to control hydrogen halides and halogens
from the outlet of combustion devices. The one facility reports around
20 TPY of HCl emissions resulting from the combustion of chlorinated
organic compounds in a flare. The other two facilities indicated that
they do not emit any HCl emissions resulting from the combustion of
chlorinated organic compounds. We estimated that the capital costs for
the facility to replace the flare with an incinerator followed by a
scrubber to reduce the HCl would be approximately $985,000 and the
total annual costs are estimated to be approximately $446,000 per year.
While there would be no additional reduction in organic HAP from this
requirement, the HCl emissions would be reduced by 99 percent, or 19.6
TPY. The cost-effectiveness of this option would be approximately
$21,000 per ton. However, this ethylene propylene rubber process is co-
located with the halobutyl rubber process, which also vents a vent
stream containing chlorinated organic compounds to a flare, resulting
in HCl emissions. We estimated the costs of a single incinerator and
scrubber to control the streams containing chlorinated organics from
both the ethylene propylene rubber and halobutyl rubber processes. The
estimated capital cost of this control scenario is $1,100,000 and the
annual cost is $640,000 per year. This would still achieve the same HCl
emission reduction from the ethylene propylene
[[Page 65109]]
rubber process (19.6 TPY), and the overall cost-effectiveness
considering the reductions from the ethylene propylene rubber and
halobutyl rubber would be around $6,700 per ton. Table B.6.1 summarizes
the impacts of the proposed options.
Table B.6.1--Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production Facility Front-End Options Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
effectiveness as
Regulatory alternatives HAP emissions Capital cost Annual cost compared to
(TPY HAP) ($million) ($million/yr) baseline ($/ton
HAP removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 20 ................ ................ ................
1 (MACT floor).......................... 20 0 0 ................
2 (Beyond-the-floor).................... 0.2 * 1.1 * 0.6 * 6,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assuming a shared control incinerator/scrubber combination is used for both the ethylene propylene rubber and
halobutyl rubber processes.
In addition to the cost and emission reduction impacts shown in
Table B.6.1, we estimate that the beyond-the-floor option will result
in increases in criteria pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions (PM -
0.03 TPY, SO2 - 0.006 TPY, NOX - 2 TPY, CO - 0.4
TPY, and CO2 - 1,200 TPY), the generation of approximately
29 million gallons/year of wastewater, and an increase in energy use of
approximately 21,000 million BTU/year at a cost of approximately
$7,000/year.
We believe that the costs and other impacts of this beyond-the-
floor option are reasonable, given the level of emission reduction.
Therefore, we are proposing Option 2, the beyond-the-floor option. We
are requesting comment on this analysis and these options.
As noted above, we have proposed and finalized a decision that the
MACT standard for ethylene propylene rubber production, prior to the
implementation of the proposed emission limitation discussed in this
section, provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Since this source category was ``low risk'' prior to this proposed
emission limitation, we maintain that after its implementation, which
will only further reduce HAP emissions, the rule will continue to
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Consequently, we do not believe it will be necessary to conduct another
residual risk review under CAA section 112(f) for this source category
8 years following promulgation of new limitations, merely due to the
addition of this new MACT requirement.
7. Butyl Rubber Production
Butyl Rubber Production is one of the source categories for which
we proposed and finalized RTR decisions on December 12, 2007 (72 FR
70543) and December 16, 2008 (73 FR 76220), respectively.
a. Overview of the Source Category
The Butyl Rubber Production source category includes any facility
that manufactures copolymers of isobutylene and isoprene. A typical
composition of butyl rubber is approximately 97 percent isobutylene and
3 percent isoprene. Modified, derivative, and halogenated copolymers
and latexes are also included in this source category. Butyl rubber is
typically made by a precipitation (slurry) polymerization process in
which isobutylene and isoprene are copolymerized in methyl chloride
solvent. Butyl rubber is very impermeable to common gases and resists
oxidation. Uses for butyl rubber include tires, tubes, and tire
products; automotive mechanical goods; adhesives, caulks, and sealants;
and pharmaceutical uses. A specialty group of butyl rubbers are
halogenated butyl rubbers, which are produced commercially by
dissolving butyl rubber in hydrocarbon solvent and contacting the
solution with gaseous or liquid elemental halogens such as chlorine or
bromine. For the purpose of the MACT standards, this source category is
divided into two subcategories: butyl rubber and halobutyl rubber.
For the Butyl Rubber Production source category, we have proposed
and finalized a decision not to revise the standards for this source
category based on our RTR. As noted above, this decision was proposed
on December 12, 2007 and finalized on December 16, 2008. Since the
Butyl Rubber Production source category was determined to be ``low
risk'' (maximum lifetime cancer risk less than 1-in-1 million), we did
not believe it was necessary to conduct a facility-wide or demographic
risk analysis. Therefore, we are not addressing the RTR in this notice
for this source category.
b. What other actions are we proposing?
SSM Provisions. The proposed SSM changes to the Group I Polymers
and Resins MACT, which apply to the Butyl Rubber Production source
category, are discussed above in section V.B.1.f.
Significant Emission Points Not Previously Regulated. We identified
in the provisions of the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standard that
apply to both Butyl Rubber Production subcategories the absence of
standards for two significant emissions sources in each of the Butyl
Rubber Production subcategories. Specifically, these situations are HCl
emissions from front-end process vents and emissions from back-end
process operations.
The rule requires that emissions from Group 1 front-end process
vents be routed to a control device that achieves 98 percent reduction
in organic HAP emissions but does not require the control of hydrogen
halides and halogens from the outlet of combustion devices. Both
facilities in these subcategories control the organic HAP emissions in
accordance with the requirements in the rule (i.e., reduce organic HAP
emissions by 98 percent). This represents the MACT floor for these
subcategories. However, these facilities route a chlorinated organic
compound to a flare, which results in emissions of HCl that are
exempted from the current MACT requirements. Due to the level of HCl
emissions resulting from the combustion of chlorinated organic
compounds in Group 1 streams, we are proposing to require control of
these HCl emissions for both the Butyl Rubber Production and Halobutyl
Rubber Production subcategories.
As there is only one facility in each subcategory, the existing
level of control for organic HAP emissions represents the MACT floor.
As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we considered alternatives to
reduce the HCl emissions, which are more stringent than the MACT floor
option. For front-end process vents, we identified the option of
eliminating the exemption
[[Page 65110]]
from the requirement to control hydrogen halides and halogens from the
outlet of combustion devices. The butyl rubber facility reported HCl
emissions of 30.1 TPY, while the halobutyl rubber facility reported
76.8 TPY. Since scrubbers could not be installed on the outlet of these
combustion devices to reduce the HCl emissions by 99 percent, the butyl
rubber facility and the halobutyl rubber facility would need to install
new incinerators followed by scrubbers to comply with this beyond-the-
floor requirement. We estimate that the capital costs for this would be
$669,000 for the butyl rubber facility and $984,000 for the halobutyl
rubber facility. The total annual costs would be around $235,000 per
year for the butyl rubber facility and $424,000 per year for the
halobutyl rubber facility. Since there would be no additional reduction
in organic HAP emissions from what is being achieved by the current
controls, the only emission reduction would a 99 percent reduction in
HCl emissions, or 29.8 TPY for the butyl rubber facility and 76 TPY for
the halobutyl rubber facility. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of these
beyond-the-floor options would be approximately $7,900 per ton for
butyl rubber and $6,000 per ton for halobutyl rubber. However, this
halobutyl rubber process is co-located with an ethylene propylene
rubber process, which also vents a vent stream containing chlorinated
organic compounds to a flare, resulting in HCl emissions. As these
streams could be controlled using the same equipment at this facility,
we estimated the costs of a single incinerator and scrubber to control
the streams containing chlorinated organics from both the ethylene
propylene rubber and halobutyl rubber processes. The estimated capital
cost of this control scenario is $1,100,000 and the annual cost is
$640,000 per year. This would still achieve the same HCl emission
reduction from the halobutyl rubber process (76 TPY), and the overall
cost-effectiveness considering the reductions from the ethylene
propylene rubber and halobutyl rubber would be around $6,700 per ton.
Tables B.7.1 and B.7.2 summarize the impacts of the proposed options.
Table B.7.1--Butyl Rubber Production Facility Front-End Options Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
HAP effectiveness as
Regulatory alternatives emissions Capital cost Annual cost compared to
(TPY HAP) ($million) ($million/yr) baseline ($/ton
HAP removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................................... 30.1 .............. ................ ................
1 (MACT floor)................................. 30.1 0 0 ................
2 (Beyond-the-floor)........................... 0.3 0.6 0.2 $7,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table B.7.2--Halobutyl Rubber Production Facility Front-End Options Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
effectiveness as
Regulatory alternatives HAP emissions Capital cost Annual cost compared to
(TPY HAP) ($million) ($million/yr) baseline ($/ton
HAP removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 76.8 ................ ................ ................
1 (MACT floor).......................... 76.8 0 0 ................
2 (Beyond-the-floor).................... 0.8 * 1.1 * 0.6 * $6,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Assuming a shared control incinerator/scrubber combination is used for both the ethylene propylene rubber and
halobutyl rubber processes.
In addition to the cost and emission reduction impacts shown in
Table B.7.1 for butyl rubber production, we estimate that the beyond-
the-floor option will result in increases in criteria pollutant and
carbon dioxide emissions (PM - 0.004 TPY, SO2 - 0.001 TPY,
NOX - 2 TPY, CO - 0.05 TPY, and CO2 - 160 TPY),
the generation of approximately 31 million gallons/year of wastewater,
and an increase in energy use of around 3,000 million BTU/year at a
cost of approximately $3,000/year.
In addition to the cost and emission reduction impacts shown in
Table B.6.2 for halobutyl rubber production, we estimate that the
beyond-the-floor option will result in increases in criteria pollutant
and carbon dioxide emissions (PM - 0.03 TPY, SO2 - 0.006
TPY, NOX - 2 TPY, CO - 0.4 TPY, and CO2 - 1,200
TPY), the generation of approximately 29 million gallons/year of
wastewater, and an increase in energy use of around 21,000 million BTU/
year at a cost of approximately $7,000/year.
We believe that the costs and other impacts of these beyond-the-
floor options are reasonable, given the level of emission reduction.
Therefore, we are proposing Option 2, the beyond-the-floor option, for
both the Butyl Rubber Production and Halobutyl Rubber Production
subcategories. We are requesting comment on this analysis and these
options.
We also noted that there are no back-end process operation emission
limits for either the Butyl Rubber Production or Halobutyl Rubber
Production subcategories. As there is only one facility in each
subcategory, the back-end process operations emissions level currently
being achieved by these facilities represents the MACT floor. The
annual emissions from the uncontrolled back-end process operations at
the butyl rubber facility are approximately 26 TPY, and 35 TPY at the
halobutyl facility. There are two separate dryer vent streams at the
butyl rubber facility, with one stream controlled. The controlled
stream emits around 28 TPY of hexane. The regenerative thermal oxidizer
used to control emissions achieves approximately 98-percent control.
There are four separate dryer vents at the halobutyl facility and one
vent is controlled. The controlled vent emits around 18 TPY of hexane.
The regenerative thermal oxidizer used to control emissions achieves
approximately 97-percent control of the hexane emissions. The four
uncontrolled vents collectively emit around 35 TPY of hexane.
Therefore, we have determined that the MACT floors
[[Page 65111]]
for these processes are these emission levels, given current production
levels, but which would fluctuate proportionally with an increase or
decrease in production levels.
As part of our beyond-the-floor analysis, we considered
alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor option. We identified
one option using add-on emission controls that would require the
ducting of emissions from the uncontrolled back-end process operations
to a control device, such as an incinerator. This option would also
require an initial performance test of the incinerator and continuous
parameter monitoring averaged daily. For the Butyl Rubber Production
subcategory, the capital costs of this option are estimated to be
approximately $235,000 and the total annual costs are estimated to be
approximately $181,000. For the Halobutyl Rubber Production
subcategory, the capital costs of this option are estimated to be
approximately $950,000 and the total annual costs are estimated to be
approximately $1,600,000 per year. We estimate that an incinerator
would achieve an emissions reduction of 98 percent, resulting in a HAP
decrease of approximately 26 TPY for the Butyl Rubber Production
subcategory and 34 for Halobutyl Rubber Production subcategory. The
associated cost-effectiveness values would be approximately $7,000 per
ton for Butyl Rubber Production subcategory and $47,000/ton for
Halobutyl Rubber Production subcategory. Tables B.7.3 and B.7.4
summarize the impacts of the proposed options.
Table B.7.3--Butyl Rubber Production Subcategory Facility Back-End Option Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
effectiveness as
Regulatory alternatives HAP emissions Capital cost Annual cost compared to
(TPY HAP) ($million) ($million/yr) baseline ($/ton
HAP removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................. 54 ................. ................. ................
1 (MACT floor)........................ 54 0 0 ................
2 (Beyond-the-floor).................. 28 0.2 0.2 $7,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table B.7.4--Halobutyl Rubber Production Subcategory Facility Back-End Option Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
HAP effectiveness as
Regulatory alternatives Emissions Capital cost Annual cost compared to
(TPY HAP) ($million) ($million/yr) baseline ($/ton
HAP removed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................................... 53 .............. ................ ................
1 (MACT floor)................................. 53 0 0 ................
2 (Beyond-the-floor)........................... 19 1 1.6 $47,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cost and emission reduction impacts shown in
Table B.7.3 for Butyl Rubber Production subcategory, we estimate that
the beyond-the-floor option will result in increases in criteria
pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions (PM - 0.01, SO2 -
0.003 TPY, NOX - 8 TPY, CO - 0.2 TPY, and CO2 -
600 TPY) and an increase in energy use of approximately 10,000 million
BTU/year at a cost of approximately $6,000/year.
In addition to the cost and emission reduction impacts shown in
Table B.7.4 for Halobutyl Rubber Production subcategory, we estimate
that the beyond-the-floor option will result in increases in criteria
pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions (PM -0.25, SO2 -0.05
TPY, NOX -17 TPY, CO -3 TPY, and CO2 -10,500 TPY)
and an increase in energy use of approximately 170,000 million BTU/year
at a cost of approximately $49,000/year.
We believe that the costs and other impacts of the beyond-the-floor
option for back-end process operations for the Butyl Rubber Production
subcategory are reasonable, given the level of emission reduction.
Therefore, we are proposing Option 2 for the Butyl Rubber Production
subcategory, the beyond-the-floor option. We are requesting comment on
this analysis and these options.
We believe that the costs and other impacts of the beyond-the-floor
option for the Halobutyl Rubber Production subcategory back-end process
operations are not reasonable, given the level of emission reduction.
Therefore, we are proposing Option 1, the MACT floor option. We are
requesting comment on this analysis and these options.
As noted above, we have proposed and finalized a decision that the
MACT standard for the Butyl Rubber Production source category, prior to
the implementation of the proposed emission limitations to the front-
end process vent and back-end process operations discussed in this
section, provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Since both subcategories of this source category were ``low risk''
prior to these proposed emission limitations, we maintain that after
their implementation, which will only further reduce HAP emissions, the
rule will continue to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. Consequently, we do not believe it will be necessary to
conduct another residual risk review under CAA section 112(f) for this
source category 8 years following promulgation of new front-end process
vent and back-end process limitations, merely due to the addition of
these new MACT requirements.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Marine Tank
Vessel Loading Operations source category?
1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standards
The NESHAP for MTVLO were promulgated on September 19, 1995 (60 FR
48388), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y. The MTVLO MACT-based
standards apply to major sources and regulate HAP emissions from: Land-
based terminals, off-shore terminals, and the Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company's Valdez Marine Terminal.
[[Page 65112]]
MTVLO are conducted at terminals that load liquid commodities in
bulk, such as crude oil, gasoline, and other fuels, and some chemicals
and solvent mixtures. The cargo is pumped from the terminal's large,
above-ground storage tanks through a network of pipes into a storage
compartment (tank) on the vessel. Emissions occur as vapors are
displaced from the tank as it is being filled. Most MTVLO facilities
are either independent terminals or are associated with petroleum
refineries or synthetic organic chemical manufacturers.
For purposes of the MTVLO analysis, we considered only emissions
from those sources that are part of the MTVLO source category. We
recognize that there are additional sources of emissions at these
facilities that are not part of the MTVLO source category. Those
emission sources include emissions from hatch leaks or J tubes during
transit, lightering operations, ballasting wastewater from non-
segregated ballasting, cleaning of the cargo tank (especially when
changing products), and ventilating the cargo tank prior to loading. We
are investigating these sources to understand their emissions and any
controls used to reduce those emissions and request information about
these sources that are currently not part of the MTVLO source category.
The primary emission sources of displaced vapors associated with
MTVLO activities include open tank hatches and overhead vent systems.
Other possible emission points are hatch covers or domes, pressure or
vacuum relief valves, seals, and vents. The MACT standards require
control of all displaced vapors that result from product loading at
affected sources irrespective of the point from which those vapors are
emitted. Typical control devices used to reduce HAP emissions at
affected facilities include vapor collection systems routed to either
combustion or recovery devices, such as flares, incinerators,
absorbers, carbon adsorbers, and condensers.
When we developed the MTVLO MACT, we estimated that approximately
300 major source facilities with MTVLO would be subject to the MACT
standards. However, data in the 2005 NEI were only available for 152
facilities subject to the MACT standards and the analyses discussed in
this section are based on these 152 facilities. We believe the 152
facilities emit HAP that are representative of HAP emissions within the
source category because, based on available information, we expect that
the rest of the facilities in the source category generally emit the
same HAP as do the 152 modeled facilities. In addition, we expect that
these 152 terminals represent the larger-emitting terminals, based on
the specific terminals included in the 2005 NEI and the average
reported emissions from these terminals (2.8 TPY of HAP on average).
Marine terminals with MTVLO located at petroleum refineries are not
part of the MTVLO source category, but are subject to the MTVLO MACT-
based standards because the Refinery NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC, incorporate those requirements by reference. However, marine
terminals that are part of the Petroleum Refineries source category
were not included in this risk assessment because they are not in the
MTVLO source category. For these reasons, we are proposing to exclude
refineries from the additional control requirements that are being
proposed in this action. Loading operations at marine terminals that
are part of the Petroleum Refineries source category will be addressed
in a separate RTR rulemaking action.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
We initially created a preliminary data set for the source category
using data in the 2002 NEI Final Inventory, Version 1 (made publicly
available on February 26, 2006), which we reviewed and changed where
necessary to ensure that the proper facilities were included and that
emissions from the proper processes were allocated to the MTVLO 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) requesting comments on and updates to
this data set, as well as the data sets for the other source categories
included in the notice. Comments received in response to the ANPRM were
reviewed and considered, and adjustments were made to the data set
where we concluded the comments supported such adjustment. After making
appropriate changes to the data set based on this public data review
process, we created the data set on which we based the initial
proposal. This data set was used to conduct the risk assessment and
other analyses for the MTVLO source category that formed the basis for
the actions included in the October 2008, proposal.
Since the initial October 2008 proposal, we have continued to
scrutinize the existing data set and have evaluated all additional data
that became available subsequent to the proposal. Uncertainty about
possible changes in the industry led us to extract more recent data
from the NEI and, ultimately, to replace the entire 2002 NEI-based
MTVLO data set with a data set based on the 2005 NEI. Additionally, we
continue to work with industry representatives to resolve data issues
found with facilities modeled with a MIR above 1-in-1 million
(discussed in the next section) using the 2005 NEI data. The industry's
review to date is provided in the docket for public review and comment.
The 2005 NEI-based data set shows 420 TPY of total HAP emissions
from the 152 modeled facilities in the data set. Hexane, methyl
tertiary butyl ether, toluene, methanol, benzene, and xylenes account
for the majority of the HAP emissions from loading operations included
in the MTVLO source category at the 152 facilities in the data set
(approximately 350 TPY, or 79 percent of the total HAP emissions by
mass). These facilities also reported relatively small emissions of 56
other HAP.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We have conducted a revised inhalation risk assessment for the
MTVLO source category. We have also conducted an assessment of
facility-wide risks and performed a demographic analysis of population
risks. Table C.1 provides an overall summary of the results of the
revised inhalation risk assessment.
[[Page 65113]]
Table C.1--Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations Revised Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Maximum chronic non-
cancer risk (in 1 Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
million) \2\ Population cancer --------------------------
Number of facilities \1\ -------------------------- at risk >= incidence Maximum off-site acute non-cancer
Actual Allowable 1-in-1 (cases per Actual Allowable HQ \4\
emissions emissions million year) emissions emissions
level level level level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
152 Modeled Facilities............... 20 60 71,000 0.01 0.3 0.9 HQREL = 1 benzene
300 Major Source Facilities Subject 20 60 140,000 0.02 0.3 0.9 HQREL = 1 benzene
to the MTVLO MACT Standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ There were 152 facilities in the data set that were modeled. We believe that these facilities are representative of the entire source category and
that the maximum risks arising from any individual facility in the source category are properly characterized. The population risks were scaled up
based on a linear relationship.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the MTVLO source category is the reproductive system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
lowest available acute threshold. See section IV.A of this preamble for explanation of acute threshold values.
The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions
level data. As shown in Table C.1, the results of the revised
inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk could be as high as 20-in-1 million, the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.3. The total estimated national
cancer incidence from these facilities based on actual emission levels
at the 152 modeled facilities is 0.01 excess cancer cases per year or
one case in every 100 years. The total estimated cancer incidence for
the MTVLO source category could, however, be as high as 0.02, or one
case in every 50 years, considering that there may be 300 facilities in
the source category. The maximum off-facility-site acute HQ value could
be as high as 1, based on the actual emissions level and the REL value
for benzene.
In evaluating potential differences between actual emission levels
and emissions allowable under the MACT-based standards, we investigated
the specific controls in use at facilities associated with cancer risks
greater than 1-in-1 million and determined that the highest factor for
one of these facilities was 3.0, based on the ability of these
facilities to achieve 98-percent control of emissions where only 97-
percent emissions control is required by the MACT standards for another
facility, they could, under MACT, increase emissions by a factor of 3.
Therefore, the maximum individual cancer risk based on MACT-allowable
emissions is estimated to be up to 60-in-1 million, and the maximum
chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is up to 0.9.
Table C.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels for the 152 modeled facilities.
Table C.2--Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations Facility-Wide Risk
Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million).. 200
MTVLO source category contribution to this maximum 10%
facility-wide individual cancer risk \1\................
Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI............... 4
MTVLO source category contribution to this maximum 20%
facility-wide non-cancer TOSHI \1\......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentage shown reflects MTVLO source category contribution to the
maximum facility-wide risks at the facility with the maximum risk
value shown.
The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a
facility that contains sources subject to the MTVLO MACT standards is
estimated to be 200-in-1 million, and the maximum chronic non-cancer
TOSHI value is estimated to be 4. The highest facility-wide cancer risk
for a facility that includes a MTVLO source is primarily driven by
emissions associated with sources subject to the organic liquids
distribution (OLD) NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE, and the
highest facility-wide non-cancer risk is primarily driven by chemical
manufacturing processes. The OLD and chemical manufacturing process
emissions will be addressed as part of our effort to develop integrated
requirements for the chemical manufacturing sector. We intend to
develop integrated rules for the chemical manufacturing sector over the
next 2 years.
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of risks above 1-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions levels for the population living within 5 km of the
facilities, among various demographic groups are provided in a report
available in the docket for this action and summarized in Table C.3
below.
[[Page 65114]]
Table C.3--Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 Other and Hispanic Below the Over 25 W/
million) Total Minority % African multi- or Latino Native poverty O a HS
(millions) American % racial % % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................. n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source Category............................ 20 0.06 29 7 21 38 0.6 15 19
Facility-wide.............................. 200 0.8 38 18 39 14 0.5 18 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis show that, for the MTVLO
source category, of the 60,000 people with cancer risk greater than 1-
in-1 million, 29 percent could be classified as a ``Minority,'' 38
percent are included in the ``Hispanic or Latino'' demographic group,
21 percent are included in the ``Other and Multiracial'' demographic
group, 15 percent are included in the ``Below Poverty Level''
demographic group, and 19 percent are included in the ``Over 25 Without
a High School Diploma'' demographic group. The percentage of the
population within 5 km of the terminal and with a cancer risk greater
than 1-in-1 million is higher than the typical distribution of these
demographic groups across the United States. The facility-wide
demographic analysis shows that many more people (800,000) are at
cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million. As with the MTVLO analysis,
many of the demographic groups have disparate impacts compared to the
distribution across the United States.
Details of these 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.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
a. October 2008 Proposed Decision
In October 2008, we proposed that the risks were acceptable because
the risk results indicated that cancer risks to the individual most
exposed to emissions from the category were greater than 1-in-1
million, but less than 100-in-1 million, and there were no other
significant health impacts. We identified one emissions control option
that would reduce risks in the ample margin of safety determination. We
proposed that such control was not necessary to protect public health
with an ample margin of safety in light of the high costs and limited
additional health protection it would provide. We also proposed that
emissions from the source category posed no potential for adverse
environmental effects, did not pose potential for human health
multipathway risks, and were unlikely to cause acute or chronic non-
cancer health impacts. Therefore, we proposed that the existing
standards provided an ample margin of safety and proposed to re-adopt
the existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
b. Risk Acceptability
The revised risk analysis we performed for this proposal indicates
that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed is 20-in-1 million
based on actual emissions and 30-in-1 million based on MACT-allowable
emissions. The cancer incidence and the number of people exposed to
cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater are relatively low, based on
actual emissions. The analyses show no potential for adverse
environmental effects or human health multipathway effects, and that
chronic, non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. The revised assessment
did indicate that an acute non-cancer HQ as high as 1 could occur,
based on the REL value. Our additional analysis of facility-wide risks
shows that the maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 200-in-1 millions
and the maximum facility-wide non-cancer TOSHI is 4. It also shows that
the MTVLO processes located at the facilities with these maximum risk
values contribute approximately 10 and 20 percent to such risks,
respectively. Our additional analyses of the demographics of the
exposed population show disparities in risks between demographic
groups, but MTVLO represent a small portion of the population at risk.
Based on this low cancer risk level and in consideration of other
health measures and factors, including the low cancer incidence (one
case in every 100 years) and the low maximum non-cancer risk level
(TOSHI of 0.3 based on actual emissions and 0.5 based on MACT-allowable
emissions), we propose that the risks from the MTVLO source category
are acceptable.
c. Ample Margin of Safety
Because we are proposing that the risks are acceptable, but still
above 1-in-1 million, we then reconsidered our 2008 ample margin of
safety decision.
We have not identified any additional control options or any
changes to the previously-analyzed control option that would further
reduce risks from MTVLO that have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million.
Our analysis does not indicate a change in the emissions reductions
that could be achieved or in the cost of control for the control option
considered, but ultimately rejected, in the October 2008 proposal.
Therefore, we continue to propose that the current MACT-based standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and the
environment, and we are proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT
standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
In the October 10, 2008 proposal, as part of our technology review,
we stated that we had not identified any advancements in practices,
processes, and control technologies applicable to the emission sources
in the MTVLO source category that would result in decreased emissions,
and, on that basis, proposed to re-adopt the existing MACT standards to
satisfy section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. In that review, we examined the
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses for subsequently-
promulgated air toxics regulations applicable to source categories with
emission sources similar to those in the MTVLO source category, and we
searched the RBLC for controls applicable to VOC- and HAP-emitting
processes in the MTVLO source category that might further reduce HAP
emissions. In addition to reviewing subsequent regulatory actions
applicable to similar types of emissions, such as those from loading
racks or transfer operations, we also conducted a review for other VOC
and organic HAP-emitting processes that would have similar, technology-
transferable controls.
We conducted a further review in conjunction with this proposed
rulemaking. The existing MACT
[[Page 65115]]
standards require collection and control for MTVLO facilities that load
at least 10 million barrels per year (bbl/yr) of gasoline. As part of
our technology review, we identified vapor collection and processors
(recovery), as a possible control for additional gasoline loading MTLVO
facilities. Recovery technology is appropriate for controlling mixtures
of compounds and gasoline is the highest-quantity commodity loaded,
based on our review of the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (WCSC)
database for the United States. The WCSC database contains detailed
information on the types and quantities of commodities loaded and
unloaded at United States ports, harbors, waterways, and canals.
As part of our technology review, we evaluated gasoline loading
thresholds of 0.5, 1.0, and 5 million bbl/yr gasoline loaded.
Specifically, we found that MTVLO facilities loading 5 million bbl/yr
have approximately 25 tons per year of HAP emissions. Facilities with
this level of HAP emissions are subject to the control requirements
under the existing rule. Therefore, loading in excess of 5 million bbl/
yr of gasoline is already required to be controlled under the current
standard.
We estimated the cost-effectiveness and overall impacts of the
vapor collection and recovery options as shown in Table C.4. As
discussed earlier, the 5 million bbl/yr threshold would not achieve any
HAP or VOC reductions beyond those required under the current rule. For
the 1 million bbl/yr threshold, we estimate an additional 190 TPY of
HAP emissions and 2,600 TPY of VOC emission reduction can be achieved.
The cost-effectiveness of these controls is $74,000 per ton of HAP
emission reduction and $5,500 per ton of VOC emission reduction. While
the HAP cost-effectiveness is higher than our historical values, the
VOC cost-effectiveness is within the range of acceptability. For the
0.5 million bbl/yr option, the additional costs of controls is
disproportionate to the additional emission reduction. As such, we are
proposing to reduce the threshold in the current rule from 10 million
bbl/yr to 1 million bbl/yr.
Table C.4--Cost-Effectiveness and Nationwide Impacts for Vapor Collection and Recovery Controls for Sources With Gasoline Loading
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Net
Gasoline loading threshold (million Capital cost annualized Recovery annualized HAP emission HAP cost- VOC emission VOC cost-
bbl/yr) (million $) cost credit cost reduction effectiveness reduction effectiveness
(million $) (million $) (million $) (TPY) ($/ton) (TPY) ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5..................................... 0 0 0 0 0 ............. 0 .............
1..................................... 22 16 1 14 190 74,000 2,600 5,500
0.5................................... 36 22 2 20 240 85,000 3,200 6,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current rule requires a 97 percent HAP reduction for those
facilities with a loading of 10 million bbl/yr. To foster the use of
vapor recovery rather than combustion of the vapors, we considered
additional formats for the standard. We looked to similar MACT
standards for gasoline loading of tank trucks and rail cars. Based on
our review of these standards, we believe that vapor recovery is
capable of achieving an emission limit of less than or equal to 10
milligrams of total organic compound emissions per liter of gasoline
loaded (mg/l). The 10 mg/l emission limit also approximates the 97-
percent control that is required for the larger-emitting, existing
MTVLO subcategories. Thus, we propose to provide facilities the option
of either meeting the 97-percent control requirement or the equivalent
emission limit of 10 mg/l.
In summary, as a result of the technology review under section
112(d)(6) of the CAA, we are proposing to lower the existing threshold
for control of emissions from gasoline loading from 10 million bbl/yr
to 1 million bbl/yr and to provide facilities the option of either
meeting the 97-percent control requirement or the equivalent emission
limit of 10 mg/l.
6. What other actions are we proposing?
a. SSM Provisions
We reviewed the SSM provisions of the MTVLO NESHAP. The MTVLO
NESHAP do contain an SSM exemption because they specify in 40 CFR
63.560, Table 1 that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) applies. Consistent with Sierra
Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing that standards in this rule would apply
at all times. We determined that there are currently several cross-
references in the MTVLO NESHAP that could cause some confusion
regarding periods of SSM. We also determined that the NESHAP do not
specifically address recordkeeping and reporting requirements during
periods of malfunction. We are, therefore, proposing several revisions
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y to address these issues. We are also
proposing to add language to 40 CFR 63.563(b)(1) to clarify the
conditions during which performance tests shall be conducted. We are
further proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.560, Table 1 to specify that the
SSM included provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), and 40
CFR 63.10(c)(10)-(11) of the General Provisions do not apply. Finally,
we are proposing to promulgate an affirmative defense against civil
penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions,
as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative defense.
EPA has attempted to ensure that we have removed any provisions in
the regulatory text 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 overlooked.
b. Significant Emission Points Not Previously Regulated
We also conducted a review of the MTVLO NESHAP to determine whether
there were significant emissions sources for which standards were not
previously developed. In this review, we identified two subcategories,
those facilities emitting less than 10/25 TPY of HAP, and those
facilities located more than 0.5 miles from shore, for which the
current NESHAP do not include emission standards. As discussed below,
we considered two levels of control (submerged fill and vapor recovery)
for these two subcategories.
Submerged fill reduces the amount of emissions generated from the
loading of vessels by reducing turbulence and misting. Use of this
technique results in a 60-percent reduction in emissions compared to
splash loading. We have determined that submerged fill is currently
used by most, if not all, of the facilities. We reached this conclusion
[[Page 65116]]
based on information obtained through contact with industry
representatives and the Coast Guard about submerged filling. Existing
Coast Guard rules (46 CFR 153.282) require that ``the discharge point
of a cargo tank filling line must be not higher above the bottom of the
cargo tank or sump than 10 centimeters (approximately 4 inches) or the
radius of the filling line, whichever is greater.'' According to Coast
Guard representatives, the radius of the fill lines can be up to 6
inches. We are proposing that the submerged fill technique is the MACT
floor.
We next undertook an evaluation of potential beyond-the-floor
options for the two identified subcategories. The only option beyond
the floor is the application of vapor collection and processors, which
were the basis for the emissions standards applicable to other MTVLO,
at existing facilities in two subcategories of the MTVLO NESHAP (60 FR
48388). We examined the use of these controls by sources in the two
subcategories in the context of the original MACT standards, but
rejected their use as a beyond the floor option because they were not
cost effective. As described above under the technology review, we are
proposing to lower the threshold for using vapor collection and
processing at MTVLO facilities loading gasoline from 10 million bbl/yr
to 1 million bbl/yr. We are also proposing to provide facilities the
option of either meeting the 97-percent control requirement or the
equivalent emission limit of 10 mg/l. For the reasons set forth above,
we are proposing these same requirements as a beyond the floor measure
for these two subcategories. As for those facilities that do not load 1
million bbl/yr, we are proposing no additional controls as part of our
beyond the floor analysis.
In conclusion, we are proposing in this action to set submerged
fill as the floor level of control for these two MTVLO subcategories.
Additionally, we are proposing vapor recovery as a beyond-the-floor
option for those two MTVLO subcategories if they load 1 million bbl/yr
or more of gasoline.
As noted above, we are proposing that the MACT standards, prior to
the implementation of the proposed emission limitations discussed in
this section, provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. Therefore, we maintain that after implementation, which will
further reduce HAP emissions, the rule will continue to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. Consequently, we do
not believe it will be necessary to conduct another residual risk
review under CAA section 112(f) for this source category 8 years
following promulgation of these limitations.
D. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Pharmaceuticals
Production source category?
1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standard
The National Emission Standards for Pharmaceuticals Production were
promulgated on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50280) and codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart GGG. The Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards
apply to major sources of HAP. We identified 27 facilities currently
subject to the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards.
The pharmaceutical manufacturing process consists of chemical
production operations that produce drugs and medication. These
operations include chemical synthesis (deriving a drug's active
ingredient) and chemical formulation (producing a drug in its final
form).
Emission sources at pharmaceutical production facilities include
breathing and withdrawal losses from chemical storage tanks, venting of
process vessels, leaks from piping and equipment used to transfer HAP
compounds (equipment leaks), and volatilization of HAP from wastewater
streams.
Typical control devices used to reduce HAP emissions from process
vents include flares, incinerators, scrubbers, carbon adsorbers, and
condensers. Emissions from storage vessels are controlled by floating
roofs or by routing them to a control device. Emissions from wastewater
are controlled by a variety of methods, including equipment
modifications (e.g., fixed roofs on storage vessels and oil water
separators; covers on surface impoundments containers, and drain
systems), treatment to remove the HAP (steam stripping, biological
treatment), control devices, and work practices. Emissions from
equipment leaks typically are reduced by leak detection and repair work
practice programs, and in some cases, by equipment modifications.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
We initially created a preliminary data set 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 data set and made
changes where necessary to ensure the proper facilities were included
and to ensure the proper processes were allocated to the
Pharmaceuticals Production 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 data
set, as well as to the data sets for the other source categories
addressed in that ANPRM. Comments received in response to the ANPRM
were reviewed and considered, and we made adjustments to the data set
where we concluded the comments supported such adjustment. After making
appropriate changes to the data set based on this public data review
process, the data set on which we based the initial proposal was
created. This data set was used to conduct the risk assessment and
other analyses for the Pharmaceuticals Production source category that
formed the basis for the proposed RTR review actions included in the
October 10, 2008 proposal.
We have continued to scrutinize the existing data set and have
evaluated any additional data that has become available since the
October 10, 2008 proposal. Since the time of the proposal, we
identified an error in the latitude/longitude coordinates of one
emission point at one facility. This error has been corrected in the
data set, and no other changes have been made to it since the proposal.
Methylene chloride, methanol, acetonitrile, and toluene account for
the majority of the HAP emissions from these facilities (approximately
890 TPY, or 85 percent of the total HAP emissions by mass). These
facilities also reported relatively small emissions of 54 other HAP.
For more detail, see the memo in the docket for this action describing
the risk assessment inputs and models for the Pharmaceuticals
Production source category.
We estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from this source category
could be up to 25 percent greater than the actual emissions, primarily
from process vents, as it is possible that the control devices used at
some facilities achieve greater emission reductions from these emission
sources than what is required by the MACT standard. For more detail
about this estimate of the ratio of actual to MACT-allowable emissions,
see the memo in the docket for this action describing the estimation of
MACT-allowable emission levels and associated risks and impacts.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We have conducted a revised inhalation risk assessment for the
[[Page 65117]]
Pharmaceuticals Production source category. We have also conducted an
assessment of facility-wide risk and performed a demographic analysis
of population risks. Table D.1 provides an overall summary of the
results of the revised inhalation risk assessment.
Table D.1--Pharmaceuticals Production Revised Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual Maximum chronic non-
cancer risk (in 1 Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
million) \2\ Population cancer --------------------------
Number of facilities \1\ -------------------------- at risk >= incidence Maximum off-site acute non-cancer
Actual Allowable 1-in-1 (cases per Actual Allowable HQ \4\
emissions emissions million year) emissions emissions
level level level level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27..................................... 3 4 2,000 0.0008 0.2 0.4 HQREL = 2 glycol ethers,
chloroform
HQAEGL 1 = 0.001 chloroform
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Pharmaceutical Production source category is the nervous system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
lowest available acute threshold. See section IV.A of this preamble for explanation of acute threshold values.
The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions
level data. As shown in Table D.1, the results of the revised
inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk could be as high as 3-in-1 million, the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.2. The total estimated national
cancer incidence from these facilities based on actual emission levels
is 0.0008 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,250
years. The maximum off-facility-site acute HQ value could be as high as
2, based on the actual emissions level and the REL value for
chloroform. The HQ value at this level occurs at a location adjacent to
one facility fenceline for only a few (13) hours per year. This maximum
exceedance of the REL value corresponds to an HQAEGL-2 equal
to 0.001. We also note a possible exceedance of the short-term REL
value for glycol ethers at one other facility (HQREL = 2).
There are no other appropriate acute threshold values available for
glycol ethers on which to base a comparison of potential risk.
Our analysis of potential differences between actual emission
levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standards indicated that
MACT-allowable emission levels may be up to 25 percent greater than
actual emission levels. Considering this difference, the risk results
from the revised inhalation risk assessment indicate the maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk could be as high as 4-in-1 million, and
the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 0.4 at the
MACT-allowable emissions level.
Table D.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels.
Table D.2--Pharmaceuticals Production Facility-Wide Risk Assessment
Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million).. 40
Pharmaceuticals Production source category contribution <1%
to this maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk \1\
Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI............... 0.8
Pharmaceuticals Production source category contribution <1%
to this maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI
\1\.....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Percentage shown reflects Pharmaceuticals Production source category
contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the facility with
the maximum risk value shown.
The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a
facility that contains sources subject to the Pharmaceuticals
Production MACT standards is estimated to be 40-in-1 million, and the
maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 0.8. At the
facility where these maximum risk values occur, the estimated
proportion of the risk attributable to the Pharmaceuticals Production
source category processes is less than one percent for both cancer and
non-cancer risk. The highest facility-wide cancer risk for a facility
that includes a pharmaceuticals production source is primarily driven
by acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) resin production processes,
and the highest facility-wide non-cancer risk is primarily driven by
pesticide manufacturing processes. These ABS resin and pesticide
manufacturing processes will be addressed in future residual risk and
technology reviews.
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of risks above 1-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions levels for the population living within 5 km of the
facilities, among various demographic groups are provided in a report
available in the docket for this action and summarized in Table D.3
below.
[[Page 65118]]
Table D.3--Pharmaceuticals Production Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 Other and Hispanic Below the Over 25 W/
million) Total Minority % African multiracial or Latino Native poverty O a HS
(millions) American % % % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................ n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source category........................... 3 0.002 12 4 8 34 0.5 32 25
Facility-wide............................. 40 0.03 18 14 4 12 0.3 21 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis show that, for the
Pharmaceuticals Production source category, of the population of 2,000
people with cancer risk greater than 1-in-1 million, 34 percent are
included in the ``Hispanic or Latino'' demographic group, 32 percent
are included in the ``Below Poverty Level'' demographic group, and 25
percent are included in the ``Over 25 Without a High School Diploma''
demographic group. The percentage of the population within 5 km of a
pharmaceuticals production facility and with a cancer risk greater than
1-in-1 million is higher than seen for these demographic categories
based on the distribution of these demographic groups across the United
States. The table also shows that the results of the facility-wide
demographic analysis are higher than seen across the U.S, for the those
included in the ``African American,'' ``Below Poverty Level,'' and the
``Over 25 Without a High School Diploma'' demographic groups, but the
risks are lower than these levels for the other demographic groups.
Details of these 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.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
a. October 2008 Proposed Decision
In our October 10, 2008 proposal, we stated that the risks were
acceptable because the risk results indicated that cancer risks to the
individual most exposed to emissions from the category of 10-in-1
million were greater than 1-in-1 million but less than 100-in-1
million. We then analyzed other risk factors and emissions control
options in the ample margin of safety determination. In this analysis,
we found emissions from the source category posed no potential for an
adverse environmental effect, did not pose potential for human health
multi-pathway risks, and were unlikely to cause acute or chronic non-
cancer health impacts. We also identified one emissions control option
that would reduce risks. We proposed that such control was not
necessary to protect public health with an ample margin of safety in
light of the high cost and limited additional health protection it
would provide. Therefore, we proposed that the existing standard
provided an ample margin of safety, and we proposed to re-adopt the
existing MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
b. Risk Acceptability
The revised inhalation risk analysis we performed for this proposal
indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed is 3-in-
1 million based on actual emissions and up to 4-in-1 million based on
MACT-allowable emissions. The cancer incidence and the number of people
exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater are not
significantly changed from the risk identified in the October 2008
proposal. Similarly, the risk analysis continued to show no potential
for an adverse environmental effect or human health multi-pathway
effects, and that chronic non-cancer health impacts are unlikely. The
revised assessment did indicate that an acute non-cancer HQ as high as
2 could occur, based on the REL value at a location adjacent to the
facility fenceline for only a few (13) hours per year. However, we do
not believe this situation warrants additional control considering the
overall health effects. While our additional analysis of facility-wide
risks showed that the maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 40-in-1
million, it also showed that pharmaceutical sources located at such
facilities contributed less than 1 percent to such risk. The facility-
wide analysis indicates that the maximum chronic non-cancer risks are
unlikely to cause health impacts. Our additional analysis of the
demographics of the exposed population may show disparities in risks
between demographic groups. Based on this low cancer risk level and in
consideration of other health measures and factors, including the low
cancer incidence (one case in every 1,250 years) and the low maximum
non-cancer risk level (TOSHI of 0.2 based on actual emissions and 0.4
based on MACT-allowable emissions), we propose that the risks from the
Pharmaceuticals Production source category are acceptable.
c. Ample Margin of Safety
Because we are proposing that the risks are acceptable, but still
above 1-in-1 million, we then re-considered our 2008 ample margin of
safety decision.
We have not identified any additional control options or any
changes to the previously-analyzed control option that would affect
emissions reductions or the costs of control. Therefore, we continue to
propose that the current MACT standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and the environment, and we are
proposing to re-adopt the existing MACT standards to satisfy section
112(f) of the CAA.
5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
In the October 10, 2008 proposal, we identified no developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies applicable to the
emission sources and thus we did not propose any additional controls as
necessary under CAA section 112(d)(6). In that review, we examined the
regulatory requirements and/or technical analyses for subsequently
promulgated air toxics regulations with similar types of emissions
sources as those in the Pharmaceuticals Production source category, and
we conducted a search of the RBLC for controls for VOC- and HAP-
emitting processes in the Pharmaceuticals Production source category.
We have not identified any additional developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies since the proposal date. Thus, we
are again proposing that it is not necessary to revise the existing
MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(6).
6. What other actions are we proposing?
a. SSM Provisions
We propose to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Pharmaceuticals
[[Page 65119]]
Production MACT standards. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA
proposes that standards in this rule would apply at all times. We are
proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG.
Specifically, we are proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate that the
requirements in 40 CFR 63.6(e) of the General Provisions do not apply.
The 40 CFR 63.6(e) requires owner 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 63.1250(g)(3).
The 40 CFR 63.6(e) 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 proposing to remove the exemption
provisions for periods of SSM in 40 CFR 63.1250(g), require that delay
of equipment leak repair plans be contained in a separate document in
40 CFR 63.1255(g)(4), revise 40 CFR 63.1257(a) to specify the
conditions for performance tests, and revise the SSM associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 40 CFR
63.1258(b)(8), 40 CFR 63.1259(a), and 40 CFR 63.1260(i) to require
reporting and recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are also
proposing to revise Table 1 to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), the last sentence of 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3), 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, we are proposing to promulgate an
affirmative defense against civil penalties for exceedances of emission
standards caused by malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing
the affirmative defense. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not
incorporated into 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.
b. Rule Improvements Review
We are proposing to correct an editorial error in 40 CFR
63.1257(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii). That section specifies several criteria
under which the inlet to the equalization tank may be considered as the
inlet to the biological treatment process for the purposes of
performance tests to show compliance with the standards in 40 CFR
63.1256(a)(2)(i). This section incorrectly provides that only one of
the listed criteria must be met for the inlet to the equalization tank
to be considered the inlet to the biological treatment process.
Instead, it should specify that all of the criteria must be met. Thus,
we are proposing to revise this section by changing the ``or'' before
each clause to ``and,'' to clarify that all the criteria of 40 CFR
63.1256(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii) must be met for the inlet to the
equalization tank to be considered as the inlet to the biological
treatment process.
E. What are the results and proposed decisions for the Printing and
Publishing Industry source category?
1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standard
The National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing
Industry were promulgated on May 30, 1996 (61 FR 27132) and codified at
40 CFR part 63, subpart KK. The Printing and Publishing Industry MACT
standards apply to major sources of HAP. We identified 172 facilities
currently subject to the Printing and Publishing Industry MACT
standards.
Printing and publishing facilities are those facilities that use
rotogravure, flexography, and other methods, such as lithography,
letterpress, and screen printing, to print on a variety of substrates,
including paper, plastic film, metal foil, and vinyl. The Printing and
Publishing Industry MACT standards include two subcategories: (1)
Publication rotogravure printing and (2) product and packaging
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing. Emissions at printing
and publishing facilities result from the evaporation of solvents in
the inks and from cleaning solvents. The emission points include
printing presses and associated dryers and ink and solvent storage.
Control techniques include recovery devices, combustion devices, and
the use of non-HAP/low-HAP inks and cleaning solvents.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
We initially created a preliminary data set 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 data and made
changes where necessary to ensure the proper facilities were included
and to ensure the proper processes were allocated to the Printing and
Publishing Industry 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 on and updates to this data set, as well
as to the data sets for the other source categories addressed in that
ANPRM. Comments received in response to the ANPRM were reviewed and
considered, and we made adjustments to the data set where we concluded
the comments supported such adjustment. After making appropriate
changes to the data set based on this public data review process, the
data set on which we based the initial proposal was created. This data
set was used to conduct the risk assessment and other analyses for the
Printing and Publishing Industry source category that formed the basis
for the proposed RTR actions included in the October 2008 proposal.
We have continued to scrutinize the existing data set and have
evaluated any additional data that became available since the October
2008 proposal. Since the time of the proposal, we identified errors in
some HAP that were reported to be emitted and several facilities that
were included have permanently closed. The data set was updated to
correct the errors and remove the facilities that have closed.
Toluene accounts for the majority of the HAP emissions from these
facilities (approximately 7,105 TPY, or 83 percent of the total HAP
emissions by mass). These facilities also reported relatively small
emissions of 58 other HAP. These emissions are primarily from the
evaporation of HAP present in the inks and other materials applied with
rotogravure and flexographic processes.
We estimate that MACT-allowable emissions from emission points
within this source category could be up to five times greater than the
actual emissions because some capture systems and control devices used
on printers at some facilities could achieve greater emission
reductions (in the range of 98 to possibly 100 percent) than what is
required by the MACT standard (92 percent). For more detail about this
estimate of the ratio of actual to MACT-allowable emissions, see the
memo in the docket for this action describing the estimation of MACT-
allowable emission levels and associated risks and impacts.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We have conducted a revised inhalation risk assessment for the
Printing and Publishing Industry source category. We have also
conducted an assessment of facility-wide risk, and performed a
demographic analysis of
[[Page 65120]]
population risks. Table E.1 provides an overall summary of the results
of the revised inhalation risk assessment.
Table E.1--Printing and Publishing Industry Revised Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer Maximum chronic non-
risk (in 1 million) \2\ Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
Number of facilities ---------------------------- Population cancer ----------------------------
\1\ Actual Allowable at risk >= 1- incidence Actual Allowable Maximum off-site acute non-cancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions in-1 million (cases per emissions emissions
level level year) level level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
172................... 4 20 300 0.0006 0.08 0.4 HQREL = 10 toluene
HQAEGL-1 = 0.6 toluene
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Printing and Publishing Industry source category is the reproductive system.
\4\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next
lowest available acute threshold. See section IV.A. of this preamble for explanation of acute threshold values.
The inhalation risk modeling was performed using actual emissions
level data. As shown in Table E.1, the risks based on these actual
emission levels indicate the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk
could be as high as 4-in-1 million, the maximum chronic non-cancer
TOSHI value could be up to 0.08. The total estimated national cancer
incidence from these facilities based on the actual emission levels is
0.0006 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,666 years.
The maximum off-facility-site acute HQ value could be as high as 10,
based on the actual emissions level and the REL value for toluene. The
HQ value at this level occurs at a location adjacent to one facility
fenceline for only a few (90) hours per year. This maximum exceedance
of the REL value corresponds to an HQAEGL-1 equal to 0.6.
Our analysis of potential differences between actual emission
levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standard indicated that
MACT-allowable emission levels may be up to five times greater than
actual emission levels. Assuming this worst case difference occurred at
the highest risk facility, the scaled risk results from the revised
inhalation risk assessment would 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 up to 0.4.
Table E.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels.
Table E.2--Printing and Publishing Industry Facility-Wide Risk
Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million).. 20
Printing and Publishing Industry source category < 1%
contribution to this maximum facility-wide individual
cancer risk \1\.........................................
Maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI............... \1\ 20
Printing and Publishing Industry source category \3\ < 1%
contribution to this maximum facility-wide chronic non-
cancer TOSHI \2\........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After risk modeling was complete, EPA received data that identified
an error in emissions that caused this highest TOSHI value. After
revising the emissions value, the highest facility-wide TOSHI is 2
from a different facility.
\2\ Percentage shown reflects Printing and Publishing Industry source
category contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the
facility with the maximum risk value shown.
\3\ This percentage reflects the Printing and Publishing Industry source
category contribution to the highest facility-wide TOSHI of 2, as
noted in footnote 1 to this table.
The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a facility
that contains sources subject to the Printing and Publishing Industry
MACT standards is estimated to be 20-in-1 million, and the maximum
chronic non-cancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 20. At the facilities
where these maximum risk values occur, the estimated proportion of the
risk attributable to the Printing and Publishing Industry source
category processes is less than one percent for both cancer and non-
cancer risk.
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of risks above 1-in-1 million, based on actual
emissions levels for the population living within 5 km of the
facilities, among various demographic groups are provided in a report
available in the docket for this action and summarized in Table E.3
below.
Table E.3--Printing and Publishing Industry Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis risk (in 1 Other and Hispanic Below the Over 25 W/
million) Total Minority % African multiracial or Latino Native poverty O a HS
(millions) American % % % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................ n/a 285 25 12 12 14 0.9 13 13
Source Category........................... 4 0.00005 0 0 0 0 0 11 5
[[Page 65121]]
Facility-wide............................. 20 0.05 14 8 5 5 0.3 9 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Printing and Publishing Industry source category
demographic analysis show that for the 50 people living within 5 km of
a printing and publishing industry facility and with a cancer risk
greater than 1-in-1 million is less than the national averages for the
demographic categories displayed in Table E.3, based on the typical
distribution of these demographic groups across the United States. The
table also shows that the results of the demographic analysis for the
facility-wide emissions are similarly less than the national averages
for these demographic groups. This means the emissions from these
sources do not create any significant disparate risk impacts.
Details of these assessments and analyses can be found in the
residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
a. October 2008 Proposed Decision
In our October 10, 2008 proposal, the risk results indicated that
cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from the
category was 0.05-in-1 million, which is less than 1-in-1 million
(i.e., were ``low risk''). Therefore, we did not conduct an additional
ample margin of safety analysis for the proposed rule.
b. Risk Acceptability
While at the time of the October 10, 2008 proposal this source
category showed low risks (cancer risks to the individual most exposed
to emissions from the category were less than 1-in-1 million), in our
revised analysis we found that cancer risks to the individual most
exposed to emissions from the category were 4-in-1 million based on
actual emissions and as high as 20-in-1 million based on MACT-allowable
emissions. This change in risk is primarily the result of a cancer
health benchmark value becoming available for ethyl benzene. The cancer
incidence and the number of people exposed to cancer risks of 1-in-1
million or greater are relatively low, based on actual emissions. The
analyses show no potential for an adverse environmental effect or human
health multi-pathway effects, and that chronic non-cancer health
impacts are unlikely. The revised assessment did indicate that an acute
non-cancer HQ as high as 10 could occur, based on the REL value for
toluene at a location adjacent to the facility fenceline for up to 90
hours per year. However, given the fact that this potential impact does
not exceed the AEGL-1 value for toluene (HQAEGL-1 = 0.6) we
do not believe this situation warrants additional control considering
the overall health effects. Our additional analysis of facility-wide
risks showed that the maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 20-in-1
million and the maximum facility-wide non-cancer TOSHI is 20. It also
showed that the printing and publishing processes located at the
facilities with these maximum risk values contribute less than 1
percent to such risks. As previously mentioned, our additional analysis
of the demographics of the exposed population suggests there are not
large disparities in risks between demographic groups.
Based on this low cancer risk level and in consideration of other
health measures and factors, including the low cancer incidence (one
case in every 1,666 years), the low maximum non-cancer risk level
(TOSHI of 0.08 based on actual emissions and 0.4 based on MACT-
allowable emissions), relatively low facility-wide risks which are not
attributable to the printing and publishing category, and the lack of
disparate impacts in the demographic analysis, we propose that the
risks from the Printing and Publishing Industry source category are
acceptable.
c. Ample Margin of Safety
Because we are proposing that the risks are acceptable, but still
above 1-in-1 million, we then re-considered our 2008 ample margin of
safety decision. Based on these analyses, we continue to propose that
the current MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health and the environment, and we are proposing to re-adopt the
existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
In the October 2008 proposal, we identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control technologies applicable to the
emission sources in the Printing and Publishing Industry source
category in our technology review, and thus we proposed that it was not
necessary to revise the existing MACT standards pursuant to section
112(d)(6) of the CAA. In that review we examined the regulatory
requirements and/or technical analyses for subsequently promulgated air
toxics regulations with similar types of emissions sources as those in
the Printing and Publishing Industry source category, and we conducted
a search of the RBLC for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting processes
in the Printing and Publishing Industry source category. We re-examined
these same sources of information to identify any new developments
since the time of the October 2008 proposal. For the purposes of this
proposal, we examined the option of retrofitting permanent total
enclosures onto those controlled presses that do not already have
permanent total enclosures. A permanent total enclosure improves the
capture of solvent HAP from inks and delivers the additional captured
solvent HAP to a control device. We estimate the cost-effectiveness of
this retrofit to be over $50,000 per additional ton of HAP controlled.
We find the cost of this retrofit to 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 pursuant to
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
6. What other actions are we proposing?
We propose to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Printing and
Publishing Industry MACT standard. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA,
EPA proposes that standards in this rule would apply at all times. We
are proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK regarding
the standards that apply during periods of
[[Page 65122]]
SSM. Specifically, we are proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate that
the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e) of the General Provisions do not
apply. Section 63.6(e) 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
40 CFR 63.823. The 40 CFR 63.6(e) 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 revise 40
CFR 63.827 to specify the conditions for performance tests and to
revise 40 CFR 63.829 and 40 CFR 63.830 to require reporting and
recordkeeping for periods of malfunction. We are proposing to revise
Table 1 to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1), 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), the last
sentence of 40 CFR 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, we are proposing to
promulgate an affirmative defense against civil penalties for
exceedances of emission standards caused by malfunctions, as well as
criteria for establishing the affirmative defense. EPA has attempted to
ensure that we have not incorporated into 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.
F. What are the results and proposed decisions for Steel Pickling--HCl
Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants source
category?
1. Overview of the Source Category and MACT Standard
The National Emission Standards for Steel Pickling--HCl Process
Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants were promulgated
on June 22, 1999 (64 FR 33202) and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CCC. The Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid
Regeneration Plants MACT standards (i.e., Steel Pickling MACT standard)
apply to major sources of HAP. We estimate that there are approximately
80 facilities subject to the MACT standards that are currently
performing steel pickling and/or acid regeneration. Many of these
facilities are located adjacent to integrated iron and steel
manufacturing plants or electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities
(mini-mills) that produce steel from scrap. Facilities that regenerate
HCl may or may not be located at steel pickling operations.
The Steel Pickling source category consists of facilities that
pickle steel, using HCl as the pickling acid, and facilities that
regenerate the HCl after use, but does not include facilities which
pickle steel using acids other than HCl.
Steel pickling is a treatment process in which the heavy oxide
crust or mill scale that develops on the steel surface during hot
forming or heat treating is removed chemically in a bath of aqueous
acid solution. Pickling is a process applied to metallic substances
that removes surface impurities, stains, or crusts to prepare the metal
for subsequent plating (e.g., with chromium) or other treatment, such
as galvanization or painting.
The HAP emission points from the steel pickling and acid
regeneration processes include spray roasters, steel pickling baths,
steel pickling sprays, and tank vents.
Typical control devices used to reduce HAP emissions from steel
pickling facilities include a packed tower scrubber, sieve tray
scrubber, or horizontal packed bed scrubber. Each type of scrubber is
coupled with a demister. The general trend in scrubber installations at
steel pickling facilities is to replace older scrubbers with sieve tray
scrubbers, which generate less scrubber effluent (blowdown). For acid
regeneration roasters, a cyclone or a Venturi pre-concentrator is
generally used before the emissions are scrubbed in one or two counter-
current packed tower absorbers.
2. What data were used in our risk analyses?
For the Steel Pickling source category, we compiled preliminary
data sets using data in the 2005 NEI. We reviewed these data and made
changes where necessary. We also contacted several facilities to verify
the emissions and emissions release characteristic data, and we made
updates to the data set based on the information received from these
communications. This updated data set comprises the data set that was
used to conduct the risk assessments and other analyses that form the
basis for this proposed action. Hydrochloric acid and chlorine account
for all of the HAP emissions from the Steel Pickling source category
(approximately 248 and 164 TPY, respectively).
Our analysis of potential differences between actual emission
levels and emissions allowable under the MACT standards indicate that
actual emissions and allowable emissions are approximately the same as
allowable emissions. The available data indicate that pickling
processes throughout the industry are equipped with controls that
achieve the HCl and chlorine emission limits required by the MACT
standards. For more detail about this estimate of the ratio of actual
to MACT-allowable emissions, see the memo in the docket for this action
describing the estimation of MACT-allowable emission levels and
associated risks and impacts.
3. What are the results of the risk assessments and analyses?
We have conducted an inhalation risk assessment for the Steel
Pickling source category. We have also conducted an assessment of
facility-wide risk and performed a demographic analysis of population
risks. Table F.1 provides an overall summary of the inhalation risk
assessment results.
Table F.1--Steel Pickling Inhalation Risk Assessment Results *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum chronic non-cancer
TOSHI \2\
-------------------------------- Population at Maximum off-site acute non-
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable risk from HI > cancer HQ \3\
emissions emissions 1
level level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51 Modeled Facilities........... 2 2 30 HQREL = 0.4 chlorine
[[Page 65123]]
80 Major Source Facilities 2 2 50 HQREL = 0.4 chlorine
Subject to the MACT Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All results are for impacts out to 50 km from every source in the category.
\1\ There are 51 facilities in the data set that were modeled. It is believed that these facilities are
representative of the entire source category and that the maximum risks are characterized. The population
risks were scaled up based on a linear relationship.
\2\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Steel Pickling source category is the
neurological system.
\3\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to
develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most
cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also show HQ values using the next lowest available acute
threshold. See section IV.A of this preamble for explanation of acute threshold values.
The results of the inhalation risk assessment indicated there are
no cancer risks or incidences attributable to emissions from the Steel
Pickling source category because there were no emissions of any HAP
with cancer dose-response values (i.e., no known carcinogens are
emitted from these sources). As shown in Table F.1, the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value could be as high as 2. The maximum off-facility-
site acute HQ value could be as high as 0.4, based on the actual
emissions level and the REL value for chlorine. As our analysis of
potential differences between actual emission levels and emissions
allowable under the MACT standards indicate, actual emissions are
approximately the same as MACT-allowable emissions, and the risk
results for actual emissions are approximately the same as those for
MACT-allowable emissions.
Table F.2 displays the results of the facility-wide risk
assessment. This assessment was conducted based on actual emission
levels for the 51 modeled facilities.
Table F.2--Steel Pickling Facility-Wide Risk Assessment Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Facility-Wide Individual Cancer Risk (in 1 million).. 100
Steel Pickling source category contribution to this \1\ NA
maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk............
Maximum Facility-Wide Chronic Non-cancer TOSHI............... 10
Steel Pickling source category contribution to this < 1%
maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI \2\......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Steel Pickling source category does not contribute to the
facility-wide cancer risks, as the facilities in this source category
do not report emissions of any HAP with cancer dose-response values.
\2\ Percentage shown reflects Steel Pickling source category
contribution to the maximum facility-wide risks at the facility with
the maximum risk value shown.
The maximum individual cancer risk from all HAP emissions at a
facility that contains sources subject to the Steel Pickling--HCl
Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants MACT
standards is estimated to be 100-in-1 million, and the maximum chronic
non-cancer TOSHI value is estimated to be 10. As noted previously,
there were no emissions of any HAP with cancer dose-response values
from the Steel Pickling source category; therefore, this source
category does not contribute to the maximum facility-wide cancer risk
of 100-in-1 million. At the facility where the maximum TOSHI risk value
occurs, the estimated proportion of the risk attributable to the Steel
Pickling source category processes is less than one percent. The
highest facility-wide cancer risk for a facility that includes a steel
pickling or HCL regeneration source is primarily driven by iron and
steel processes and coke oven emissions. The iron and steel processes
will be addressed in a future residual risk review, some coke oven
processes (charging, top side, and door leaks) have been addressed in a
previous rulemaking action (70 FR 19992), and other coke oven processes
(pushing, quenching, and battery stacks) will be addressed in a future
residual risk review.
The results of the demographic analyses performed to investigate
the distribution of TOSHI greater than 1, based on actual emissions
levels for the population living within 5 km of the facilities, among
various demographic groups are provided in a report available in the
docket for this action and summarized in Table F.3 below.
Table F.3--Steel Pickling Demographic Risk Analysis Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with TOSHI greater than 1-in-1 million
Maximum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions basis respiratory Other and Hispanic Below the Over 25 W/
hazard Total Minority % African multiracial or Latino Native poverty O a HS
index (millions) American % % % American % level % diploma %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide................................ n/a 175 32 16 15 16 0.6 13 13
Source Category........................... 2 0.000045 0 0 0 9 0 6 9
Facility-wide............................. 10 0.0017 41 34 6 1 0.2 11 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65124]]
The results of the Steel Pickling source category demographic
analysis show that there are 45 people exposed to an HI of one or
greater from the source category and 1,700 people exposed to an HI of
one or greater for the facility-wide emissions. Of this relatively
small number of people for the source category, none of the groups
shows a disparate impact compared to the national distribution of non-
cancer risk. The facility-wide analysis shows a higher percentage
population with an HI of one or more only for those that could be
classified as a ``Minority'' and for those included in the ``African
American'' demographic group.
Details of these assessments and analyses can be found in the
residual risk documentation as referenced in section IV.A of this
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What are our proposed decisions on risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
a. Risk Acceptability
The Steel Pickling source category does not emit HAP that are
known, probable, or possible carcinogens; therefore, based on actual
and MACT-allowable emission levels, cancer risks are less than 1-in-1
million to the individual most exposed. The analyses we performed for
this proposal show no potential for an adverse environmental effect or
human health multi-pathway effects, and that acute non-cancer health
impacts are unlikely. We determined that emissions from the Steel
Pickling source category would result in chronic non-cancer TOSHI
approximately equal to 2 for the individual most exposed based on
either actual emissions or MACT-allowable emissions. This HI value is
for one facility, which has had compliance issues with the MACT
standards. The emissions data used in our analysis include emissions
that are in excess of what is allowed by the MACT standards. Work is
underway between this facility, OECA at EPA, and the State to improve
compliance. The next highest HI from any facility in the source
category is 0.1. Based on this, we do not anticipate that MACT-
allowable emissions for the sources in this category, or actual
emissions when a source is in compliance with the MACT standards, would
result in adverse chronic non-cancer health effects. Our additional
analysis of facility-wide risks showed that the maximum facility-wide
cancer risk is 100-in-1 million and the maximum facility-wide non-
cancer TOSHI is 10. It also showed that the steel pickling processes
located at the facilities with these maximum risk values did not
contribute to the cancer risk and contributed less than 1 percent to
these non-cancer risks. Our additional analysis of the demographics of
the exposed population may show disparities in risks between
demographic groups. Based on this cancer risk level and in
consideration of other health measures and factors, including the
cancer incidence (no cases) and the low maximum non-cancer risk level
(TOSHI of 0.2), the lack of disparate impacts in the demographic
analysis, and the small contribution to the facility-wide risks, we
propose that the risks from the Steel Pickling source category are
acceptable.
b. Ample Margin of Safety
We are proposing that the risks are acceptable, and while cancer
risks were not above 1-in-1 million (the level at which we generally
perform an ample margin of safety analysis), we decided to consider
other factors before making a decision regarding the need for standards
to reduce risks.
Based on these analyses, we continue to propose that the current
MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and the environment, and we are proposing to re-adopt the
existing MACT standards to satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
5. What are our proposed decisions on the technology review?
We evaluated developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the Steel Pickling source category. This
included a search of the RBLC and the internet. The only advancement
that we identified was one technology that is being used instead of
steel pickling for some applications which is called the smooth clean
surface (SCS) process. The SCS process uses patented roller brushes to
remove scale from steel sheets and coils. However, this technology
leaves the last layer of scale, resulting in a product that is rust-
resistant, but is not conducive to in-line galvanizing, painting,
enameling or electrolytic plating. Additionally, some types of forming,
including hydroforming, cold reduction and deep draw cannot be used
with SCS treated steel. It is therefore not a viable replacement for
steel pickling operations. Another technology, eco pickled surface
(EPS), could potentially become a low-emission alternative for steel
pickling. EPS blasts steel with an acid-free slurry which, like steel
pickling, removes all layers of scale. However, EPS only became
commercially available in 2009 and it is not yet a proven technology.
Thus, it is premature to consider it as a replacement for steel
pickling operations.
Because we determined that the only identified development is not
technologically feasible at this time, we are proposing that it is not
necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to section 112(d)(6).
6. What other actions are we proposing?
We propose to eliminate the SSM exemption in the Steel Pickling
MACT standards. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA proposes that
standards in this rule would apply at all times. We are proposing
several revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC regarding the
standards that apply during periods of SSM. Specifically, we are
proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate that the requirements in 40 CFR
63.6(e) of the General Provisions do not apply. The 40 CFR 63.6(e)
requires owner 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 40 CFR 63.1159(c). The 40 CFR
63.6(e) 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 revise 40 CFR 63.1161 to specify
the conditions for performance tests, to revise the SSM-associated
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.1164 and 40 CFR
63.1165 to require reporting and recordkeeping for periods of
malfunction, and to revise Table 1 to specify that 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1),
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), the last sentence of 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3), 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (vi), 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, we are proposing to promulgate an affirmative defense against
civil penalties for exceedances of emission standards caused by
malfunctions, as well as criteria for establishing the affirmative
defense. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not incorporated into
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.
[[Page 65125]]
VI. Summary of Proposed Actions
A. What actions are we proposing as a result of the technology reviews?
For the technology review for the chromium electroplating and
anodizing source categories, we are proposing to amend the rules to
prohibit the addition of PFOS-based WAFS to the electroplating or
anodizing tanks. For these source categories, we are also proposing to
require several housekeeping requirements to minimize emissions of
chromium-laden fugitive dust from chromium electroplating operations
and for owners and operators to incorporate these housekeeping
procedures in the facility operation and maintenance plan. For MTVLO,
we are proposing to lower the existing threshold for control of
emissions from gasoline loading from 10 million bbl/yr to 1 million
bbl/yr.
For the Group I Polymers and Resins, Pharmaceuticals Production,
and Printing and Publishing Industry MACT standards, which were
addressed in the October 10, 2008 proposal, we have reaffirmed our
previous determinations that there have been no developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies. Thus, we are continuing
to propose that it is not necessary to revise the existing MACT
requirements based on our CAA section 112(d)(6) review.
For the Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric
Acid Regeneration Plants source category, we have determined that there
have been no developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies since the promulgation of the MACT standards, and we are
proposing that it is not necessary to revise the existing MACT
requirements based on our CAA section 112(d)(6) review.
B. What actions are we proposing as a result of the residual risk
reviews?
For the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Hypalon\TM\
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene Rubber
Production, Styrene-Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production, MTVLO,
Pharmaceuticals Production, and Printing and Publishing Industry MACT
standards source categories, which were addressed in the October 10,
2008 proposal, we have reaffirmed our proposed determinations that the
MACT standards for these source categories provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental
effects. Thus, we are continuing to propose to re-adopt each of these
standards for purposes of meeting the requirements of CAA sections
112(f)(2).
For the Hard Chromium Electroplating, Decorative Chromium
Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing, and Steel Pickling--HCl Process
Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants MACT standards
source categories, 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
standards for the purpose of meeting the requirements of CAA section
112(f)(2).
C. What other actions are we proposing?
We propose to amend the Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing Tanks, Group I Polymers and Resins, MTVLO,
Pharmaceuticals Production, Printing and Publishing Industry, and Steel
Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration
Plants 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 against 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, which
addressed similar provisions in the General Provisions that apply to
many MACT standards.
We are also proposing requirements for two MACT standards under the
authority of section 112(d)(2) and (3) of the CAA to address emission
points for which emission standards were previously not developed. For
the MTVLO MACT standard, we are proposing to add the requirement to
perform submerged fill for existing facilities for two subcategories,
those emitting less than 10/25 tons of HAP, and those located more than
0.5 miles from shore. For the Group I Polymers and Resins MACT standard
source categories, we propose to add MACT standards limiting emissions
from the back-end process operations from the Butyl Rubber Production
subcategory, the Halobutyl Rubber Production subcategory, the
Epichlorohydrin Rubber Production source category, the Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber Production source category, and the Neoprene Rubber
Production source category. We also propose to revise the MACT
standards for front-end process vents from the Butyl Rubber Production
subcategory, the Halobutyl Rubber Production subcategory, and the
Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production source category by requiring
control of HCl emissions resulting from the combustion of chlorinated
organic compounds.
In addition, we are proposing minor changes to two MACT standards
to improve compliance and correct errors. For the Chromium
Electroplating MACT standard source categories, we are proposing to
clarify that testing can be performed by either Method 306 or Method
306A, and we are proposing to revise Method 306B to correct
inconsistencies between the amendments made to subpart N in 2004 (69 FR
42885) and Method 306B. In addition, to eliminate a discrepancy between
the Chromium Electroplating MACT standard and the General Provisions to
part 63, we are also proposing to revise the trigger for semiannual
compliance reports to be consistent with General Provisions to part 63.
For the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standards, we are proposing to
correct one typographical error.
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. 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.
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
[[Page 65126]]
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 description of the method used to
Code For Revised Emissions. 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 Enter maximum hourly malfunction
Hourly. 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 Enter revised Emission Release Point Type
Point 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 Enter revised Facility Category Code
Code. here, which indicates whether facility
is a major or area source.
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 Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance
Performance Level Code. 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 No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0600 (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.
[[Page 65127]]
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 rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
The proposed revisions to the SSM provisions for all of the
standards being amended with this proposed rule will reduce the
reporting burden associated with having to prepare and submit an SSM
report. We are not proposing any new paperwork requirements to the
Pharmaceuticals Production, Printing and Publishing Industry, and Steel
Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration
Plants MACT standards. Revisions and burden associated with amendments
to the Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks; Group I Polymers and Resins; and MTVLO MACT standards
are discussed in the following paragraphs. The OMB has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations being amended with this proposed rule (i.e., 40
CFR part 63, subparts N, U, Y, KK, CCC, and GGG) under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
1. Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing
Tanks MACT Standard
The ICR document prepared by EPA for the amendments to the Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks MACT
standards has been assigned EPA ICR number 1611.08. Burden changes
associated with these amendments would result from new recordkeeping
and reporting requirements associated with the new housekeeping
requirements being proposed with today's action. The estimated average
burden per response is 11 hours; the frequency of response is annual
for all respondents that must comply with the rule's reporting
requirements and the estimated average number of likely respondents per
year is 590. The cost burden to respondents resulting from the
collection of information includes the total capital cost annualized
over the equipment's expected useful life (about $171,000), a total
operation and maintenance component (about $534,000 per year), and a
labor cost component (about $500,000 per year).
2. Group I Polymers and Resins MACT Standard
The ICR document prepared by EPA for the amendments to the Group I
Polymers and Resins MACT standards has been assigned EPA ICR number
2410.01. Burden changes associated with these amendments would result
from new recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the
new back-end process operation emission limits for epichlorohydrin,
neoprene, nitrile butadiene rubber, and butyl rubber and the HCl
emission limits from the front-end process vents for ethylene propylene
rubber and butyl rubber being proposed with this action. The estimated
average burden per response is 237 hours; the frequency of response is
annual for all respondents that must comply with the rule's reporting
requirements and the estimated average number of likely respondents per
year is 19. The cost burden to respondents resulting from the
collection of information includes the total capital cost annualized
over the equipment's expected useful life (averaging $2,800), a total
operation and maintenance component (averaging $1,000 per year), and a
labor cost component (averaging $1.1 million per year).
3. Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations MACT Standard
The ICR document prepared by EPA for the amendments to the MTVLO
MACT standards has been assigned EPA ICR number 1679.08. Burden changes
associated with these amendments would result from new recordkeeping
and reporting requirements associated with the vapor recovery
requirements being proposed with today's action. The estimated average
burden per response is 46 hours; the frequency of response is annual
for all respondents that must comply with the rule's reporting
requirements and the estimated average number of likely respondents per
year is 18. The cost burden to respondents resulting from the
collection of information includes the total capital cost annualized
over the equipment's expected useful life (averaging $3,780), a total
operation and maintenance component (averaging $108 per year), and a
labor cost component (averaging $165,000 per year).
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.
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 these ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0600. 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, Office of Management and Budget, 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 October 21, 2010, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by November 22, 2010. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act 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 Small Business Administration'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.
This proposed rule will not impose emission measurements or
reporting requirements on small entities beyond those specified in
existing regulations, nor does it change the level of any
[[Page 65128]]
emission standard for amendments to all of the MACT standards proposed
today, with the exception of the proposed amendments to the hard and
decorative chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks MACT
standard. The new housekeeping requirements and PFOS use restrictions
proposed by these amendments to the hard and decorative chromium
electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks MACT standard may impact
small entities, but those impacts have been estimated to be nominal.
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.
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 under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector. The proposed rule would not result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The proposed rule
imposes no enforceable duties on any State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the 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. None of the facilities subject
to this action are owned or operated by State governments, and, because
no new requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this proposal
will supersede State regulations. 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 Agency 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, and EPA's
risk assessments (included in the docket for this proposed rule)
demonstrate that the existing regulations are health protective.
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
EO 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 National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS 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 Agency 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 environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice 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.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice 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
environmental justice issues in EPA rulemakings is an evolving science.
The EPA offers the demographic analyses in this rulemaking as examples
of how such analyses might be developed to inform such consideration,
and invites public
[[Page 65129]]
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 this analysis, we analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP
in two separate ways. In the first approach, we focus the analysis on
the total populations residing within 5 km of each facility (source
category and facility-wide), regardless of their estimated risks, and
examine the distributions of estimated risk across the various
demographic groups within those 5 km circles. In the other, we focus
the analysis only on the populations within 5 km of any facility who
are estimated to have HAP exposures 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), once
again examining the distributions of those risks across various
demographic groups. In each approach, we compare the percentages of
particular demographic groups to the total number of people in those
demographic groups. In this preamble, we only present the results of
the second approach since it focuses on the significant risks from
either the source category or the facility-wide emissions. The results
of both approaches are documented in memos to the docket for each of
the source categories covered in this proposal.
As described in the preamble, for the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production, Hypalon \TM\ Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, Styrene-Butadiene Rubber
and Latex Production, MTVLO, Pharmaceuticals Production, and Printing
and Publishing Industry MACT standard source categories, which were
addressed in the October 10, 2008, proposal, we have reaffirmed our
proposed determinations that the MACT standards for these source
categories provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
and prevent adverse environmental effects. For the Hard Chromium
Electroplating, Decorative Chromium Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing,
and Steel Pickling--HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid
Regeneration Plants MACT standard source categories, we propose the
MACT standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent adverse environmental effects.
Our analyses also show that, for all the source categories
evaluated, there is no potential for an adverse environmental effect or
human health multipathway effects, and that acute and chronic non-
cancer health impacts are unlikely. Our additional analysis of
facility-wide risks showed that the maximum facility-wide cancer risks
for all source categories are within the range of acceptable risks, and
that the maximum chronic non-cancer risks are unlikely to cause health
impacts. Our additional analysis of the demographics of the exposed
population may show disparities in risks between demographic groups for
all three categories; EPA has determined that, although there may be a
disparity in risks between demographic groups, no group is exposed to
unacceptable level of risk. The proposed rule would not relax the
control measures on sources regulated by the rule, and, therefore,
would not increase risks to any populations exposed to these sources.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 14, 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 N--[Amended]
2. Section 63.341 is amended by:
a. Adding, in alphabetical order in paragraph (a), definitions for
``affirmative defense,'' ``contains hexavalent chromium,'' and
``perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS)-based fume suppressant''; and
b. Revising paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.341 Definitions and nomenclature.
(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.
* * * * *
Contains hexavalent chromium means, the substance consists of, or
contains 0.1 percent or greater by weight, chromium trioxide, chromium
(VI) oxide, chromic acid, or chromic anhydride.
* * * * *
Perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS)-based fume suppressant means a fume
suppressant that contains 1 percent or greater PFOS by weight.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(10) VRtot = the average total ventilation rate for the
three test runs as determined at the outlet by means of the Method 306
or 306A testing specified in appendix A of this part in dscm/min.
3. Section 63.342 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
c. Adding paragraph (c)(1)(iv);
d. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(vi);
e. Adding paragraph (d)(3);
f. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) as paragraphs (e)(3)
and (e)(4);
g. Adding new paragraph (e)(2);
h. Revising newly designated paragraph (e)(4);
i. Adding paragraph (f)(3)(i)(F); and
j. Adding Table 2 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.342 Standards.
(a)(1) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and
maintain any affected source subject to the requirements of this
subpart, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this
standard have been achieved. 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.
(2) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply with these requirements in this
section on and after the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.343(a).
All affected sources are regulated by applying maximum achievable
control technology.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The emission limitations in this section apply during tank
operation as defined in Sec. 63.341, and during periods of startup and
shutdown as these are
[[Page 65130]]
routine occurrences for affected sources subject to this subpart. In
response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in this
subpart, you may assert a civil defense to a claim for civil penalties
for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a 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.
(i) 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 of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section,
and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, or of a process to operate in a normal an usual
manner; and could not have been prevented through careful planning,
proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and did
not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for; and were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
(B) 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
(C) 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
(D) 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
(E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human
health; and
(F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible; and
(G) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause
analysis 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 the best
monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
(ii) 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
(FAX) 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
(b)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
(iv) After 3 years from date of publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected open surface hard chromium electroplating tank shall not add
PFOS-based fume suppressants to any affected open surface hard chromium
electroplating tank.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) After 3 years from date of publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected enclosed hard chromium electroplating tank shall not add PFOS-
based fume suppressants to any affected enclosed hard chromium
electroplating tank.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) After 3 years from date of publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected decorative chromium electroplating tank or an affected
chromium anodizing tank shall not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to
any affected decorative chromium electroplating tank or chromium
anodizing tank.
(e) * * *
(2) After 3 years from date of publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected decorative chromium electroplating tank using a trivalent
chromium bath shall not add PFOS-based fume suppressants to any
affected decorative chromium electroplating tank.
* * * * *
(4) Each owner or operator of an existing, new, or reconstructed
decorative chromium electroplating tank that had been using a trivalent
chromium bath that incorporated a wetting agent and ceases using this
type of bath must fulfill the reporting requirements of Sec.
63.347(i)(3) and comply with the applicable emission limitation within
the timeframe specified in Sec. 63.343(a)(7).
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) The plan shall include housekeeping procedures, as specified in
Table 2 of this section.
* * * * *
Table 2 to Sec. 63.342--Housekeeping Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For You must: At this minimum frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Any substance that contains (a) Store the substance in a closed At all times.
hexavalent chromium. container in an enclosed storage
area; AND
(b) Use a closed container when Whenever transporting substance.
transporting the substance from the
enclosed storage area.
2. Each affected tank, to minimize (a) Install drip trays that collect Prior to operating the tank.
spills of bath solution that result and return to the tank any bath
from dragout. solution that drips or drains from
parts as the parts are removed from
the tank; OR
[[Page 65131]]
(b) Contain and return to the tank Whenever removing parts from an
all solution that drains or drips affected tank.
from parts as the parts are removed
from the tank.
3. Each spraying operation for Install a splash guard to minimize Prior to any such spraying
removing excess chromic acid from overspray and to ensure that any operation.
parts removed from an affected hexavalent chromium laden liquid is
tank. returned to the electroplating or
anodizing tank.
4. Each operation that involves the Clean up, or otherwise contain, all Within 1 hour of the spill.
handling or use of any substance spills of the substance.
that contains hexavalent chromium.
5. All surfaces within the enclosed (a) Clean the surfaces using one or At least once every 7 days.
storage area, open floor area, more of the following methods:
walkways around affected tanks, or (i) HEPA vacuuming;
any surface potentially (ii) Hand-wiping with a damp cloth;
contaminated with hexavalent (iii) Wet mopping;
chromium that accumulates or (iv) Other cleaning method approved
potentially accumulates dust. by the permitting agency; OR
(b) Apply a non-toxic chemical dust According to manufacturer's
suppressant to the surfaces. recommendations.
6. All buffing, grinding, or Separate the operation from any Prior to beginning the buffing,
polishing operations. affected electroplating or grinding, or polishing operation.
anodizing operation by installing a
physical barrier; the barrier may
take the form of plastic strip
curtains.
7. All chromium or chromium- Store, dispose, recover, or recycle At all times.
containing wastes generated from the wastes using practices that do
housekeeping activities. not lead to fugitive dust and in
accordance with hazardous waste
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Section 63.343 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.343 Compliance provisions.
(a) * * *
(8) No later than 6 months from date of publication of the final
amendments in the Federal Register, the owner or operator of an
affected source that is subject to the standards in paragraphs Sec.
63.342(c) or (d) shall implement the housekeeping procedures specified
in Table 2 of Sec. 63.342.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.344 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(iii), (e)(3)(iv), and (e)(3)(v); and
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) and (e)(4)(iv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.344 Performance test requirements and test methods.
(a) Performance test requirements. Performance tests shall be
conducted using the test methods and procedures in this section.
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. Performance test results shall be
documented in complete test reports that contain the information
required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (9) of this section. The test
plan to be followed shall be made available to the Administrator prior
to the testing, if requested.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Perform Method 306 or 306A testing and calculate an outlet
mass emission rate.
(iv) Determine the total ventilation rate from the affected sources
(VRinlet) by using equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC10.000
where VRtot is the average total ventilation rate in
dscm/min for the three test runs as determined at the outlet by
means of the Method 306 or 306A testing; IDAi is the
total inlet area for all ducts associated with affected sources;
[sum]IAtotal is the sum of all inlet duct areas from both
affected and nonaffected sources; and VRinlet is the
total ventilation rate from all inlet ducts associated with affected
sources.
(v) Establish the allowable mass emission rate of the system
(AMRsys) in milligrams of total chromium per hour (mg/hr)
using equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC10.001
where [sum] VRinlet is the total ventilation rate in
dscm/min from the affected sources, and EL is the applicable
emission limitation from Sec. 63.342 in mg/dscm. The allowable mass
emission rate (AMRsys) calculated from equation 2 should
be equal to or
[[Page 65132]]
more than the outlet three-run average mass emission rate determined
from Method 306 or 306A testing in order for the source to be in
compliance with the standard.
(4) * * *
(ii) Determine the total ventilation rate for each type of affected
source (VRinlet,a) using equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC10.002
where VRtot is the average total ventilation rate in
dscm/min for the three test runs as determined at the outlet by
means of the Method 306 or 306A testing; IDAi,a is the
total inlet duct area for all ducts conveying chromic acid from each
type of affected source performing the same operation, or each type
of affected source subject to the same emission limitation;
[sum]IAtotal is the sum of all duct areas from both
affected and nonaffected sources; and
VRinlet,a is the total ventilation rate from
all inlet ducts conveying chromic acid from each type of affected
source performing the same operation, or each type of affected
source subject to the same emission limitation.
* * * * *
(iv) Establish the allowable mass emission rate of the system
(AMRsys) in milligrams of total chromium per hour (mg/hr)
using equation 8, including each type of affected source as
appropriate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21OC10.003
The allowable mass emission rate calculated from equation 8 should be
equal to or more than the outlet three-run average mass emission rate
determined from Method 306 or 306A testing in order for the source to
be in compliance with the standards.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.346 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and
(b)(13) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.346 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.342(a)(1), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation;
* * * * *
(13) For sources using fume suppressants to comply with the
standards, records of the date and time that fume suppressants are
added to the electroplating or anodizing bath and records of the fume
suppressant manufacturer and product name;
* * * * *
7. Section 63.347 is amended by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(3)(xii) and (g)(3)(xiii) as
(g)(3)(xiii) and (g)(3)(xiv), respectively, and adding a new paragraph
(g)(3)(xii);
c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(i) introductory text and (h)(2)(i)(A)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.347 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(xii) 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. 63.342(a)(1), including
actions taken to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If either of the following conditions is met, semiannual
reports shall be prepared and submitted to the Administrator:
(A) The total duration of excess emissions (as indicated by the
monitoring data collected by the owner or operator of the affected
source in accordance with Sec. 63.343(c)) is 1 percent or greater of
the total operating time for the reporting period; or
* * * * *
8. Table 1 to Subpart N is amended by:
a. Removing entry 63.7(e);
b. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2)-(4) to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart N of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions reference Applies to Subpart N Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.7(e)(1).............................. No......................... See Sec. 63.344(a). Any cross reference
to Sec. 63.7(e)(1) in any other
general provision incorporated by
reference shall be treated as a cross-
reference to Sec. 63.344(a).
63.7(e)(2)-(4).......................... Yes........................ Subpart N also contains test methods
specific to affected sources covered by
that subpart.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart U--[Amended]
9. Section 63.480 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.480 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
* * * * *
(j) Applicability of this subpart. Paragraphs (j)(1) through (4) of
this section shall be followed during periods of non-operation of the
affected source or any part thereof.
(1) The emission limitations set forth in this subpart and the
emission limitations referred to in this subpart shall apply at all
times except during periods of non-operation of the affected source (or
specific portion thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to
which this subpart applies. However, if a period of non-operation of
one portion of an affected source does not affect the ability of a
particular emission point to comply with the emission limitations to
which it is subject, then that emission
[[Page 65133]]
point shall still be required to comply with the applicable emission
limitations of this subpart during period of non-operation.
(2) The emission limitations set forth in subpart H of this part,
as referred to in Sec. 63.502, shall apply at all times except during
periods of non-operation of the affected source (or specific portion
thereof) in which the lines are drained and depressurized resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which Sec. 63.502 applies.
(3) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with this subpart during
times when emissions (or, where applicable, wastewater streams or
residuals) are being routed to such items of equipment if the shutdown
would contravene requirements of this subpart applicable to such items
of equipment.
(4) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
this subpart, you may assert a civil defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a
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.
(i) 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 of paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of this section,
and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and usual
manner; and could not have been prevented through careful planning,
proper design, or better operation and maintenance practices; and did
not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for; and were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
(B) 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
(C) 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
(D) 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
(E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human
health; and
(F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible; and
(G) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause
analysis 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 the best
monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
(ii) 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
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than 2 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
(j)(4)(i) of this section.
10. Section 63.481 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.481 Compliance dates and relationship of this subpart to
existing applicable rules.
* * * * *
(c) With the exceptions provided in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4)
of this section, existing affected sources shall be in compliance with
this subpart no later than June 19, 2001, as provided in Sec. 63.6(c),
unless an extension has been granted as specified in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(1) Existing affected sources producing epichlorohydrin elastomer,
halobutyl rubber, neoprene rubber, and nitrile butadiene rubber shall
be in compliance with the applicable emission limitation in Sec.
63.494(a)(4) no later than 1 year from date of publication of the final
rule amendments in the Federal Register.
(2) Existing affected sources producing butyl rubber shall be in
compliance with Sec. 63.494(a)(4)(i) no later than 3 years from date
of publication of the final rule amendments in the Federal Register.
(3) Existing affected sources producing butyl rubber, halobutyl
rubber, and ethylene propylene rubber shall be in compliance with Sec.
63.485(q)(1) no later than 3 years from date of publication of the
final rule amendments in the Federal Register.
(4) Compliance with Sec. 63.502 is covered by paragraph (d) of
this section.
* * * * *
11. Section 63.482 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ``affirmative defense,'' and revising the definition of
``initial start-up'' in paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.482 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
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.
* * * * *
Initial start-up means the first time a new or reconstructed
affected source begins production of an elastomer product, or, for
equipment added or changed as described in Sec. 63.480(i), the first
time the equipment is put into operation to produce an elastomer
product. Initial start-up does not include operation solely for testing
equipment. Initial start-up does not include subsequent start-ups of an
affected source or portion thereof following shutdowns or following
changes in product for flexible operation units or following recharging
of equipment in batch operation.
* * * * *
12. Section 63.483 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.483 Emission standards.
(a) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source subject to the requirements of this subpart,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment,
[[Page 65134]]
in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize
emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any further
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this standard have
been achieved. 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. Except
as allowed under paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, the owner
or operator of an existing or new affected source shall comply with the
provisions in:
(1) Section 63.484 for storage vessels;
(2) Section 63.485 for continuous front-end process vents;
(3) Sections 63.486 through 63.492 for batch front-end process
vents;
(4) Sections 63.493 through 63.500 for back-end process operations;
(5) Section 63.501 for wastewater;
(6) Section 63.502 for equipment leaks;
(7) Section 63.504 for additional test methods and procedures;
(8) Section 63.505 for monitoring levels and excursions; and
(9) Section 63.506 for general reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
* * * * *
13. Section 63.484 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.484 Storage vessel provisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Storage vessels located downstream of the stripping operations
at affected sources subject to the back-end residual organic HAP
limitation located in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3), that are
complying through the use of stripping technology, as specified in
Sec. 63.495;
* * * * *
14. Section 63.485 is amended by revising paragraphs (q)
introductory text and (q)(1) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.485 Continuous front-end process vent provisions.
* * * * *
(q) Group 1 halogenated continuous front-end process vents must
comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.113(a)(1)(ii) and Sec.
63.113(c), with the exceptions noted in paragraphs (q)(1) and (2) of
this section.
(1) All Group 1 and Group 2 halogenated continuous front-end
process vents at existing affected sources producing butyl rubber,
halobutyl rubber, or ethylene propylene rubber using a solution
process, must comply with Sec. 63.113(a)(1)(ii) and Sec. 63.113(c).
* * * * *
15. Section 63.489 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.489 Batch front-end process vents--monitoring equipment.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The owner or operator may prepare and implement a gas stream
flow determination plan that documents an appropriate method which will
be used to determine the gas stream flow. The plan shall require
determination of gas stream flow by a method which will at least
provide a value for either a representative or the highest gas stream
flow anticipated in the scrubber during representative operating
conditions. The plan shall include a description of the methodology to
be followed and an explanation of how the selected methodology will
reliably determine the gas stream flow, and a description of the
records that will be maintained to document the determination of gas
stream flow. The owner or operator shall maintain the plan as specified
in Sec. 63.506(a).
* * * * *
16. Section 63.491 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.491 Batch front-end process vents--recordkeeping
requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments shall not be included in computing the batch cycle
daily averages. In addition, monitoring data recorded during periods of
non-operation of the EPPU (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of organic HAP emissions shall not be included in computing
the batch cycle daily averages.
* * * * *
17. Section 63.493 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.493 Back-end process provisions.
Owners and operators of new and existing affected sources shall
comply with the requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.494 through 63.500.
Owners and operators of affected sources whose only elastomer products
are latex products, liquid rubber products, or products produced in a
gas-phased reaction process are not subject to the provisions of
Sec. Sec. 63.494 through 63.500. If latex or liquid rubber products
are produced in an affected source that also produces another elastomer
product, the provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.494 through 63.500 do not
apply to the back-end operations dedicated to the production of one or
more latex products or to the back-end operations during the production
of a latex product.
18. Section 63.494 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading;
b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraph (a)(4) and the introductory text of paragraph
(a)(5);
d. Adding paragraph (a)(6);
e. Revising paragraph (b);
f. Revising paragraph (c); and
g. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.494 Back-end process provisions--residual organic HAP and
emission limitations.
(a) The monthly weighted average residual organic HAP content of
all grades of styrene butadiene rubber produced by the emulsion
process, polybutadiene rubber and styrene butadiene rubber produced by
the solution process, and ethylene-propylene rubber produced by the
solution process that is processed, shall be measured after the
stripping operation [or the reactor(s), if the plant has no
stripper(s)] as specified in Sec. 63.495(d), and shall not exceed the
limits provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, as
applicable. Owners or operators of these affected sources shall comply
with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section
using either stripping technology or control or recovery devices. The
organic HAP emissions from all back-end process operations at affected
sources producing butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomer, halobutyl
rubber, neoprene, and nitrile butadiene rubber shall not exceed the
limits determined in accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this section,
as applicable.
* * * * *
(4) The organic HAP emissions from back-end processes at affected
sources producing butyl rubber, epichlorohydrin elastomer, halobutyl
[[Page 65135]]
rubber, neoprene, and nitrile butadiene rubber shall not exceed the
limits determined in accordance with paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (v)
of this section for any consecutive 12-month period. The specific
limitation for each elastomer type shall be determined based on the
emissions level provided in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (v) of this
section divided by the base year production level. The limitation shall
be calculated and submitted in accordance with Sec. 63.499(f)(1).
(i) For butyl rubber, the organic HAP emission limitation, in units
of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of butyl rubber produced, shall be
calculated by dividing 28 Mg/yr by the mass of butyl rubber produced in
2009, in Mg.
(ii) For epichlorohydrin elastomer, the organic HAP emission
limitation, in units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of
epichlorohydrin elastomer produced, shall be calculated by dividing 36
Mg/yr by the mass of epichlorohydrin elastomer produced in 2009, in Mg.
(iii) For halobutyl rubber, the organic HAP emission limitation, in
units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of halobutyl rubber produced,
shall be calculated by dividing 53 Mg/yr by the mass of halobutyl
rubber produced in 2006, in Mg.
(iv) For neoprene, the organic HAP emission limitation, in units of
Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of neoprene produced, shall be
calculated by dividing 23 Mg/yr by the mass of neoprene produced in
2009, in Mg.
(v) For nitrile butadiene rubber, the organic HAP emission
limitation, in units of Mg organic HAP emissions per Mg of nitrile
butadiene rubber produced, shall be calculated by dividing 1.7 Mg/yr by
the mass of nitrile butadiene rubber produced in 2009, in Mg.
(5) For EPPU that produce both an elastomer product with a residual
organic HAP limitation listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section, and a product listed in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of
this section, only the residual HAP content of the elastomer product
with a residual organic HAP limitation shall be used in determining the
monthly average residual organic HAP content.
* * * * *
(6) There are no back-end process operation residual organic HAP or
emission limitations for HypalonTM and polysulfide rubber
production. There are also no back-end process operation residual
organic HAP limitations for latex products, liquid rubber products,
products produced in a gas-phased reaction process, styrene butadiene
rubber produced by any process other than a solution or emulsion
process, polybutadiene rubber produced by any process other than a
solution process, or ethylene-propylene rubber produced by any process
other than a solution process.
(b) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section using
stripping technology, compliance shall be demonstrated in accordance
with Sec. 63.495. The owner or operator shall also comply with the
recordkeeping provisions in Sec. 63.498, and the reporting provisions
in Sec. 63.499.
(c) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section using
control or recovery devices, compliance shall be demonstrated using the
procedures in Sec. 63.496. The owner or operator shall also comply
with the monitoring provisions in Sec. 63.497, the recordkeeping
provisions in Sec. 63.498, and the reporting provisions in Sec.
63.499.
(d) If the owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraph (a)(1) through (3) of this section using a
flare, the owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with
the requirements in Sec. 63.504(c).
19. Section 63.495 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading;
b. Revising paragraph (a);
c. Revising paragraph (b)(5); and
d. Adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.495 Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine
compliance with residual organic HAP limitations using stripping
technology and organic HAP emissions limitations.
(a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3) using stripping
technology, compliance shall be demonstrated using the periodic
sampling procedures in paragraph (b) of this section, or using the
stripper parameter monitoring procedures in paragraph (c) of this
section. The owner or operator shall determine the monthly weighted
average residual organic HAP content for each month in which any
portion of the back-end of an elastomer production process is in
operation. A single monthly weighted average shall be determined for
all back-end process operations at the affected source.
(b) * * *
(5) The monthly weighted average shall be determined using the
equation in paragraph (f) of this section. All representative samples
taken and analyzed during the month shall be used in the determination
of the monthly weighted average.
* * * * *
(g) Compliance with the organic HAP emission limitations determined
in accordance with Sec. 63.494(a)(4) shall be demonstrated in
accordance with paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Calculate your organic HAP emission limitation in accordance
with Sec. 63.494(a)(4)(i) through (v), as applicable, record it, and
submit it in accordance with Sec. 63.499(f)(1).
(2) Each month, calculate and record the organic HAP emissions from
all back end process operations using engineering assessment.
Engineering assessment includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(i) Previous test results, provided the test was representative of
current operating practices.
(ii) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data obtained under conditions
representative of current process operating conditions.
(iii) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws
or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not
limited to:
(A) Use of material balances;
(B) Estimation of flow rate based on physical equipment design,
such as pump or blower capacities;
(C) Estimation of organic HAP concentrations based on saturation
conditions; and
(D) Estimation of organic HAP concentrations based on grab samples
of the liquid or vapor.
(3) Each month, record the mass of elastomer product produced.
(4) Each month, calculate and record the sums of the organic HAP
emissions and the mass of elastomer produced for the month and the
previous 11 months.
(5) Each month, divide the total mass of organic HAP emitted for
the 12-month period by the total mass of elastomer produced during the
12-month period. This value must be recorded in accordance with Sec.
63.498(e) and reported in accordance with Sec. 63.499(f)(2).
20. Section 63.496 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading;
b. Revising paragraph (a);
c. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and
d. Revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
[[Page 65136]]
Sec. 63.496 Back-end process provisions--procedures to determine
compliance with residual organic HAP limitations using control or
recovery devices.
(a) If an owner or operator complies with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3) using control or recovery
devices, compliance shall be demonstrated using the procedures in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. Previous test results conducted
in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section may be
used to determine compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) A facility is in compliance if the average of the organic HAP
contents calculated for all three test runs is below the residual
organic HAP limitations in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3).
(d) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3) using a control or
recovery device, shall redetermine the compliance status through the
requirements described in paragraph (b) of this section whenever
process changes are made. The owner or operator shall report the
results of the redetermination in accordance with Sec. 63.499(d). For
the purposes of this section, a process change is any action that would
reasonably be expected to impair the performance of the control or
recovery device. For the purposes of this section, the production of an
elastomer with a residual organic HAP content greater than the residual
organic HAP content of the elastomer used in the compliance
demonstration constitutes a process change, unless the overall effect
of the change is to reduce organic HAP emissions from the source as a
whole. Other examples of process changes may include changes in
production capacity or production rate, or removal or addition of
equipment. For the purposes of this paragraph, process changes do not
include: Process upsets; unintentional, temporary process changes; or
changes that reduce the residual organic HAP content of the elastomer.
21. Section 63.497 is amended by:
a. Revising the section heading to Sec. 63.497;
b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; and
c. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.497 Back-end process provisions--monitoring provisions for
control and recovery devices used to comply with residual organic HAP
limitations.
(a) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP
limitations in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3) using control or recovery
devices, or a combination of stripping and control or recovery devices,
shall install the monitoring equipment specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (6) of this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
(d) The owner or operator of an affected source with a controlled
back-end process vent using a vent system that contains bypass lines
that could divert a vent stream away from the control or recovery
device used to comply with Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3) shall comply
with paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section. Equipment such as low leg
drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended valves or lines,
and pressure relief valves needed for safety purposes are not subject
to this paragraph.
* * * * *
22. Section 63.498 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
c. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
d. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
e. Revising paragraph (b)(3);
f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
h. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B);
i. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(E); and
j. Adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.498 Back-end process provisions--recordkeeping.
(a) Each owner or operator shall maintain the records specified in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), and paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
(3) If the back-end process operation is subject to a residual
organic HAP limitation in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3), whether
compliance will be achieved by stripping technology, or by control or
recovery devices.
(4) If the back-end process operation is subject to an emission
limitation in Sec. 63.494(a)(4), the organic HAP emission limitation
calculated in accordance with Sec. 63.494(a)(4)(i) through (v), as
applicable.
(b) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
stripping technology to comply with a residual organic HAP limitation
in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating compliance using
the periodic sampling procedures in Sec. 63.495(b), shall maintain the
records specified in paragraph (b)(1), and in paragraph (b)(2) or
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
(3) If the organic HAP contents for all samples analyzed during a
month are below the appropriate level in Sec. 63.494(a), the owner or
operator may record that all samples were in accordance with the
residual organic HAP limitations in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3),
rather than calculating and recording a monthly weighted average.
(c) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
stripping technology to comply with a residual organic HAP limitation
in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating compliance using
the stripper parameter monitoring procedures in Sec. 63.495(c), shall
maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section.
* * * * *
(d) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
control or recovery devices to comply with a residual organic HAP
limitation in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3) shall maintain the records
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section. The
recordkeeping requirements contained in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4)
pertain to the results of the testing required by Sec. 63.496(b), for
each of the three required test runs.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Monitoring data recorded during periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments shall not be included in computing the hourly or
daily averages. In addition, monitoring data recorded during periods of
non-operation of the EPPU (or specific portion thereof) resulting in
cessation of organic HAP emissions shall not be included in computing
the hourly or daily averages. Records shall be kept of the times and
durations of all such periods and any other periods of process or
control device operation when monitors are not operating.
* * * * *
(E) For flares, records of the times and duration of all periods
during which the pilot flame is absent shall be kept rather than daily
averages. The records specified in this paragraph are not required
during periods when emissions are not routed to the flare.
* * * * *
(e) If the back-end process operation is subject to an organic HAP
emission limitation in Sec. 63.494(a)(4), the records
[[Page 65137]]
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) The applicable organic HAP emission limitation determined in
accordance with Sec. 63.494(a)(4)(i) through (v).
(2) The organic HAP emissions from all back-end process operations
for each month, along with documentation of all calculations and other
information used in the engineering assessment to estimate these
emissions.
(3) The mass of elastomer product produced each month.
(4) The total mass of organic HAP emitted for each 12-month period
divided by the total mass of elastomer produced during the 12-month
period, determined in accordance with Sec. 63.495(g)(5).
23. Section 63.499 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
d. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and
e. Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.499 Back-end process provisions--reporting.
(a) * * *
(3) If the back-end process operation is subject to a residual
organic HAP limitation in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3), whether
compliance will be achieved by stripping technology, or by control or
recovery devices.
(b) Each owner or operator of a back-end process operation using
stripping to comply with a residual organic HAP limitation in Sec.
63.494(a)(1) through (3), and demonstrating compliance by stripper
parameter monitoring, shall submit reports as specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) Each owner or operator of an affected source with a back-end
process operation control or recovery device that shall comply with a
residual organic HAP limitation in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3) shall
submit the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of
this section as part of the Notification of Compliance Status specified
in Sec. 63.506(e)(5).
* * * * *
(d) Whenever a process change, as defined in Sec. 63.496(d), is
made that causes the redetermination of the compliance status for the
back-end process operations subject to a residual organic HAP
limitation in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3), the owner or operator
shall submit a report within 180 days after the process change, as
specified in Sec. 63.506(e)(7)(iii). The report shall include:
* * * * *
(f) If the back-end process operation is subject to an organic HAP
emission limitation in Sec. 63.494(a)(4), the owner and operator must
submit the information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) The applicable organic HAP emission limitation determined in
accordance with Sec. 63.494(a)(4)(i) through (v) shall be submitted no
later than 180 days from the date of publication of the final rule
amendments in the Federal Register.
(2) In the periodic report required to be submitted by Sec.
63.506(e)(6), the total mass of organic HAP emitted for each of the
rolling 12-month periods in the reporting period divided by the total
mass of elastomer produced during the corresponding 12-month period,
determined in accordance with Sec. 63.495(g)(5).
24. Section 63.501 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.501 Wastewater provisions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Back-end streams at affected sources that are subject to a
residual organic HAP limitation in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through (3) and
that are complying with these limitations through the use of stripping
technology.
25. Section 63.502 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.502 Equipment leak and heat exchange system provisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Surge control vessels and bottoms receivers located downstream
of the stripping operations at affected sources subject to the back-end
residual organic HAP limitation located in Sec. 63.494(a)(1) through
(3), that are complying through the use of stripping technology, as
specified in Sec. 63.495;
* * * * *
Sec. 63.503 [Amended]
26. Section 63.503 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(f)(1).
27. Section 63.504 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.504 Additional requirements for performance testing.
(a) * * *
(1) Performance tests shall be conducted at maximum representative
operating conditions achievable during one of the time periods
described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, without causing any
of the situations described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section to
occur. 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.
* * * * *
28. Section 63.505 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (e)(4);
b. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v)(A);
c. Revising paragraph (g)(1)(v)(B);
d. Removing paragraphs (g)(1)(v)(C) through (g)(1)(v)(E);
e. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(B); and
f. Adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.505 Parameter monitoring levels and excursions.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) An owner or operator complying with the residual organic HAP
limitations in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of Sec. 63.494 using
stripping, and demonstrating compliance by stripper parameter
monitoring, shall redetermine the residual organic HAP content for all
affected grades whenever process changes are made. For the purposes of
this section, a process change is any action that would reasonably be
expected to impair the performance of the stripping operation. For the
purposes of this section, examples of process changes may include
changes in production capacity or production rate, or removal or
addition of equipment. For purposes of this paragraph, process changes
do not include: Process upsets; unintentional, temporary process
changes; or changes that reduce the residual organic HAP content of the
elastomer.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
(B) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
monitoring applies.
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) Subtract the time during the periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-
level adjustments from the total amount of time determined in paragraph
(g)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, to obtain the
[[Page 65138]]
operating time used to determine if monitoring data are insufficient.
* * * * *
(j) Excursion definition for back-end operations subject to Sec.
63.494(a)(4). An excursion means when the total mass of organic HAP
emitted for any consecutive 12-month period divided by the total mass
of elastomer produced during the 12-month period, determined in
accordance with Sec. 63.495(g), is greater than the applicable
emission limitation, determined in accordance with Sec.
63.494(a)(4)(i) through (v) and submitted in accordance with Sec.
63.499(f)(1).
29. Section 63.506 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
b. Revising paragraph (d)(7);
c. Revising paragraph (e)(3) introductory text;
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3)(viii);
e. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ix)(B);
f. Revising paragraph (e)(6)(iii)(E);
g. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(i);
h. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(C);
i. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(iii);
j. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iii); and
k. Removing and reserving paragraph (h)(2)(iv)(A) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.506 General recordkeeping and reporting provisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Malfunction records. Each 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), air pollution control equipment, or monitoring equipment.
Each owner or operator shall maintain records of actions taken during
periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.483(a)(1), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning
process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(7) Monitoring data recorded during periods identified in
paragraphs (d)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section shall not be included in
any average computed under this subpart. Records shall be kept of the
times and durations of all such periods and any other periods during
process or control device or recovery device operation when monitors
are not operating.
(i) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
(ii) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
monitoring applies.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected sources
requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use
alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring
and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use
engineering assessment to estimate emissions from a batch emissions
episode, as described in Sec. 63.488(b)(6)(i); wishing to establish
parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in
Sec. 63.505(c) or (d); shall submit a Precompliance Report according
to the schedule described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section. The
Precompliance Report shall contain the information specified in
paragraphs (e)(3)(ii) through (vii) of this section, as appropriate.
* * * * *
(viii) [Reserved]
(ix) * * *
(B) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to
request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified
in paragraph (e)(3)(iii) of this section; to use alternative continuous
monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (e)(3)(iv) of
this section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph
(e)(3)(v) of this section; to use engineering assessment to estimate
emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in paragraph
(e)(3)(vi) of this section; or to establish parameter monitoring levels
according to the procedures contained in Sec. 63.505(c) or (d), as
specified in paragraph (e)(3)(vii) of this section.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) 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. 63.483(a)(1), including actions
taken to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unrealistic or
impossible data during periods of normal operation (e.g., a temperature
reading of -200 [deg]C on a boiler), and will alert the operator by
alarm or other means. The owner or operator shall record the
occurrence. All instances of the alarm or other alert in an operating
day constitute a single occurrence.
(ii) * * *
(C) The running average reflects a period of normal operation.
(iii) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unchanging data
during periods of normal operation, except in circumstances where the
presence of unchanging data is the expected operating condition based
on past experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers), and will alert the
operator by alarm or other means. The owner or operator shall record
the occurrence. All instances of the alarm or other alert in an
operating day constitute a single occurrence.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The owner or operator shall retain the records specified in
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, for the duration
specified in paragraph (h) of this section. For any calendar week, if
compliance with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section does
not result in retention of a record of at least one occurrence or
measured parameter value, the owner or operator shall record and retain
at least one parameter value during a period of normal operation.
(iv) * * *
(A) [Reserved]
* * * * *
30. Table 1 to Subpart U of part 63 is amended by:
a. Removing entry 63.6(e);
b. Revising entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 63.6(e)(1)(ii);
c. Revising entry 63.6(e)(2);
d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3);
e. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i) through 63.6(e)(3)(ix);
f. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1); and
e. Revising entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.10(d)(5)(i) to read as
follows:
[[Page 65139]]
Table 1 to Subpart U of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart U Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Applies to Subpart U Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).................... No............................................. See Sec.
63.483(a)(1) for
general duty
requirement. Any
cross reference to
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)
in any other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross
reference to Sec.
63.483(a)(1).
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)................... No.............................................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)....................... No............................................. [Reserved.]
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)....................... No.............................................
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)....................... No.............................................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)....................... No............................................. See Sec.
63.504(a)(1). Any
cross-reference to
Sec. 63.7(e)(1) in
any other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to Sec.
63.504(a)(1).
* * * * * * *
63.10(d)(5)(i).......................... No.............................................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart Y--[Amended]
31-32. Section 63.560 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3);
b. Revising paragraph (d)(6);
c. Adding paragraph (e)(1)(iv);
d. Amending Table 1 to Sec. 63.560 as follows:
i. Revising entry 63.6(f)(1);
ii. Removing entry 63.7(e);
iii. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2)-(4);
iv. Removing entries 63.10(b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii)-(iii);
v. Adding entries 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii) and (b)(2)(iii);
vi. Removing entry 63.10(c)(10)-(13); and
vii. Adding entries 63.10(c)(10)-(11) and 63.10(c)(12)-(13) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.560 Applicability and designation of affected source.
(a) * * *
(1) The provisions of this subpart pertaining to the MACT standards
in Sec. 63.562(b) and (d) of this subpart are applicable to existing
and new sources with emissions of 10 or 25 tons, as that term is
defined in Sec. 63.561, except as specified in paragraph (d) of this
section, and are applicable to new sources with emissions less than 10
and 25 tons, as that term is defined in Sec. 63.561, except as
specified in paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section.
(2) Existing sources with emissions less than 10 and 25 tons are
not subject to the emissions standards in Sec. 63.562(b) and (d),
except as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) The recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 63.567(j)(4) and the
emission estimation requirements of Sec. 63.565(l) apply to existing
sources with emissions less than 10 and 25 tons, except as specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(6) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to marine tank
vessel loading operations at existing offshore loading terminals, as
that term is defined in Sec. 63.561, except existing offshore loading
terminals must meet paragraphs (d)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) The submerged fill standards of 46 CFR 153.282, and
(ii) The provisions of Sec. 63.562(f)(1) or Sec. 63.562(f)(2), if
the terminal loads more than 1 million barrels (M barrels) of gasoline.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) New and existing sources with emissions less than 10 or 25
tons, that load more than 1 M barrels of gasoline shall comply with the
provisions of Sec. 63.562(f) by [DATE 3 YEARS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
* * * * *
Table 1 of Sec. 63.560--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Applies to affected sources in subpart Y Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.6(f)(1).............................. No. .....................
* * * * * * *
63.7(e)(1).............................. No. See 63.563(b)(1). Any
cross reference to
63.7(e)(1) in any
other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to
63.563(b)(1).
63.7(e)(2)-(4).......................... Yes. .....................
* * * * * * *
63.10 (b)(2)(i)-(ii).................... No. .....................
[[Page 65140]]
* * * * * * *
63.10(b)(2)(iii)........................ Yes. .....................
* * * * * * *
63.10(c)(10)-(11)....................... No. See 63.567(m)(1) for
reporting
malfunctions. Any
cross-reference to
63.10(c)(10) or
63.10(c)(11) in any
other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to
63.567(m)(1).
63.10(c)(12)-(13)....................... Yes. .....................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Section 63.561 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ``affirmative defense'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.561 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.
* * * * *
34. Section 63.562 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
c. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text;
d. Adding paragraph (e)(7); and
e. Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.562 Standards.
(a) The emissions limitations in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (f)
of this section apply during marine tank vessel loading operations.
(b) MACT standards, except for the VMT source--(1)(i) Vapor
collection system of the terminal. The owner or operator of a new
source with emissions less than 10 and 25 tons, an existing or new
source with emissions of 10 or 25 tons, and an existing source with
emissions less than 10 and 25 tons that loads more than 1 M barrels of
gasoline shall equip each terminal with a vapor collection system that
is designed to collect HAP vapors displaced from marine tank vessels
during marine tank vessel loading operations and to prevent HAP vapors
collected at one loading berth from passing through another loading
berth to the atmosphere, except for those commodities exempted under
Sec. 63.560(d).
(ii) Ship-to-shore compatibility. The owner or operator of a new
source with emissions less than 10 and 25 tons, an existing or new
source with emissions of 10 or 25 tons, and an existing source with
emissions less than 10 and 25 tons that loads more than 1 million bbl/
yr of gasoline shall limit marine tank vessel loading operations to
those vessels that are equipped with vapor collection equipment that is
compatible with the terminal's vapor collection system, except for
those commodities exempted under Sec. 63.560(d).
(iii) Vapor tightness of marine vessels. The owner or operator of a
new source with emissions less than 10 and 25 tons, an existing or new
source with emissions of 10 or 25 tons, and an existing source with
emissions less than 10 and 25 tons that loads more than 1 million bbl/
yr of gasoline shall limit marine tank vessel loading operations to
those vessels that are vapor tight and to those vessels that are
connected to the vapor collection system, except for those commodities
exempted under Sec. 63.560(d).
* * * * *
(e) Operation and maintenance requirements for air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment for affected sources. At all
times, owners or operators of affected sources shall operate and
maintain a source, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether
acceptable 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.
* * * * *
(7) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
this subpart, you may assert a civil defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a
malfunction, as defined in Sec. 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.
(i) 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 of paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this section,
and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and usual
manner; and could not have been prevented through careful planning,
proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and did
not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for; and were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
(B) 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
(C) 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
(D) 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
(E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human
health; and
(F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible; and
[[Page 65141]]
(G) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause
analysis 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 the best
monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
(ii) 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
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 2 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
(e)(7)(i) of this section.
(f) The owner or operator of an existing source, that is not
located at a petroleum refinery, with emissions less than 10 and 25
tons that loads more than 1 million bbl/yr of gasoline shall:
(1) Limit emissions to not more than 10 mg of total organic
compounds per liter of gasoline loaded; or
(2) Reduce captured emissions by at least 97 percent by weight.
35. Section 63.563 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text and (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.563 Compliance and performance testing.
(a) The following procedures shall be used to determine compliance
with the emissions limits under Sec. 63.562(b)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1), and
(f):
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test shall be
conducted using the procedures listed in Sec. 63.7 of subpart A of
this part according to the applicability in Table 1 of Sec. 63.560,
the procedures listed in this section, and the test methods listed in
Sec. 63.565. The initial performance test shall be conducted within
180 days after the compliance date for the specific affected source.
During this performance test, sources subject to MACT standards under
Sec. 63.562(b)(2), (3), (4), and (5), and (d)(2) shall determine the
reduction of HAP emissions, as VOC, for all combustion or recovery
devices other than flares. 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. Sources subject to RACT
standards under Sec. 63.562(c)(3), (4), and (5), and (d)(2) shall
determine the reduction of VOC emissions for all combustion or recovery
devices other than flares.
* * * * *
Subpart KK--[Amended]
36. Section 63.820 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.820 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
this subpart, you may assert a civil defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a
malfunction, as defined in Sec. 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 of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and
must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(i) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal an usual
manner; and could not have been prevented through careful planning,
proper design or better operation and maintenance practices; and did
not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for; and 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) Your 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) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause
analysis 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 the 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
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 2 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
(c)(1) of this section.
37. Section 63.822 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ``affirmative defense'' to paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.822 Definitions.
(a) * * *
[[Page 65142]]
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.
* * * * *
38. Section 63.823 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.823 Standards: General.
(a) Table 1 to this subpart provides cross references to the 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A, general provisions, indicating the applicability of
the general provisions requirements to this subpart KK.
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must at all times operate and maintain that 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.
39. Section 63.827 is amended by adding introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.827 Performance test methods.
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.
* * * * *
40. Section 63.829 is amended by adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.829 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(g) Each 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), air pollution
control equipment, or monitoring equipment.
(h) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart shall maintain records of actions taken during periods of
malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.823(b),
including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air
pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
41. Section 63.830 is amended by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(5); and
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.830 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) [Reserved]
(6) * * *
(v) 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. 63.823(b), including actions taken
to correct a malfunction.
42. Table 1 to Subpart KK of part 63 is amended by:
a. Removing entry 63.6(e);
b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii); 63.6(e)(1)(iii),
63.6(e)(2), and 63.6(e)(3);
c. Removing entry 63.6(f);
d. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1) and 63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3);
e. Removing entry 63.7;
f. Adding entries 63.7(a)-(d), 63.7(e)(1), and 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4);
g. Removing entry 63.8(d)-(f);
h. Adding entries 63.8(d)(1)-(2), 63.8(d)(3), and 63.8(e)-(f);
i. Removing entries 63.10(b)(1)-(b)(3), 63.10(c)(10)-(c)(15), and
63.10(d)(4)-(d)(5);
j. Adding entries 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), 63.10(b)(3), 63.10(c)(10), 63.10(c)(11), 63.10(c)(12)-
(c)(14), 63.10(c)(15), 63.10(d)(4), and 63.10(d)(5) to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart KK of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions reference Applicable to Subpart KK Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).................... No............................................. See 63.823(b) for
general duty
requirement. Any
cross-reference to
63.6(e)(1)(i) in any
other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to
63.823(b).
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)................... No.............................................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii).................. Yes............................................
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)....................... No............................................. Section reserved.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)....................... No.............................................
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)....................... No.............................................
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(f)(3)................ Yes............................................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d)...................... Yes............................................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)....................... No............................................. See 63.827
introductory text.
Any cross-reference
to 63.7(e)(1) in any
other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to 63.827
introductory text.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)................ Yes............................................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2)................... Yes............................................
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)....................... Yes, except for last sentence..................
Sec. 63.8(e)-(f)...................... Yes............................................
[[Page 65143]]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)...................... Yes............................................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)................... No.............................................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii).................. No............................................. See 63.829(g) for
recordkeeping of
occurrence and
duration of
malfunctions. See
63.829(h) for
recordkeeping of
actions taken during
malfunction. Any
cross-reference to
63.10(b)(2)(ii) in
any other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to
63.829(g).
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)................. Yes............................................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v)........ No.............................................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)...... Yes............................................
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)...................... Yes............................................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)..................... No............................................. See 63.830(b)(6)(v)
for reporting
malfunctions. Any
cross-reference to
63.10(c)(10) in any
other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to
63.830(b)(6)(v).
Sec. 63.10(c)(11)..................... No............................................. See 63.830(b)(6)(v)
for reporting
malfunctions. Any
cross-reference to
63.10(c)(11) in any
other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to
63.830(b)(6)(v).
Sec. 63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)............. Yes............................................
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)..................... No.............................................
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)...................... Yes............................................
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)...................... No.............................................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart CCC--[Amended]
43. Section 63.1155 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1155 Applicability.
* * * * *
(d) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
this subpart, you may assert a civil defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a
malfunction, as defined in Sec. 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 of paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and
must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(i) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal an usual
manner; and could not have been prevented through careful planning,
proper design, or better operation and maintenance practices; and did
not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for; and 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) Your 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) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause
analysis 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 the 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
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 2 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.
44. Section 63.1156 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ``affirmative defense'' to read as follows:
[[Page 65144]]
Sec. 63.1156 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.
* * * * *
45. Section 63.1159 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1159 Operational and equipment standards for existing, new,
or reconstructed sources.
* * * * *
(c) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source subject to the requirements of this subpart,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to
minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this standard
have been achieved. 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.
46. Section 63.1160 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1160 Compliance dates and maintenance requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Maintenance requirements. (1) The owner or operator shall
prepare an operation and maintenance plan for each emission control
device to be implemented no later than the compliance date. The plan
shall be incorporated by reference into the source's title V permit.
All such plans must be consistent with good maintenance practices, and,
for a scrubber emission control device, must at a minimum:
(i) Require monitoring and recording the pressure drop across the
scrubber once per shift while the scrubber is operating in order to
identify changes that may indicate a need for maintenance;
(ii) Require the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at the
recommended intervals on fresh solvent pumps, recirculating pumps,
discharge pumps, and other liquid pumps, in addition to exhaust system
and scrubber fans and motors associated with those pumps and fans;
(iii) Require cleaning of the scrubber internals and mist
eliminators at intervals sufficient to prevent buildup of solids or
other fouling;
(iv) Require an inspection of each scrubber at intervals of no less
than 3 months with:
(A) Cleaning or replacement of any plugged spray nozzles or other
liquid delivery devices;
(B) Repair or replacement of missing, misaligned, or damaged
baffles, trays, or other internal components;
(C) Repair or replacement of droplet eliminator elements as needed;
(D) Repair or replacement of heat exchanger elements used to
control the temperature of fluids entering or leaving the scrubber; and
(E) Adjustment of damper settings for consistency with the required
air flow.
(v) If the scrubber is not equipped with a viewport or access hatch
allowing visual inspection, alternate means of inspection approved by
the Administrator may be used.
(vi) The owner or operator shall initiate procedures for corrective
action within 1 working day of detection of an operating problem and
complete all corrective actions as soon as practicable. Procedures to
be initiated are the applicable actions that are specified in the
maintenance plan. Failure to initiate or provide appropriate repair,
replacement, or other corrective action is a violation of the
maintenance requirement of this subpart.
(vii) The owner or operator shall maintain a record of each
inspection, including each item identified in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of
this section, that is signed by the responsible maintenance official
and that shows the date of each inspection, the problem identified, a
description of the repair, replacement, or other corrective action
taken, and the date of the repair, replacement, or other corrective
action taken.
(2) The owner or operator of each hydrochloric acid regeneration
plant shall develop and implement a written maintenance program. The
program shall require:
(i) Performance of the manufacturer's recommended maintenance at
the recommended intervals on all required systems and components;
(ii) Initiation of procedures for appropriate and timely repair,
replacement, or other corrective action within 1 working day of
detection; and
(iii) Maintenance of a daily record, signed by a responsible
maintenance official, showing the date of each inspection for each
requirement, the problems found, a description of the repair,
replacement, or other action taken, and the date of repair or
replacement.
47. Section 63.1161 is amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1161 Performance testing and test methods.
(a) Demonstration of compliance. The owner or operator shall
conduct an initial performance test for each process or emission
control device to determine and demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emission limitation according to the requirements in Sec.
63.7 of subpart A of this part and in this section. 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.
* * * * *
48. Section 63.1164 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1164 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(c) 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
shall be stated in a semiannual report. 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. 63.1159(c), including actions taken to correct a
malfunction. The report, to be certified by the owner or operator or
other responsible official, shall be submitted semiannually and
delivered or postmarked by the 30th day following the end of each
calendar half.
49. Section 63.1165 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
b. Revising paragraph (a)(4);
c. Removing paragraph (a)(5) and redesignating paragraphs (a)(6)
through (a)(11) as paragraphs (a)(5) through (a)(10) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1165 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) * * *
(1) The occurrence and duration of each malfunction of operation
(i.e., process equipment);
* * * * *
[[Page 65145]]
(4) Actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize
emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.1259(c) and the dates of such
actions (including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process
and air pollution control equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation);
* * * * *
50. Table 1 to Subpart CCC is amended by:
a. Removing entry 63.6(a)-(g);
b. Adding entries 63.6(a)-(d), 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), 63.6(f)(2)-(3),
63.6(g);
c. Removing entry 63.7-63.9;
d. Adding entries 63.7, 63.8(a)-(c), 63.8(d)(1)-(2), 63.8(d)(3),
and 63.8(e)-(f);
e. Removing entry 63.10(a)-(c);
f. 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)-(v),
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xvi), 63.10(b)(3), 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10),
63.10(c)(11), 63.10(c)(12)-(14), and 63.10(c)(15);
g. Removing entry 63.10(d)(4)-(5);
h. Adding entries 63.10(d)(4) and 63.10(d)(5) to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart CCC of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
CCC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Applies to Subpart CCC Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
63.6 (a)-(d)............................ Yes............................................
63.6(e)(1)(i)........................... No............................................. See Sec. 63.1259(c)
for general duty
requirement. Any
cross-reference to
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)
in any other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to Sec.
63.1259(c).
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)-(3).......................... Yes............................................
63.6(g)................................. Yes............................................
* * * * * * *
63.7.................................... Yes............................................
63.8(a)-(c)............................. Yes............................................
63.8(d)(1)-(2).......................... Yes............................................
63.8(d)(3).............................. Yes, except for last sentence..................
63.8(e)-(f)............................. Yes............................................
* * * * * * *
63.10(a)................................ Yes............................................
63.10(b)(1)............................. Yes............................................
63.10(b)(2)(i).......................... No.............................................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)......................... No............................................. See Sec.
63.1265(a)(1) for
recordkeeping of
occurrence and
duration of
malfunctions. See
Sec. 63.1265(a)(4)
for recordkeeping of
actions taken during
malfunction. Any
cross-reference to
Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(ii) in
any other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to Sec.
63.1265(a)(1).
63.10(b)(2)(iii)........................ Yes............................................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)..................... No.............................................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv)................... Yes............................................
63.10(b)(3)............................. Yes............................................
* * * * * * *
63.10(c)(1)-(9)......................... Yes............................................
63.10(c)(10)............................ No............................................. See Sec. 63.1164(c)
for reporting
malfunctions. Any
cross-reference to
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)
in any other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to Sec.
63.1164(c).
63.10(c)(11)............................ No............................................. See Sec. 63.1164(c)
for reporting
malfunctions. Any
cross-reference to
Sec. 63.10(c)(11)
in any other general
provision
incorporated by
reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to Sec.
63.1164(c).
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14).................... Yes............................................
63.10(c)(15)............................ No.............................................
63.10(d)(4)............................. Yes............................................
63.10(d)(5)............................. No.............................................
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart GGG--[Amended]
51. Section 63.1250 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1250 Applicability.
* * * * *
(g) Applicability of this subpart. (1) Each provision set forth in
this subpart shall apply at all times, except that the provisions set
forth in Sec. 63.1255 of this subpart shall not apply during periods
of nonoperation of the PMPU (or specific portion thereof) in which the
lines are drained and depressurized
[[Page 65146]]
resulting in the cessation of the emissions to which Sec. 63.1255 of
this subpart applies.
(2) The owner or operator shall not shut down items of equipment
that are required or utilized for compliance with the emissions
limitations of this subpart during times when emissions (or, where
applicable, wastewater streams or residuals) are being routed to such
items of equipment, if the shutdown would contravene emissions
limitations of this subpart applicable to such items of equipment. This
paragraph does not apply if the owner or operator must shut down the
equipment to avoid damage to a PMPU or portion thereof.
(3) At all times, each owner or operator must operate and maintain
any affected source subject to the requirements of this subpart,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to
minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by this standard
have been achieved. 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.
(4) In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in
this subpart, you may assert a civil defense to a claim for civil
penalties for exceedances of such standards that are caused by a
malfunction, as defined in Sec. 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.
(i) 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 of paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section,
and must prove by a preponderance of evidence that:
(A) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, short,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control and
monitoring equipment, or a process to operate in a normal and usual
manner; and could not have been prevented through careful planning,
proper design, or better operation and maintenance practices; and did
not stem from any activity or event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for; and were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and
(B) 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
(C) 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
(D) 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
(E) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment, and human
health; and
(F) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible; and
(G) Your actions in response to the excess emissions were
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(H) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(I) The owner or operator has prepared a written root cause
analysis 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 the best
monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess
emissions that were the result of the malfunction.
(ii) 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
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later 2 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
(g)(4)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
52. Section 63.1251 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ``affirmative defense'' to read as follow:
Sec. 63.1251 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.
* * * * *
53. Section 63.1255 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(4)(v)(A)
to read as follow:
Sec. 63.1255 Standards: Equipment leaks.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(4) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) The owner or operator may develop a written procedure that
identifies the conditions that justify a delay of repair. The written
procedures shall be included in a document that is maintained at the
plant site. Reasons for delay of repair may be documented by citing the
relevant sections of the written procedure.
* * * * *
54. Section 63.1256 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(i)
introductory text, and removing paragraphs (a)(4)(iii) and (iv) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1256 Standards: Wastewater.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) The owner or operator shall prepare a description of
maintenance procedures for management of wastewater generated from the
emptying and purging of equipment in the process during temporary
shutdowns for inspections, maintenance, and repair (i.e., a maintenance
turnaround) and during periods which are not shutdowns (i.e., routine
maintenance). The descriptions shall be included in a document that is
maintained at the plant site and shall:
* * * * *
55. Section 63.1257 is amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text and the first sentence of paragraph
(e)(2)(iii)(A)(6)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.1257 Test methods and compliance procedures.
(a) General. Except as specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this
section, the procedures specified in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f)
of this section are
[[Page 65147]]
required to demonstrate initial compliance with Sec. Sec. 63.1253,
63.1254, 63.1256, and 63.1252(e), respectively. The provisions in
paragraphs (a)(2) through (3) apply to performance tests that are
specified in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section. The
provisions in paragraph (a)(5) of this section are used to demonstrate
initial compliance with the alternative standards specified in
Sec. Sec. 63.1253(d) and 63.1254(c). The provisions in paragraph
(a)(6) of this section are used to comply with the outlet concentration
requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.1253(c), 63.1254(a)(2)(i), and
(a)(3)(ii)(B), 63.1254(b)(i), and 63.1256(h)(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.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) The owner or operator may consider the inlet to the
equalization tank as the inlet to the biological treatment process if
the wastewater is conveyed by hard-piping from either the last previous
treatment process or the point of determination to the equalization
tank; and the wastewater is conveyed from the equalization tank
exclusively by hard-piping to the biological treatment process and no
treatment processes or other waste management units are used to store,
handle, or convey the wastewater between the equalization tank and the
biological treatment process; and the equalization tank is equipped
with a fixed roof and a closed-vent system that routes emissions to a
control device that meets the requirements of Sec. 63.1256(b)(1)(i)
through (iv) and Sec. 63.1256(b)(2)(i). * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 63.1258 [Amended]
56. Section 63.1258 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(8)(iv).
57. Section 63.1259 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1259 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Malfunction records. Each 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), air pollution control equipment, or monitoring equipment.
Each owner or operator shall maintain records of actions taken during
periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.1250(g)(3), including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning
process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its
normal or usual manner of operation.
* * * * *
58. Section 63.1260 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1260 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(i) 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. 63.1250(g)(3), including actions
taken to correct a malfunction.
* * * * *
59. Table 1 to Subpart GGG is amended by:
a. Removing entry 63.6(e);
b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii),
63.6(e)(2), and 63.6(e)(3);
c. Removing entry 63.6(f)-(g);
d. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1), 63.6(f)(2)-(3), 63.6(g);
e. Removing entry 63.7(e);
f. Adding entries 63.7(e)(1) and 63.7(e)(2)-(4);
g. Removing entry 63.8(d);
h. Adding entries 63.8(d)(1)-(2) and 63.8(d)(3).
i. Removing entry 63.10(c)-(d)(2);
j. Adding entries 63.10(c)(1)-(9), 63.10(c)(10), 63.10(c)(11),
63.10(c)(12)-(14), 63.10(c)(15), and 63.10(d)(1)-(2);
k. Removing entry 63.10(d)(4-5); and
l. Adding entries 63.10(d)(4) and 63.10(d)(5) to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart GGG of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart GGG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions reference Summary of requirements Applies to Subpart GGG Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).......... Requirements during No........................... See 63.1250(g)(3) for
periods of startup, general duty
shutdown, and requirement. Any cross-
malfunction. reference to
63.6(e)(1)(i) in any
other general
provision incorporated
by reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to
63.1250(g)(3).
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)......... Malfunction correction No...........................
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)........ Enforceability of Yes..........................
operation and
maintenance
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)............. Reserved................ No........................... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)............. Startup, shutdown, and No...........................
malfunction plan
requirements.
* * * * * * *
63.6(f)(1).................... Applicability of No...........................
nonopacity emission
standards.
63.6(f)(2)-(3)................ Methods of determining Yes..........................
compliance and findings
compliance.
63.6(g)....................... Use of an alternative Yes..........................
nonopacity emission
standard.
[[Page 65148]]
* * * * * * *
63.7(e)(1).................... Conduct of performance No........................... See 63.1257(a) text.
tests. Any cross-reference to
63.7(e)(1) in any
other general
provision incorporated
by reference shall be
treated as a cross-
reference to
63.1257(a).
63.7 (e)(2)-(4)............... Performance tests Yes..........................
requirements.
* * * * * * *
63.8(d)(1)-(2)................ CMS quality control Yes..........................
program requirements.
63.8(d)(3).................... CMS quality control Yes, except for last sentence
program recordkeeping
requirements.
* * * * * * *
63.10(c)(1)-(9)............... Additional recordkeeping Yes..........................
requirements for
sources with continuous
monitoring systems.
63.10(c)(10).................. Malfunction No........................... Subpart GGG specifies
recordkeeping recordkeeping
requirement. requirements.
63.10(c)(11).................. Malfunction corrective No........................... Subpart GGG specifies
action recordkeeping recordkeeping
requirement. requirements.
63.10(c)(12)-(14)............. Additional recordkeeping Yes..........................
requirements for
sources with continuous
monitoring systems.
63.10(c)(15).................. Additional SSM No...........................
recordkeeping
requirements.
* * * * * * *
63.10(d)(1)-(2)............... General reporting Yes..........................
requirements.
* * * * * * *
63.10(d)(4)................... Progress report Yes..........................
requirements.
63.10(d)(5)................... Startup, shutdown, and No........................... Subpart GGG specifies
malfunction report reporting
requirements. requirements.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Appendix A to part 63, Method 306-B is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph 1.2;
b. Revising paragraph 6.1;
c. Revising paragraph 11.1;
d. Adding paragraphs 11.1.1 through 11.1.4.10; and
e. Revising paragraph 11.2.2 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods
Method 306B--Surface Tension Measurement for Tanks Used at Decorative
Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Facilities
* * * * *
1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable to all chromium
electroplating and chromium anodizing operations, and continuous
chromium plating at iron and steel facilities where a wetting agent
is used in the tank as the primary mechanism for reducing emissions
from the surface of the plating solution.
* * * * *
6.1 Stalagmometer. Any commercially available stalagmometer or
equivalent surface tension measuring device may be used to measure
the surface tension of the plating or anodizing tank liquid provided
the procedures specified in Section 11.1.2 are followed.
* * * * *
11.1 Procedure. The surface tension of the tank bath may be
measured using a tensiometer, stalagmometer, or any other equivalent
surface tension measuring device for measuring surface tension in
dynes per centimeter.
11.1.1 If a tensiometer is used, the procedures specified in
ASTM Method D 1331-89 must be followed.
11.1.2 If a stalagmometer is used, the procedures specified in
Sections 11.1.2.1 through 11.1.2.3 must be followed.
11.1.2.1 Check the stalagmometer for visual signs of damage. If
the stalagmometer appears to be chipped, cracked, or otherwise in
disrepair, the instrument shall not be used.
11.1.2.2 Using distilled or deionized water and following the
procedures provided by the manufacturer, count the number of drops
corresponding to the distilled/deionized water liquid volume between
the upper and lower etched marks on the stalagmometer. If the number
of drops for the distilled/deionized water is not within 1 drop of the number indicated on the instrument, the
stalagmometer must be cleaned, using the procedures specified in
Sections 11.1.4.1 through 11.1.4.10 of this method, before using the
instrument to measure the surface tension of the tank liquid.
11.1.2.2.1 If the stalagmometer must be cleaned, as indicated in
Section 11.1.2.2, repeat the procedure specified in Section 11.1.2.2
before proceeding.
11.1.2.2.2 If, after cleaning and performing the procedure in
Section 11.1.2.2, the number of drops indicated for the distilled/
deionized water is not within 1 drop of the number
indicated on the instrument, either use the number of drops
corresponding to the distilled/deionized water volume as the
reference number of drops, or replace the instrument.
11.1.3 Determine the surface tension of the tank liquid using
the procedures specified by the manufacturer of the stalagmometer.
11.1.4 Stalagmometer cleaning procedures. The procedures
specified in Sections 11.1.4.1 through 11.1.4.10 shall be used for
cleaning a stalagmometer, as required by Section 11.1.2.2.
11.1.4.1 Set up the stalagmometer on its stand in a fume hood.
11.1.4.2 Place a clean 150 (mL) beaker underneath the
stalagmometer and fill the beaker with reagent grade concentrated
nitric acid.
11.1.4.3 Immerse the bottom tip of the stalagmometer
(approximately 1 centimeter (0.5 inches)) into the beaker.
11.1.4.4 Squeeze the rubber bulb and pinch at the arrow up (1)
position to collapse.
11.1.4.5 Place the bulb end securely on top end of stalagmometer
and carefully draw the nitric acid by pinching the arrow up (1)
position until the level is above the top etched line.
11.1.4.6 Allow the nitric acid to remain in stalagmometer for 5
minutes, then
[[Page 65149]]
carefully remove the bulb, allowing the acid to completely drain.
11.1.4.7 Fill a clean 150 mL beaker with distilled or deionized
water.
11.1.4.8 Using the rubber bulb per the instructions in Sections
11.1.4.4 and 11.1.4.5, rinse and drain stalagmometer with deionized
or distilled water.
11.1.4.9 Fill a clean 150 mL beaker with isopropyl alcohol.
11.1.4.10 Again using the rubber bulb per the instructions in
Sections 11.1.4.4 and 11.1.4.5, rinse and drain stalagmometer twice
with isopropyl alcohol and allow the stalagmometer to dry
completely.
* * * * *
11.2.2 If a measurement of the surface tension of the solution
is above the 45 dynes per centimeter limit when measured using a
stalagmometer, above 35 dynes per centimeter when measured using a
tensiometer, or above an alternate surface tension limit established
during the performance test, the time interval shall revert back to
the original monitoring schedule of once every 4 hours. A subsequent
decrease in frequency would then be allowed according to Section
11.2.1.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-23839 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P