National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins (Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, HypalonTM, 60432-60461 [E8-23373]
Download as PDF
60432
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0008; FRL–8724–5]
RIN 2060–AO91
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:
Group I Polymers and Resins
(Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production, HypalonTM Production,
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production,
Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production); Marine Vessel Loading
Operations; Mineral Wool Production;
Pharmaceuticals Production; and
Printing and Publishing Industry
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This proposed action requests
public comment on the residual risk and
technology reviews for nine industrial
source categories regulated by five
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants. The five
national emission standards and nine
source categories include: National
Emissions Standards for Group I
Polymers and Resins (Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers Production, HypalonTM
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber
Production, and Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production); National
Emission Standards for Marine Vessel
Loading Operations; National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Mineral Wool Production; National
Emission Standards for Pharmaceuticals
Production; and National Emission
Standards for the Printing and
Publishing Industry. The underlying
national emission standards that are
under review in this action limit and
control hazardous air pollutants.
We are proposing that no revisions to
the five national emission standards
regulating these nine source categories
are required at this time under section
112(f)(2) or 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air
Act.
Comments. Comments must be
received on or before November 24,
2008.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by October 20, 2008, a public
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
hearing will be held on October 27,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0008, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–9744.
• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send
comments to: EPA Docket Center
(2822T), Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2008–0008, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
include a total of two copies.
• Hand Delivery: In person or by
courier, deliver comments to: EPA
Docket Center (2822T), EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Please include a total of two copies.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. We request that a separate
copy of each public comment also be
sent to the contact person listed below
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0008. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0008, EPA, West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this proposed action,
contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143–
01), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
4516; fax number: (919) 685–3219; and
e-mail address: kissell.mary@epa.gov.
For specific information regarding the
modeling methodology, contact Ms.
Elaine Manning, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Sector
Based Assessment Group (C539–02),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541–5499; fax
number: (919) 541–0840; and e-mail
address: manning.elaine@epa.gov. For
information about the applicability of
these five national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
to a particular entity, contact the
appropriate person listed in Table 1 to
this preamble.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
60433
TABLE 1—LIST OF EPA CONTACTS FOR GROUP I POLYMERS AND RESINS, MARINE VESSEL LOADING, MINERAL WOOL,
PHARMACEUTICALS, AND PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
NESHAP for:
OECA contact 1
OAQPS contact 2
Polymers and Resins Production, Group I ..............................................
Scott Throwe, (202) 564–7013,
throwe.scott@epa.gov.
Maria Malave, (202) 564–7027,
malave.maria@epa.gov.
Scott Throwe, (202) 564–7013,
throwe.scott@epa.gov.
Marcia Mia, (202) 564–7042,
mia.marcia@epa.gov.
Len Lazarus, (202) 564–6369, lazarus.leonard@epa.gov.
David Markwordt, (919) 541–0837,
markwordt.david@epa.gov.
David Markwordt, (919) 541–0837,
markwordt.david@epa.gov.
Jeff Telander, (919) 541–5427,
telander.jeff@epa.gov.
Randy McDonald, (919) 541–5402,
mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.
David Salman, (919) 541–0859,
salman.dave@epa.gov.
Marine Vessel Loading Operations ..........................................................
Mineral Wool Production ..........................................................................
Pharmaceuticals Production ....................................................................
Printing and Publishing Industry ..............................................................
1 OECA
stands for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
stands for EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
2 OAQPS
any of these NESHAP, please contact
the appropriate person listed in Table 1
of this preamble in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Submitting Comments/CBI. Direct
your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2008–0008. If commenting on
changes to the residual risk and
technology reviews (RTR) database,
please submit your comments in the
format described in sections III and IV
of this preamble. Do not submit CBI to
EPA through https://www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. Instead, send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the
following address: Mr. Roberto Morales,
OAQPS Document Control Officer
(C404–02), U.S. Environmental
TABLE 2—NESHAP FOR NINE
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES
Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention
1
2
NAICS
MACT
Category
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
code
code
0008. Clearly mark the part or all of the
Epichlorohydrin
information that you claim to be CBI.
Elastomers ProducFor CBI information on a disk or CD–
tion ........................
325212
1311 ROM that you mail to Mr. Morales, mark
Hypalon TM Producthe outside of the disk or CD–ROM as
tion ........................
325212
1315
CBI and then identify electronically
Nitrile Butadiene
Rubber Production
325212
1321 within the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI.
Polybutadiene Rubber Production .......
325212
1325
In addition to one complete version of
Styrene Butadiene
the comment that includes information
Rubber and Latex
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
Production .............
325212
1339
that does not contain the information
Marine Vessel Loading .........................
4883
0603 claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. If you
Mineral Wool Production ........................
327993
0409 submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not
Pharmaceuticals Procontain CBI, mark the outside of the
duction ...................
3254
1201 disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not
Printing and Pubcontain CBI. Information not marked as
lishing Industry ......
32311
0714 CBI will be included in the public
1 North
American Industry Classification docket and EPA’s electronic public
System.
docket without prior notice.
2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
If you have any questions about CBI
To determine whether your facility
or the procedures for claiming CBI,
would be affected, you should examine
please consult the person identified in
the applicability criteria in the
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
section. Information marked as CBI will
questions regarding the applicability of
not be disclosed except in accordance
Regulated
Entities. The nine 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
regulated categories affected by this
action include:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition
to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of this proposed action
will also be available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer
Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the proposed action will be
posted on the TTN’s policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at the following
address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control.
As discussed in more detail in
sections III and IV of this preamble,
additional information is available on
the RTR Phase II Web page at https://
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.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is
held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on
November 10, 2008 and will be held at
EPA’s campus in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate
facility nearby. Persons interested in
presenting oral testimony or inquiring
as to whether a public hearing is to be
held should contact Ms. Mary Tom
Kissell, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Coatings and
Chemicals Group (E143–01), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541–4516.
Outline. The information presented in
this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. Overview of RTR
C. Overview of the Five NESHAP
D. How did we estimate risk posed by the
nine source categories?
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60434
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
E. What are the results of the risk
assessment?
F. What are our proposed decisions on
acceptability and ample margin of
safety?
G. What are the results of the technology
review?
II. Proposed Action
A. What is the rationale for our proposed
action under CAA section 112(f)?
B. What is the rationale for our proposed
action under CAA section 112(d)(6)?
III. Request for Comments
IV. How do I submit suggested data
corrections?
V. 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
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
two-stage regulatory process to address
emissions of 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 or
more per year of a single HAP or 25 tons
per year 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.
The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum
control level allowed for MACT
standards promulgated under section
112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT
floor cannot be less stringent than the
emission control that is achieved in
practice by the best-controlled similar
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
source. The MACT standards for
existing sources can be less stringent
than standards 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.
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 this proposed
rule, we are publishing the results of our
8-year technology review for the nine
industrial source categories listed in
Table 3, which we have collectively
termed ‘‘Group 2A.’’
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, actual health effects to
persons in proximity of emitting
sources, and recommendations as to
legislation regarding 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 CAA section 112(d) standards
whether the emissions limitations
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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
protect public health. In doing so, EPA
may adopt standards equal to existing
MACT standards (NRDC v. EPA, No.
07–1053, slip op. at 11, D.C. Cir.,
decided June 6, 2008). 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. 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 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) directs us to use the
interpretation set out in the Benzene
NESHAP. 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-in1 million] the estimated risk that a person
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.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
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 at 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
upperbound 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 upperbound 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
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 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
second step, EPA strives to provide
protection to the greatest number of
persons possible to an individual
lifetime risk level no higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million. In 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 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 section 112.’’ 54 FR at
38046.
B. Overview of RTR
We have begun to conduct the RTR
for 96 MACT standards covering 174
sources categories. In an effort to
streamline the RTR process and focus
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60435
our resources on source categories with
the greatest potential for risk to human
health and the environment, we
combined source categories to create
several groups, e.g., RTR Group 2A
(which is the subject of this proposed
rule), and decided the order in which
we would propose each source category
group. In deciding how to group source
categories, we considered factors such
as the promulgation date of the
NESHAP, our preliminary analysis of
the level of risk, completeness of
available emissions data, complexity of
the risk assessment, and whether we
anticipated promulgating additional
regulations pursuant to the RTR.
In general, we are addressing source
categories with the earliest NESHAP
promulgation dates first because they
have the earliest RTR due dates and
because the 2002 National Emission
Inventory (NEI) contains emissions data
which reflect implementation of the
NESHAP. Additionally, we are
addressing lower risk source categories
first because they typically require less
effort to complete the necessary analysis
than higher risk source categories. We
expect that the higher risk source
categories will require more time to
evaluate because we will likely need to
perform more refined risk assessments,
and because they may have more
complex issues to address, such as the
emissions of persistent and
bioaccumulative HAP. Moreover, we
believe our reviews of the higher risk
source categories will benefit from an
understanding of the public’s concerns
about our RTR approaches (through the
comments we receive on the earlier
proposals).
For the nine source categories in
today’s proposal for RTR Group 2A, we
have concluded that emissions levels
remaining after compliance with the
existing MACT standards: (1) Pose no
unacceptable maximum individual
cancer risks (i.e., because the MIR is less
than 100-in-1 million the risk is
acceptable); (2) pose no significant
chronic noncancer health effects (i.e.,
maximum individual target organspecific hazard index (HI) values are all
less than or equal to 1); (3) are unlikely
to result in acute adverse health effects
from peak short-term excursions; and (4)
are unlikely to result in any adverse
environmental effect. Thus, we are
proposing that the existing standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent
adverse environmental effects.
Future RTR actions for other source
categories may require changes to
existing MACT standards to achieve the
protection of public health with an
ample margin of safety and/or to
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60436
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
prevent adverse environmental effects.
Future actions may also require
additional emission reductions pursuant
to the technology review. We plan to
conduct RTR assessments for 12 source
categories (RTR Groups 2B and 2C,
which were included in an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking in March
2007) and propose our findings.2 In
addition, we plan to publish at least
three more advanced notices of
proposed rulemaking. We may also
publish some RTR for individual MACT
standards because of special
circumstances such as court ordered
deadlines. (See, for example, the
proposed RTR for Petroleum Refineries,
72 FR 50716, 09/04/2007.)
C. Overview of the Five NESHAP
The nine industrial source categories
and five NESHAP that are the subject of
this proposal are listed in Table 3 to this
preamble. NESHAP limit and control
HAP that are known or suspected to
cause cancer or that may cause other
serious human health or environmental
effects. The NESHAP for these nine
source categories generally require
implementation of emissions reduction
technologies such as combustion
devices, recovery devices, scrubbers,
and fabric filters for point sources and
work practice and equipment standards
for fugitive sources.
TABLE 3—LIST OF NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AND INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY TODAY’S PROPOSAL
Title of NESHAP
NESHAP: Group I Polymers
and Resins 1.
National Emission Standards
for Marine Vessel Loading
Operations.
NESHAP for Mineral Wool
Production.
National Emission Standards
for Pharmaceuticals Production.
National Emission Standards
for the Printing and Publishing Industry.
Source categories affected by
this proposal
Promulgated rule reference
Compliance
date
NESHAP as referred to in this
preamble
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production Hypalon TM Production.
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production.
Polybutadiene Rubber Production.
Styrene-Butadiene Rubber
and Latex Production.
Marine Vessel Loading Operations.
61 FR 46905 (09/05/96) .........
07/31/97
Polymers and Resins I.
60 FR 48388 (09/19/95) .........
09/19/99
Marine Vessels.
Mineral Wool Production ........
64 FR 29489 (06/01/99) .........
06/01/02
Mineral Wool.
Pharmaceuticals Production ...
63 FR 50280 (09/21/98) .........
09/21/01
Pharmaceuticals.
Printing/Publishing (Surface
Coating).
61 FR 27131 (05/30/96) .........
05/30/99
Printing and Publishing.
1 The Polymers and Resins I NESHAP regulates nine source categories. We are performing the RTR for five of these in this proposal. The four
other Polymers and Resins I source categories are being addressed in a separate RTR rulemaking. (See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins (Polysulfide Rubber Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production, Butyl Rubber Production, Neoprene Production); National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Epoxy Resins Production and Non-Nylon
Polyamides Production; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control
Technology Standards (Acetal Resins Production and Hydrogen Fluoride Production), proposed on December 12, 2007, at 72 FR 70543.)
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
1. Polymers and Resins I
The National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:
Group I Polymers and Resins were
promulgated on September 5, 1996 (62
FR 46925). The Polymers and Resins I
NESHAP applies to major sources and
regulates HAP emissions from nine
source categories. In this proposal, we
address five of the Polymer and Resins
I sources categories—Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers Production, Hypalon TM
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber
Production, and Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production.
The Polymers and Resins I NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions resulting from
the production of elastomers (i.e.,
synthetic rubber). An elastomer is a
synthetic polymeric material that can
2 RTR Group 2B: Oil and Natural Gas Production;
Natural Gas Transmission; and Aerospace
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
stretch 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).
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 process
‘‘back-end’’ 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
Operations. RTR Group 2C: Primary Aluminum;
Polymers and Resins IV (seven source categories);
and Ship Building.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
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 five Polymers and Resins
I source categories addressed in this
proposal are discussed further below.
a. Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production
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 epichlorohydrin
elastomers production facility currently
subject to the Polymers and Resins I
NESHAP. This facility produces
epichlorohydrin elastomers primarily,
but the plant site also has equipment
regulated by other NESHAP, which have
been or will be addressed in separate
RTR rulemaking actions.
Toluene accounts for the majority of
the HAP emissions from the
epichlorohydrin production processes at
this facility (approximately 105 tons per
year (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
75 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
NESHAP) from this source category are
approximately equal to the reported,
actual emissions.3
3 Our analysis of the impacts of the worst case
MACT allowable emissions as compared to reported
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
b. Hypalon TM Production
Hypalon,TM
or chlorosulfonated
polyethylene, is a synthetic rubber
produced by reacting polyethylene with
chlorine and sulfur dioxide,
transforming the thermoplastic
polyethylene into a vulcanized
elastomer. The reaction is conducted in
a solvent reaction medium containing
carbon tetrachloride. These elastomers
are commonly used in wire insulation
and jacketing, automotive components,
adhesives, and protective coatings.
We identified one Hypalon TM
production facility currently subject to
the Polymers and Resins I NESHAP. The
plant site for this facility also has other
HAP-emitting sources which are
regulated under separate NESHAP,
including Marine Vessel Loading
Operations, 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y.
Marine Vessel Loading Operations are
addressed separately in this proposed
rule, but RTR for the other NESHAP
have been or will be addressed in
separate rulemaking actions.
Carbon tetrachloride accounts for the
majority of the HAP emissions from the
Hypalon TM production processes at this
facility (approximately 22 TPY and 71
percent of the total HAP emissions by
mass). This facility also reported
relatively small emissions of chlorine,
chloroform, and hydrochloric acid. The
majority of HAP emissions are from
front-end process vents (approximately
63 percent of the total HAP by mass)
and back-end process operations
(approximately 33 percent of the total
HAP by mass). We estimate that MACT
allowable emissions from this source
category are approximately equal to
reported, actual emissions.
c. Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
Nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR) is a
copolymer of 1,3-butadiene and
acrylonitrile, and the NBR production
source category includes any facility
that polymerizes 1,3-butadiene and
acrylonitrile. While NBR is the primary
product at these facilities, styrenebutadiene rubber can also be produced
as a minor product by substituting
styrene for acrylonitrile as a monomer.
Depending on its specific composition,
NBR 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 four NBR production
facilities currently subject to the
actual emissions for each of the nine source
categories is discussed in more detail in
‘‘Estimation of MACT Allowable Emission Levels
and Associated Risks and Impacts for the RTR
Group 2A Source Categories.’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60437
Polymers and Resins I NESHAP. Two of
these facilities are at plant sites that also
have operations which produce styrenebutadiene rubber and latex, another
Polymers and Resins I source category.
The styrene-butadiene rubber and latex
processes and emissions are addressed
separately in today’s proposed action
under the Styrene Butadiene Rubber
and Latex source category. Some of
these facilities also have other HAPemitting sources that are regulated
under separate NESHAP, which have
been or will be addressed in separate
RTR rulemaking actions.
Styrene, 1,3-butadiene, and
acrylonitrile account for the majority of
the HAP emissions from this source
category (approximately 46 TPY and
over 99 percent of the total HAP
emissions by mass). The facilities in this
source category also reported relatively
small emissions of carbon disulfide. The
majority of HAP emissions are from
back-end process operations
(approximately 43 percent of the total
HAP by mass) and front-end process
vents (approximately 34 percent of the
total HAP by mass) for this source
category. However, the emissions from
one facility were not included in this
estimation of emissions by source type,
as it was not possible to positively
discern which types of emission sources
were responsible for emissions from this
facility in all instances. Based on the
emissions release characteristics for this
facility, we estimate that of the facility’s
48 TPY of HAP emissions, the majority
are from back-end process operations
and equipment leaks (approximately 58
and 23 percent by mass, respectively).
We estimate that MACT allowable
emissions from this source category are
approximately equal to reported, actual
emissions.
d. Polybutadiene Rubber Production
Polybutadiene rubber (PBR) is a
homopolymer of 1,3-butadiene (i.e., 1,3butadiene is the only monomer used in
the production of this polymer). While
both the solution and emulsion
polymerization processes can be used to
produce PBR, 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 PBR 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 PBR manufactured in the United
States is used in the production of tires
in the construction of the tread and
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60438
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
sidewalls. PBR is also used as a modifier
in the production of other polymers and
resins (e.g., polystyrene).
We identified five PBR production
facilities currently subject to the
Polymers and Resins I NESHAP. Some
of these facilities are located at plant
sites that also have other HAP-emitting
sources regulated under separate
NESHAP, which have been or will be
addressed in separate RTR actions.
Three of the PBR 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 accounts for the majority of the
HAP emissions from this source
category (approximately 1,455 TPY and
72 percent of the total HAP emissions
by mass). The facilities in this source
category also reported substantive
emissions of styrene and 1,3-butadiene
and relatively minor quantities of three
other HAP. The majority of HAP
emissions are from back-end process
operations (approximately 73 percent of
the total HAP by mass). We estimate
that MACT allowable emissions from
this source category could be as high as
five times the actual emissions.
e. Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production
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 two styrene butadiene
rubber production facilities using the
emulsion process and 12 styrene
butadiene rubber latex production
facilities currently subject to the
Polymers and Resins I NESHAP. 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. Two of these facilities
are located at plant sites that also have
operations which produce NBR, another
Polymers and Resins I source category.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
The NBR processes and emissions are
addressed separately in this proposed
action under the Nitrile Butadiene
Rubber source category. Some of these
facilities are located at plant sites that
also have other HAP-emitting sources
regulated under separate NESHAP,
which have been or will be addressed in
separate RTR 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 13
other HAP. The majority of HAP
emissions are from back-end process
operations (approximately 80 percent of
the total HAP by mass). We estimate
that MACT allowable emissions from
this source category could be as high as
four times the actual emissions.
2. Marine Vessels
The National Emission Standards for
Marine Vessel Loading Operations were
promulgated on September 19, 1995 (60
FR 48388). The Marine Vessel Loading
Operations NESHAP applies to major
sources and regulates HAP emissions
from: Land-based terminals, off-shore
terminals, and the Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company’s Valdez Marine
Terminal.
Marine vessel loading operations are
facilities that load and unload 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 and into a
storage compartment (tank) on the
vessel. Emissions occur as vapors are
displaced from the tank as it is being
filled. Most marine tank vessel loading
operations are associated with
petroleum refineries, synthetic organic
chemical manufacturers, or are
independent terminals.
The primary emission sources of
displaced vapors at marine vessel
loading operations include open tank
hatches and overhead vent systems.
Other possible emission points are
hatch covers or domes, pressurevacuum relief valves, seals, and vents.
Emissions may also occur during
ballasting (i.e., the process of drawing
ballast as water into a cargo hold). The
NESHAP requires control of all
displaced vapors that occur during
product loading. Typical control devices
used to reduce HAP emissions include
vapor collection systems routed to
combustion or recovery devices, such as
flares, incinerators, absorbers, carbon
adsorbers, and condensers.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Additional data indicate that
approximately 800 terminals load HAPcontaining organic liquids. An unknown
fraction of these are containerized
liquids that are not subject to the Marine
Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP.
Therefore, we estimate up to 800
facilities may be subject to the Marine
Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP.
However, data in the 2002 NEI were
available for only 135 facilities and our
analyses are based on these 135
modeled facilities. We believe the 135
modeled facilities are representative of
the source category because we expect
that generally the same HAP, in the
same range of quantities, are emitted
from the 135 modeled facilities as are
emitted from rest of the facilities in the
source category. We extrapolated the
risk results for the 135 modeled
facilities up to the approximately 800
facilities in the source category and
believe the resulting cancer and
noncancer risks either represent or
overstate risk from the 800 facilities in
source category. However, we request
comment on this approach, additional
data on pollutant-specific emissions
from facilities in the NEI, and
identification of emissions from marine
vessel loading facilities not included in
the NEI.
Marine terminals that are part of the
petroleum refineries source category are
not regulated by the Marine Vessel
Loading Operations NESHAP.
Therefore, marine terminals that are part
of the petroleum refineries source
category were not included in this risk
assessment. The petroleum refineries
marine terminals are being addressed in
a separate RTR rulemaking action. (See
the proposed RTR for Petroleum
Refineries, 72 FR 50716, 09/04/2007.)
Hexane, methanol, toluene, and
mixed xylenes account for the majority
of the HAP emissions from the 135 NEI
facilities (approximately 184 TPY and
73 percent of the total HAP emissions
by mass). These facilities also reported
relatively small emissions of 42 other
HAP. These emissions are from the
loading operations at the terminals.
MACT allowable emission levels from
this source category could be higher
than actual emission levels due
primarily to states requiring controls
(typically 90 percent reduction) for
some marine terminals that are not
controlled by the Marine Vessel Loading
Operations NESHAP. Based on typical
state rule emission reduction
requirements we estimate that the
MACT allowable emissions from this
source category would be 10 times the
actual emissions for terminals not
controlled by the Marine Vessel Loading
Operations NESHAP and approximately
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
two times the actual emissions for
marine terminals that are controlled by
the Marine Vessel Loading Operations
NESHAP.
3. Mineral Wool Production
The National Emission Standards for
Mineral Wool Production were
promulgated on June 1, 1999 (64 FR
29489). The Mineral Wool Production
NESHAP applies to major sources of
HAP.
Mineral wool is a fibrous, glassy
substance made from natural rock (such
as basalt), blast furnace slag, or other
similar materials. In the mineral wool
manufacturing process, rock and/or
blast furnace slag and other raw
materials (e.g., gravel) are melted in a
furnace (cupola) using coke as a fuel.
The molten material is then formed into
fiber. Mineral wool is manufactured as
either a ‘‘bonded’’ product that
incorporates a binder to increase
structural rigidity or a less rigid
‘‘nonbonded’’ product. Products made
from mineral wool are used for
insulation, sound control and
attenuation, and fire protection. The
industry is declining significantly due
to economic and competitive reasons
(e.g., availability of alternative products
such as cellulose insulation).
Emission sources at mineral wool
production facilities include the cupola
furnace where the mineral charge is
melted; a blow chamber, in which air or
a binder is drawn over the fibers,
forming them into a screen; a curing
oven that bonds the fibers (for bonded
products); and a cooling chamber. The
majority of the emissions originate from
the cupolas and curing ovens. The
NESHAP requires control of particulate
matter emissions from the cupolas and
formaldehyde emissions from the curing
ovens. Typical control devices used to
reduce HAP emissions from the cupola
include baghouses/fabric filters, and
emissions from the curing ovens are
generally controlled with thermal
incinerators.
We identified eight facilities currently
subject to the Mineral Wool Production
NESHAP. Some of these facilities also
have other HAP-emitting sources that
are regulated under separate NESHAP,
which have been or will be addressed in
separate RTR rulemaking actions.
Carbonyl sulfide accounts for the
majority of the HAP emissions from
these facilities (approximately 416 TPY
and 87 percent of the total HAP
emissions by mass). These facilities also
reported relatively small emissions of 16
other HAP. The majority of HAP
emissions are from the cupolas
(approximately 80 percent of the total
HAP by mass). The majority of HAP
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
emissions (primarily formaldehyde) that
were significant in evaluating risk are
from the cooling chambers. We estimate
that MACT allowable emissions from
this source category could be as high as
two times the actual emissions.
4. Pharmaceuticals Production
The National Emission Standards for
Pharmaceuticals Production were
promulgated on September 21, 1998 (63
FR 50280). The Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP applies to major
sources of HAP.
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 are
typically reduced by leak detection and
repair work practice programs, and in
some cases, by equipment
modifications.
We identified 27 facilities currently
subject to the Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP. Some of these
facilities are located at plant sites that
also have other HAP-emitting sources
regulated under separate NESHAP,
which have been or will be addressed in
separate rulemaking actions.
Methylene chloride, methanol,
acetonitrile, and toluene account for the
majority of the HAP emissions from
these facilities (approximately 891 TPY
and 90 percent of the total HAP
emissions by mass). These facilities also
reported relatively small emissions of 65
other HAP. The majority of HAP
emissions are from the process vents
(approximately 70 percent of the total
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60439
HAP by mass emitted from process
vents, with 20 percent and 10 percent of
the total HAP by mass emitted from
equipment leaks and wastewater
operations, respectively). 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 NESHAP.
5. Printing and Publishing Industry
The National Emission Standards for
the Printing and Publishing Industry
were promulgated on May 30, 1996 (61
FR 27132). The Printing and Publishing
NESHAP applies to major sources of
HAP.
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 NESHAP focuses on 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/lowHAP inks and cleaning solvents.
We estimate that approximately 200
facilities are subject to the Printing and
Publishing NESHAP based on the
information we gathered in support of
the rule development in 1996. As data
were available for 179 major source
facilities in the 2002 NEI, our analyses
are based on these 179 facilities. We
believe the 179 facilities represent the
source category because: (1) We have no
reason to believe that emissions from
the other facilities are different from the
facilities we modeled; (2) the difference
between the number of facilities
counted in 1996 and 2002 might be
accounted for by facility closures and by
some facilities achieving area source
status for HAP before the first
compliance date of the Printing and
Publishing NESHAP; and, (3) we believe
in most cases data on 90 percent of the
facilities in a source category will be
representative of the source category as
a whole. Some of these facilities are
located at plant sites that also have
other HAP-emitting sources regulated
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60440
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
under separate NESHAP, which have
been or will be addressed in separate
RTR rulemaking actions.
Toluene accounts for the majority of
the HAP emissions from these facilities
(approximately 6,606 TPY or 88 percent
of the total HAP emissions by mass).
These facilities also reported relatively
small emissions of 56 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 this source category
could be up to 5 times greater than the
actual emissions, as it is possible that
the capture systems and control devices
used at some facilities achieve greater
emission reductions than what is
required by the NESHAP.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
D. How did we estimate risk posed by
the nine source categories?
To support the proposed decisions
presented in today’s notice, EPA
conducted a risk assessment that
provided estimates of MIR, maximum
individual cancer risk distribution
within the exposed populations, cancer
incidence, hazard indices for chronic
exposures to HAP with non-cancer
health effects, hazard quotients (HQ) for
acute exposures to HAP with noncancer health effects, and estimates of
the potential for adverse environmental
effects. The risk assessment consisted of
seven primary activities: (1) Establishing
the nature and magnitude of emissions
from the source categories, (2)
identifying the emissions release
characteristics (e.g., stack parameters),
(3) conducting dispersion modeling to
estimate the concentrations of HAP in
ambient air, (4) estimating long-term
and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 km of the
modeled sources, (5) estimating
individual and population-level
inhalation risks using the exposure
estimates and quantitative doseresponse information, (6) estimating the
potential for adverse human health
multipathway risks and for adverse
environmental effects, and (7)
characterizing risk. In general, the risk
assessment followed a tiered, iterative
approach, beginning with a conservative
(worst case) screening-level analysis
and, where the screening analyses
indicated the potential for nonnegligible risks, following that with
more refined analyses. The following
sections summarize these activities. For
more information on the risk assessment
inputs and models, see ‘‘Residual Risk
Assessment for Nine Source
Categories,’’ available in the docket.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
We engaged in a consultation with a
panel from the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) on the ‘‘Risk and Technology
Review (RTR) Assessment Plan’’ in
December of 2006. The results of this
consultation were transmitted to us in
June 2007 in a letter from the SAB
which also contained a summary listing
of the key messages from the panel. The
letter is available from the docket and
from https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sab
product.nsf/33152C83D29
530F08525730D006C3ABF/$File/sab07–009.pdf. In developing the risk
assessments for the nine source
categories covered by this proposal, we
followed the RTR Assessment Plan,
addressing the key messages from the
panel, where appropriate and relevant
to these assessments.
1. Emissions and Emissions Release
Characteristic Data
The basic approach taken to obtain
the most accurate and reliable emissions
and emissions release characteristic data
was to compile preliminary data sets
using readily available information for
each source category and to share these
data with the public via an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM). 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 Polymers and Resins I
source categories (Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers Production, HypalonTM
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber
Production, and Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production), we
collected emissions data and emissions
release characteristic data directly from
industry. These data generally formed
the data sets used in our analyses for
these source categories.
For the remaining four source
categories (Marine Vessel Loading,
Mineral Wool, Pharmaceuticals, and
Printing and Publishing), we created the
preliminary data sets using the data in
the 2002 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. EPA
collects this information and releases an
updated version of the NEI database
every 3 years.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
On March 29, 2007, we published an
ANPRM (72 FR 29287) specifically to
request comments and updates to these
preliminary data sets. We received
comments on emissions data and
emissions release characteristics data for
facilities in these nine 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, the final data sets
were created. These data sets were used
to conduct the risk assessments and
other analyses that form the bases for
these proposed actions.
In addition to gathering information
regarding the actual emissions from the
sources in the nine source categories,
we also examined the underlying
NESHAP to determine whether the
emissions that a source was allowed to
emit when in compliance with the
NESHAP would significantly vary from
the actual emissions data we had
gathered. Where such ‘‘MACT
allowable’’ emission levels could be
higher than the actual emission levels,
we extrapolated the risks associated
with the MACT allowable emission
levels from the risks associated with the
actual emission levels.
The data sets for these nine source
categories and documentation of the
emissions data sets used for each source
category are available in the RTR Group
2A docket. The documentation of the
emission data sets provides a
description of the changes in the dataset
for each source category since the
ANPRM, describes the data changes
requested in public comments, and
documents the analysis of MACT
allowable emissions for each source
category.
2. Dispersion Modeling, Inhalation
Exposures, and Individual and
Population Inhalation Risks
Both long-term and short-term
inhalation exposure concentrations and
health risk from each of the nine 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
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
estimates and quantitative doseresponse 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.4 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 thorough
coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States
Census Bureau census block 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 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
atw/toxsource/summary.html and are
discussed in more detail later in this
section.
In developing the risk assessment for
chronic exposures, we used the
estimated annual average ambient air
concentration of each HAP emitted by
each source for which we have
emissions data in the source category at
each nearby census block 5 centroid 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 risk associated with a lifetime
(70-year) 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 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 one microgram of the
pollutant per cubic meter of air. For
residual risk assessments, we generally
use URE values from EPA’s Integrated
4 Environmental Protection Agency. Revision to
the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Adoption o
fa Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex
Terrain) Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70
FR 68218). November 9, 2005.
5 A typical census block is comprised of
approximately 40 people or about 10 households.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
Risk Information System (IRIS). 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 doseresponse 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. Total cancer risks were the sum
of the risks of each carcinogenic HAP
(including known, probable, and
possible carcinogens) emitted by the
modeled source. Air concentrations of
HAP from sources other than the
modeled source were not estimated.
Total cancer incidence and the
distribution of individual cancer risks
across the population within 50
kilometers of any source were also
estimated as part of these assessments
by summing individual risks. We are
using 50 kilometers to be consistent
with both the analysis supporting the
1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044)
and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion modeling.
To assess risk of noncancer health
effects from chronic exposures, we
summed the HQ for each 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 Reference Concentration (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, we use the CalEPA
Chronic Reference Exposure Level
(REL), which is defined as ‘‘the
concentration level at or below which
no adverse health effects are anticipated
for a specified exposure duration,’’ or
the ATSDR Chronic Minimum Risk
Level (MRL), which is defined as ‘‘an
estimate of daily human exposure to a
substance that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of adverse effects (other
than cancer) over a specified duration of
exposure.’’ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60441
such dose-response values in place of or
in addition to other values.
Screening estimates of acute
exposures and risks were also evaluated
for each HAP at any location off-site of
each facility (i.e., not just the census
block centroids) assuming the
combination of a peak (hourly) emission
rate and hourly dispersion conditions
for the 1991 calendar year that would
tend to maximize exposure. 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. Also, for those pollutants
where no other threshold values (REL,
AGEL, or ERPG) were available, we used
ATSDR MRL values for 24-hour and
greater exposure durations.
As described in the California
Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘‘Air
Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference
Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants,’’ an acute REL (https://
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
reference exposure level (REL). RELs are
based on the most sensitive, relevant,
adverse health effect reported in the
medical and toxicological literature.
RELs 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 does not
automatically indicate an adverse health
impact.’’
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels, or
AEGLs, were derived in response to
recommendations from the National
Research Council. As described in
‘‘Standing Operating Procedures (SOP)
of the National Advisory Committee on
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances’’ (https://
www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/
sop.pdf), 6 ‘‘the NRC’s previous name for
acute exposure levels—community
emergency exposure levels (CEELs)—
was replaced by the term AEGLs 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
6 National Academies of Science, 2001. Standing
Operating Procedures for Developing Acute
Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
60442
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sites.’’ This document also states (page
2) that AEGLs ‘‘represent threshold
exposure limits for the general public
and are applicable to emergency
exposures ranging from 10 min to 8 h.’’
The document lays out the purpose and
objectives of AEGLs by stating (page 21)
that ‘‘the primary purpose of the AEGL
program and the NAC/AEGL Committee
is to develop guideline levels for oncein-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 ‘‘It is anticipated that the AEGL
values will be used for regulatory and
nonregulatory purposes by U.S. 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.’’
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/m3) 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 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’’ (https://www.aiha.org/
1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf), which states that,
‘‘Emergency Response Planning
Guidelines (ERPGs) were developed for
emergency planning and are intended as
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
health based guideline concentrations
for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 7
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 is defined as ‘‘the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals
could be exposed for up to one hour
without experiencing or developing
irreversible or other serious health
effects or symptoms which could impair
an individual’s ability to take protective
action,’’.
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, the
available information does not allow
development of a severity level 1 value
AEGL or ERPG; 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 a 1-hour
exposure duration 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 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).
In cases where no acute REL, AEGL or
ERPG value is available for the pollutant
being assessed, we have calculated HQ
values based on the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry’s
Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) to
determine whether we can clearly assert
that there is no potential for acute
impact of concern. The MRL (https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/) is defined as
‘‘an estimate of the daily human
exposure to a hazardous substance that
is likely to be without appreciable risk
of adverse noncancer health effects over
a specified duration of exposure.’’ Since
acute exposure is defined by ATSDR in
the context of MRL as ‘‘exposure that
occurs for a short time (1 to 14 days),’’
7 ERP Committee Procedures and
Responsibilities, 1 November 2006. American
Industrial Hygiene Association.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and since we are most interested in
trying to assess the potential impact of
shorter-duration high-emission events,
we only use these HQ based on MRL
values in the context of a screening
check, wherein we adjust our maximum
1-hour exposures to estimate potential
maximum 24-hour exposures using a
meteorological adjustment factor of 0.4.8
Because these MRL values are based on
longer exposure durations than our peak
1-hour exposure estimates, they are
generally more stringent than 1-hour
thresholds, and therefore provided a
very conservative screen. Thus, HQ
values based on MRL which do not
exceed 1 provide a strong indication
that acute impacts are not of potential
concern. HQ values based on the MRL
which exceed 1, however, do not
automatically indicate an adverse health
impact and may require further analysis.
To develop screening estimates of
acute exposures, we developed
estimates of maximum hourly emission
rates by multiplying the average annual
hourly emission rates by a factor of 10.
The factor of 10 is intended to cover
routinely variable emissions and
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
emissions. We chose to use a factor of
10 based on: (1) Engineering judgment,
and (2) an analysis of short-term
emissions data that compared hourly
and annual emissions data for volatile
organic compounds (VOC) for all
facilities in a heavily-industrialized 4county area (Harris, Galveston,
Chambers, and Brazoria Counties, TX)
over an 11-month time period in 2001.9
The analysis is provided in Appendix 4
of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment
for 9 Source Categories and is available
in the docket for this rule. In this study,
most peak emission events 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. We
request comment on the interpretation
of these data and the appropriateness of
using a factor of 10 times the average
annual hourly emission rate in these
acute exposure screening assessments.
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 sitespecific data were considered to
develop a more refined estimate of the
8 See ‘‘Screening Procedures for Estimating the
Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources’’
(Revised); EPA–454/R–92–019; Chapter 4; page 15.
9 See https://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/
field_ops/eer/ or docket to access the
source of these data.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
potential for acute impacts of concern.
The data refinements considered
included using a better representation of
the peak-to-mean hourly emissions ratio
(instead of using 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. We recognize that having
this level of data is rare, hence our use
of the factor of 10 multiplier approach.
Such an evaluation could include a
more complete statistical treatment of
the key parameters and elements
adopted in this screening analysis.
In the final step of the acute impacts
screening, HQ values exceeding 1 based
on REL, AEGL, ERPG, or MRL values are
interpreted on a case-by-case basis,
considering the implications of the
appropriate definitions and the related
supporting documentation for that
specific value, as well as the context of
the HQ based on the next highest acute
threshold value, where one is available.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
3. Multipathway Human Health Risks
and Environmental Effects Assessment
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 two-step
screening process. In the first step, each
source category was screened by
determining whether any sources
emitted any of the 14 HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the
environment (also known as PB–
HAP)10, as identified in EPA’s Air
Toxics Risk Assessment Library
(available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). As a result of
this screening, we determined that four
of the RTR Group 2A source
categories—Marine Vessel Loading
Operations, Mineral Wool Production,
Pharmaceuticals Production, and the
Printing and Publishing Industry—were
responsible for air emissions of four PB–
HAP—cadmium compounds, mercury
10 Persistent and bioaccumulative (PB) HAP are
HAP that have the ability to persist in the
environment for long periods of time and may also
have the ability to build up in the food chain to
levels that are harmful to human health and the
environment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
compounds, lead compounds, and
polycyclic organic matter (POM).
In the second step of the screening
process, we determined if the facilityspecific emission rates of each of the
specific PB–HAP were large enough to
create the potential for significant noninhalation risks. To facilitate this step,
we 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
positives, or results that suggest that
risks might be acceptable when, in fact,
actual risks are high), and to also
minimize the occurrence of false
positives for human health endpoints.
We call this application of the
TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. The
facility-specific emission rates of each
PB–HAP in each source category were
compared to the emission threshold
values for each of the four PB–HAP
identified in the source category
datasets. None of the emission rates for
the facilities source categories addressed
in this action exceeded the emission
threshold values; therefore, none of the
facilities show the potential for causing
any significant multipathway exposures
and risks. Had this not been the case,
the source categories would have been
further evaluated for potential noninhalation risks and adverse
environmental impacts through sitespecific refined assessments using
EPA’s TRIM.FaTE model. For further
information on the multipathway
screening see the ‘‘Residual Risk
Assessment for 9 Source Categories’’
document (see Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–
2008–0008).
4. Risk Characterization
The final product of the risk
assessment is the risk characterization,
in which the information from the
previous steps is integrated and an
overall conclusion about risk is derived.
Estimates of health risk are considered
in the context of uncertainties and
limitations in the data and
methodology. In general, we have
attempted to reduce both uncertainty
and bias to the greatest degree possible
in these assessments. A brief discussion
of the major uncertainties associated
with the derivation of risk estimates is
provided below. The first section
discusses the consideration of ‘‘MACT
allowable’’ emissions in risk
characterization, followed by a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60443
discussion of uncertainties in risk
assessments. Following these sections,
we have provided summaries of risk
metrics for each source category
(including MIR and noncancer hazards,
as well as cancer incidence estimates).
We note here that several of the
carcinogens emitted by these source
categories (i.e., benzo[a]pyrene,
dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and vinyl
chloride) have a mutagenic mode of
action11, EPA’s ‘‘Supplemental
Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility
from Early-Life Exposure to
Carcinogens’’ 12 was applied to the risk
estimates for these four compounds.
This guidance has the effect of adjusting
the URE by factors of 10 (for children
aged 0–1), 3 (for children aged 2–15), or
1.6 (for 70 years of exposure beginning
at birth), as needed in risk assessments.
In this case, this has the effect of
increasing the estimated lifetime risks
for these pollutants by a factor of 1.6. In
addition, although only a small fraction
of the total 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 implementation policy 13
recommends applying the Supplemental
Guidance to all carcinogenic PAHs for
which risk estimates are based on
relative potency. Accordingly, we have
applied the Supplemental Guidance to
all unspeciated POM mixtures.
Finally, we screened chronic ambient
concentration levels of all individual
HAP against their chronic noncancer
human health thresholds in an effort to
gauge the potential for adverse
environmental impacts, under the
assumption that chronic human toxicity
values are generally protective of direct
inhalation impacts on animals and
direct contact impacts on plants. We
believe that this assumption is
reasonable in most cases, but
acknowledge that it is an uncertainty.
Although not verified for many HAP
11 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
14 June 2006. https://epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/
CGIWGCommunication_II.pdf.
12 U.S. EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for
Assessing Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/
630/R-03/003F. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
13 U.S. EPA, 2005. Science Policy Council Cancer
Guidelines Implementation Workgroup
Communication I: Memo from W.H. Farland dated
4 October 2005 to Science Policy Council. https://
www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/canguid1.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60444
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
because of lacking environmental
testing data, this assumption has been
shown to be valid for some organic
compounds 14 where such test data are
available.
consideration of MACT allowable
emission levels is discussed for each
source.
a. Consideration of Actual and MACT
Allowable Emissions
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 MACT allowable levels of
emissions (i.e., the highest emission
levels that could be emitted while
maintaining the same activity level and
still complying with the NESHAP
requirements) is inherently reasonable
since they 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
then required by emission standards to
provide an operational cushion to
accommodate the variability in
manufacturing processes and control
device performance. Failure to consider
actual emissions data in developing risk
estimates would unrealistically inflate
estimated risk levels.
We performed our risk assessments
based on estimates of actual emission
levels as developed through the process
described earlier in the preamble. For
the nine source categories addressed in
this action, we do not have detailed
information regarding MACT allowable
emission levels. However, we estimated
the potential differences in MACT
allowable and actual emission levels for
each source category and where MACT
allowable emission levels were greater
than actual emission levels, we scaled
the risk results by the ratio of MACT
allowable to actual emission levels. In
many cases, the requirements of the
regulation result in actual emission
levels being a reasonable approximation
of or the same as MACT allowable
emission levels. In section I.E. of this
preamble, the potential risk based on
Uncertainty and the potential for bias
are inherent in all risk assessments,
including those performed for the nine
source categories affected by this
proposal. We reduced some of these
uncertainties by soliciting input from
industry and the public to develop the
best emissions data sets possible.
Although uncertainty exists, we believe
the risk assessments performed for the
nine source categories most likely
overestimate the potential for risks due
to the health-protective assessment
approach. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the emissions data set,
dispersion modeling, inhalation
exposure estimates, and dose-response
relationships is presented in this section
of the preamble. A more thorough
discussion of these uncertainties is
included in both the ‘‘Residual Risk
Assessment for 9 Source Categories’’
(April 2008) and the ‘‘Risk and
Technology Review (RTR) Assessment
Plan’’ (November 2006), both of which
are available in the docket.
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
present, incomplete or missing data,
errors in estimating emissions values,
and other factors. The emission values
considered in this analysis are annual
totals that do not reflect short-term
fluctuations during the course of a year
or variations from year to year. These
annual emissions estimates generally do
not include operations such as startup/
shutdown and malfunctions; 15
however, such emissions are not known
to contribute significantly to total
annual emissions. In contrast, the
estimates of peak hourly emission rates
for the acute effects screening
assessment were based on the generally
health-protective default assumption of
10 times the annual average hourly rate
which is intended to account for
emission fluctuations due to normal
facility operations as well as emissions
from startup, shutdown and
malfunctions events. More refined
estimates were used for source
categories where the screening estimates
14 ‘‘Evaluation of Wildlife Inhalation Exposure
Pathway from Wood Products Plant Emissions.’’
Memorandum to Tim Hunt/AF&PA from David F.
Mitchell and Julie A.F. Kabel, February 25, 2002.
This memorandum is in the docket.
15 The mass balance used to determine emissions
from the publication rotogravure subcategory of the
Printing and Publishing source category includes
emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction
events.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
b. Uncertainties in Risk Assessments
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
did not ‘‘screen out’’ all sources and
more specific information was available.
Facilities in seven of the source
categories (Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production, HypalonTM Production,
Marine Tank Vessel Loading,
Pharmaceuticals Production,
Polybutadiene Rubber Production,
Printing and Publishing, and Styrene
Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production) emit chlorinated
compounds and use incineration
devices, creating the possibility for the
formation of polychlorinated dioxins.
However, we have no test reports or
measurements, conducted by
manufacturers or anyone else,
indicating the presence of dioxins in the
emissions from any of these source
categories, and EPA’s dioxin inventory
does not specifically link dioxins
emissions to any of these source
categories. Furthermore, in our
judgment, it is improbable that dioxins
are emitted in measurable amounts from
these seven source categories given the
low quantity of particulate matter
present. Therefore, we did not consider
dioxins in our assessment of these
source categories.
Overall we believe that the emissions
data considered in this assessment are
accurate representations of the actual
emissions for facilities in the nine
source categories for the stated purpose.
Nevertheless, we request comment on
our emissions data set in general
(including information on individual
sources), and specifically on our
approach for estimating: short-term
emissions used in assessing acute risk;
emissions and associated risk from startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
(SSM); and on the potential for dioxins
emissions from the source categories
affected by this proposal. We also
request comment on evaluating
potential emissions mitigation (emission
limits, work practice standards, and best
management practices) for SSM events
and the associated reduction in
emissions and risks and the associated
costs.
Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling.
While the analysis employed EPA’s
suggested regulatory dispersion model,
AERMOD, there is uncertainty in
ambient concentration estimates
associated with EPA’s choice and
application of the model. Where
possible, model options (e.g., rural/
urban, plume depletion, chemistry)
were selected to provide an
overestimate of ambient air
concentrations. However, because of
practicality and data limitation reasons,
some factors (e.g., meteorology, building
downwash) have the potential in some
situations to overestimate or
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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
concentrations.
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 16
between census blocks in the modeling
domain were not considered. 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. (On average census blocks
are populated by approximately 40
people.) Using the census block centroid
to predict chronic exposures tends to
overpredict exposures for people in the
census block who live further from the
facility and underpredict exposures for
people in the census block who live
closer to the facility. Thus, using the
census block centroid to predict chronic
exposures may lead to a potential
understatement or overstatement of the
true maximum impact, but is an
unbiased estimate of average risk and
incidence.
The assessments evaluate the cancer
inhalation risks associated with
pollutant exposures over a 70-year
period, the assumed lifetime of
individuals. 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
16 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
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 the same, depending on
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.17
In addition to the uncertainties
highlighted above, there are several
factors specific to the acute exposure
assessment that need to 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 cooccurrence of peak emissions and worstcase 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.
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 noncancer 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
which pertains to this whole discussion
on dose-response uncertainty and which
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
17 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996.
(EPA 453/R–01–003; January 2001; page 85.)
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60445
uncertainties and variabilities in dose
response relationships is given in the
risk assessment document.
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).18 In some
circumstances, the true risk could be as
low as zero; however, in other
circumstances the risk could also be
greater.19 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. EPA
typically uses the upper bound
estimates rather than lower bound or
central tendency estimates in our risk
assessments, an approach that can have
limitations for other uses (e.g., prioritysetting or expected benefits analysis).
Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and
RfD) values represent chronic exposure
levels that are intended to be healthprotective 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 be
protective against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects. Uncertainty factors
are commonly default values,20 e.g.,
18 IRIS glossary (https://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/
help_gloss.htm).
19 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.
20 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 riskassessment 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
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
Continued
10OCP2
60446
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
applied in acute reference value
derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity
among humans; (2) uncertainty in
extrapolating from animals to humans;
(3) uncertainty in LOAEL to NOAEL
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. Further, when we
compare our peak 1-hour exposures
against MRL values (which are derived
for 1- to 14-day exposure durations), we
note that peak emission events are
unlikely to last more than an hour. As
such, these comparisons are a very
conservative screen which is only useful
in ruling out potential exposures of
concern, limiting our ability to interpret
situations where MRL values are
exceeded.
Although every effort is made to
identify peer-reviewed reference values
for cancer and noncancer 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 26 of the compounds included in
this assessment are currently under EPA
IRIS review and revised assessments
factors of 10 or 3, used in the absence
of compound-specific data; where data
are available, uncertainty factors may
also be developed using compoundspecific information. When data are
limited, more assumptions are needed
and more uncertainty factors are used.
Thus there may be a greater tendency to
overestimate risk-in the sense that
further study might support
development of reference values that are
higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer
default assumptions are needed.
However, for some pollutants it is
possible that risks may be
underestimated.
While collectively termed ‘‘UF’’, these
factors account for a number of different
quantitative considerations when
utilizing observed animal (usually
rodent) or human toxicity data in the
development of the reference
concentration. The UF are intended to
account for: (1) Variation in
susceptibility among the members of the
human population (i.e., inter-individual
variability); (2) uncertainty in
extrapolating from experimental animal
data to humans (i.e., interspecies
differences); (3) uncertainty in
extrapolating from data obtained in a
study with less-than-lifetime exposure
(i.e., extrapolating from subchronic 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 more often using
individual UF values that may be less
than 10. UF are applied based on
chemical-specific or health effectspecific 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
may determine that these pollutants are
more or less potent than the current
value. We will re-evaluate residual risks
if, as a result of these reviews, a doseresponse metric changes enough to
indicate that the risk assessment
supporting today’s notice may
significantly understate human health
risk.
Uncertainties in the Multipathway
and Environmental Effects Assessment.
We generally believe that when
exposure levels are not anticipated to
adversely affect human health, they also
are not anticipated to adversely affect
the environment. While there are
special considerations for certain HAP,
we generally rely on the levels of PBHAP emissions to determine whether a
full assessment of the multipathway and
environmental effects is necessary.
Because emissions of these chemicals
may not be well characterized due to
lack of testing requirements specific to
these chemicals (e.g., these compounds
may be aggregated into testing
requirements for particulate matter),
risks may be understated.
E. What are the results of the risk
assessment?
The human health risks estimated for
the nine source categories are
summarized in this section of the
preamble. Details of the assessment are
located in the docket (Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2008–0008), especially see
‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for 9 Source
Categories.’’ We believe that our
assessment covers all potential health
risks associated with HAP emissions
from the nine source categories affected
by this proposal.
For each of the nine source categories,
the cancer MIR from one or more
exposure routes was greater than 1-in-1
million and/or the maximum HQ for
acute exposure was greater than 1. Table
4 provides an overall summary of the
inhalation risk assessment results, and
the sections below provide more
detailed discussions about the risk
assessment results for each of the nine
source categories.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED INHALATION RISKS FOR THE NINE SOURCE CATEGORIES
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Source category
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production.
HypalonTM Production ..................
19:36 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
Population
at risk ≥ 1in-a-million
(1,000’s)
Annual
cancer
incidence
Maximum
chronic noncancer
TOSHI 3
Maximum off-site acute noncancer HQ4
1
30
4
0.0004
0.2
HQREL = 0.1 epichlorohydrin
1
substance when it believes this to be appropriate.
In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting public
health and the environment, default assumptions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Maximum
individual
cancer risk
(in a million) 2
Number of
facilities1
1
0.4
0.0004
0.1
HQREL = 0.7 chlorine
are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not
underestimated (although defaults are not intended
to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA 2004 An
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles
and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at:
https://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
60447
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED INHALATION RISKS FOR THE NINE SOURCE CATEGORIES—Continued
Maximum
individual
cancer risk
(in a million) 2
Number of
facilities1
Source category
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production.
Polybutadiene Rubber Production
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and
Latex Production.
Marine Vessel Loading Operations.
Mineral Wool Production ..............
Population
at risk ≥ 1in-a-million
(1,000’s)
Annual
cancer
incidence
Maximum
chronic noncancer
TOSHI 3
Maximum off-site acute noncancer HQ4
4
60
47
0.004
0.9
HQREL = 0.3 styrene
5
9
10
7
16
26
0.002
0.004
0.2
0.1
HQREL = 0.3 toluene
HQREL = 0.3 styrene
<800
1
2.4
0.01
0.006
8
30
110
0.008
0.4
Pharmaceuticals Production .........
27
10
4.9
0.001
0.2
Printing and Publishing Industry ...
179
0.05
0
0.000009
0.08
HQAEGL–2 = 0.9 chloroform
HQREL = 8
HQAEGL–1 = 0.7 formaldehyde
HQREL = 4 arsenic
HQREL = 2 chloroform
HQAEGL–1 = 0.5 acetonitrile
HQREL = 10
HQAEGL–1 = 0.5 toluene
1 Number
of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
individual excess lifetime cancer risk.
3 Maximum target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI). Target organ system represented by the TOSHI varies across source categories. Maximum TOSHI is respiratory for the printing and publishing industry, mineral wood production, epichlorohydrin elastomers production, and
Hypalon production. Maximum TOSHI for marine vessel loading operations is based on immunological effects. Maximum TOSHI for nitrile butadiene rubber production, polybutadiene rubber production, and styrene butadiene rubber and latex production is based on reproductive effects.
Maximum TOSHI for pharmaceutical production is based on neurological effects.
4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard
quotient (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. For the Mineral Wool Production Category, there were potential
exceedances of the REL for arsenic (maximum HQ = 4, as noted in the table), but there is no corresponding AEGL–1 value to facilitate further
interpretation of these exceedances. See Section 2 of this preamble for explanation of acute threshold values.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
2 Maximum
As shown in Table 4, we estimate,
based on actual emissions, that the MIR
remaining from HAP emissions from
these nine source categories affected by
this proposal range from 0.05-in-1
million to 60-in-1 million. Cancer
incidence ranged from 0.000009 excess
cancer cases per year (or nine cases
every 1,000,000 years) to 0.01 excess
cancer cases per year (or one excess
cancer case every 100 years). No chronic
noncancer inhalation human health
thresholds were exceeded at off-site
receptors for any of the nine source
categories. The maximum acute HQ
using the REL ranged from 0.1 to 10 and
were all less than 1 (ranging from 0.3 to
0.9) for the AEGL or ERPG where
available. We extrapolated risks based
on MACT allowable emissions in
‘‘Estimation of MACT Allowable
Emission Levels and Associated Risks
and Impacts for the RTR Group 2A
Source Categories’’ in Docket No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2008–0008).
For several source categories, no PB–
HAP emissions were reported, while
very low levels were reported for other
source categories. Our analyses, based
on these low levels of emissions,
indicate these source categories do not
pose potential for human health
multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
1. Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production
Lifetime maximum individual cancer
risks associated with emissions modeled
from the only one epichlorohydrin
elastomer production facility are
estimated to be less than 100-in-1
million. The highest maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk was estimated at
30-in-1 million. The total estimated
cancer incidence from this facility is
0.0004 excess cancer cases per year. We
estimate that 4,000 people exposed to
HAP from this source category may
experience an increased individual
lifetime cancer risk of greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million.
We found no significant risk of
adverse noncancer health effects
associated with the modeled acute or
chronic inhalation exposures from the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production
source category. The maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value associated with
emissions from this epichlorohydrin
elastomer production facility is 0.2, and
the maximum acute screening HQ value
was 0.1. There were no reported PB–
HAP emissions for this source category.
Our analysis, based on the absence of
PB–HAP, indicates this source category
does not pose potential for human
health multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
These risks are based on reported
actual emission levels. Our analysis of
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
potential differences between actual
emission levels and emissions allowable
under the NESHAP indicated that actual
and MACT allowable emission levels
are approximately equal. Therefore, we
expect no appreciable differences in
risks with consideration of MACT
allowable emission levels.
2. HypalonTM Production
Lifetime maximum individual cancer
risks associated with emissions modeled
from the HypalonTM production facility
are estimated to be less than 100-in-1
million. The highest maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk was estimated at
1-in-1 million. The total estimated
cancer incidence from this facility is
0.0004 excess cancer cases per year. We
estimate that 400 people exposed to
HAP from this source category may
experience an increased individual
lifetime cancer risk of greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. We found no
significant risk of adverse noncancer
health effects associated with the
modeled acute or chronic inhalation
exposures from the HypalonTM
Production source category. The
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
value associated with emissions from
this HypalonTM production facility is
0.1, and the maximum acute screening
HQ value was 0.7. There were no
reported PB HAP emissions for this
source category. Our analysis, based on
the absence of PB HAP, indicates this
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60448
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
source category does not pose potential
for human health multipathway risks or
adverse environmental impacts.
These risks are based on reported
actual emission levels. Our analysis of
potential differences between actual
emission levels and emissions allowable
under the NESHAP indicated that actual
and MACT allowable emission levels
are approximately equal. Therefore, we
expect no appreciable differences in
risks with consideration of MACT
allowable emission levels.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
3. Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
All lifetime cancer risks associated
with emissions modeled from the four
NBR production facilities are estimated
to be less than 100-in-1 million. The
highest maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk was estimated at 60-in-1
million. We estimate that 47,000 people
exposed to HAP from this source
category may experience an increased
individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The total
estimated cancer incidence from these
facilities is 0.004 excess cancer cases
per year. We found no significant risk of
adverse noncancer health effects
associated with the modeled acute or
chronic inhalation exposures from the
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
source category. The maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value associated with
emissions from these NBR production
facilities is 0.9, and the maximum acute
screening HQ value for styrene is 0.3
(relative to the acute REL). The
maximum HQ for acrylonitrile based on
the highest acute threshold, the AEGL–
1, was 0.07, so we do not have any
concerns regarding potential acute
impacts. There were no reported PB–
HAP emissions for this source category.
Our analysis, based on the absence of
PB–HAP, indicates this source category
does not pose potential for human
health multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
These risks are based on reported
actual emission levels. Our analysis of
potential differences between actual
emission levels and emissions allowable
under the NESHAP indicated that actual
and MACT allowable emission levels
are approximately equal. Therefore, we
expect no appreciable differences in
risks with consideration of MACT
allowable emission levels.
4. Polybutadiene Rubber Production
All lifetime cancer risks associated
with emissions modeled from the five
PBR production facilities are estimated
to be less than 100-in-1 million. The
highest maximum lifetime individual
cancer risk was estimated at 10-in-1
million. The total estimated cancer
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
incidence from these facilities is 0.002
excess cancer cases per year. We
estimate that 16,000 people exposed to
HAP from this source category may
experience an increased individual
lifetime cancer risk of greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. We found no
significant risk of noncancer health
effects associated with the modeled
acute or chronic inhalation exposures
from the Polybutadiene Rubber
Production source category. The
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
value associated with emissions from
these PBR production facilities is 0.2,
and the maximum acute screening HQ
value was 0.3. There were no reported
PB–HAP emissions for this source
category. Our analysis, based on the
absence of PB–HAP, indicates this
source category does not pose potential
for human health multipathway risks or
adverse environmental impacts.
These risks are based on reported
actual emission levels. While we
estimate that MACT allowable
emissions could be as high as five times
the actual emission levels, we expect no
appreciable differences in risks between
actual emission levels and emissions
allowable under the NESHAP because
over 99 percent of the HAP comprising
the additional emissions attributable to
MACT allowable emission levels have
no cancer potency estimates and
because the noncancer risk contribution
from these additional emissions is
minimal.
5. Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production
All lifetime cancer risks associated
with emissions modeled from the nine
styrene butadiene rubber and latex
production facilities are estimated to be
less than 100-in-1 million. The highest
maximum lifetime individual cancer
risk was estimated at 7-in-1 million. The
total estimated cancer incidence from
these facilities is 0.004 excess cancer
cases per year. We estimate that 26,000
people exposed to HAP from this source
category may experience an increased
individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million. We
found no significant risk of adverse
noncancer health effects associated with
the modeled acute or chronic inhalation
exposures from the Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production source
category. The maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value associated with
emissions from these styrene butadiene
rubber and latex production facilities is
0.1, and the maximum acute screening
HQ value was 0.3. There were no
reported PB–HAP emissions for this
source category. Our analysis, based on
the absence of PB–HAP, indicates this
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
source category does not pose potential
for human health multipathway risks or
adverse environmental impacts.
These risks are based on reported
actual emission levels. While we
estimate that MACT allowable
emissions could be as high as five times
the actual emission levels, we expect no
appreciable differences in risks between
actual emission levels and emissions
allowable under the NESHAP because
over 99 percent of the HAP comprising
the additional emissions attributable to
MACT allowable emission levels have
no cancer potency estimates and
because the noncancer risk contribution
from these additional emissions is
minimal.
6. Marine Vessel Loading Operations
All individual lifetime cancer risks
associated with emissions from the
marine vessel loading operations
facilities are estimated to be less than
100-in-1 million. The highest maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk was
estimated at 1-in-1 million. The total
estimated cancer incidence from these
facilities is 0.01 excess cancer cases per
year. We estimate that 2,400 people
exposed to HAP from this source
category may experience an increased
individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million. We
found no significant risk of adverse
noncancer health effects associated with
the modeled acute or chronic inhalation
exposures from the Marine Vessel
Loading Operations source category.
The maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI value associated with emissions
from these marine vessel loading
operations facilities is 0.006, and the
maximum acute screening HQ value
was 0.9 (using the REL). There were a
few reported emissions of small
amounts of PB–HAP including lead and
POM. Our screening analysis, based on
these low emission levels of PB–HAP,
indicates this source category does not
pose potential for human health
multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
These risks are based on reported
actual emission levels. Our analysis of
potential differences between actual
emission levels and emissions allowable
under the NESHAP indicated that
MACT allowable emission levels may be
2 to 10 times greater than actual
emissions. Considering this difference,
the highest maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk could be as high
as 10-in-1 million, the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could
be up to 0.06, and the maximum acute
HQ value using the REL could be as
high as 9. Considering MACT allowable
emissions, we still do not expect
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
potential for human health
multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts, based on the
very low emissions of PB–HAP.
7. Mineral Wool Production
All lifetime cancer risks associated
with emissions modeled from the eight
mineral wool production facilities are
estimated to be less than 100-in-1
million. The highest maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk was estimated at
30-in-1 million. The total estimated
cancer incidence from these facilities is
0.008 excess cancer cases per year. We
estimate that 110,000 people exposed to
HAP from this source category may
experience an increased individual
lifetime cancer risk of greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. We found no
significant risk of adverse noncancer
health effects associated with the
modeled chronic inhalation exposures.
The maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI value associated with emissions
from these mineral wool production
facilities is 0.4. There were a few
reported emissions of small amounts of
PB–HAP including cadmium, lead, and
mercury. Our screening analysis, based
on these low emission levels of PB–
HAP, indicates this source category does
not pose potential for human health
multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
Potential acute impacts of concern
were identified in the acute inhalation
screening assessment for facilities
emitting formaldehyde and arsenic.
Emissions of each of these pollutants
showed the potential to create
maximum offsite exceedances of acute
screening HQ values of 40 and 20 for
formaldehyde and arsenic, respectively.
One potential exceedance of the AEGL–
1 value (HQAGEL¥1 = 3.0) was identified
for formaldehyde. No AEGL or ERPG
values at any severity level are available
for elemental arsenic, and this makes
the interpretation of any potential
exceedances of the arsenic REL more
uncertain than when such values are
available. Subsequent discussions with
industry experts indicated that the
continuous nature of the process would
not lead to large fluctuations in the
hourly emission rates, and that a more
reasonable, yet still health-protective,
ratio of peak-to-mean hourly emission
rate is 2, rather than 10. (See emissions
documentation in the ‘‘Residual Risk for
9 Source Categories’’ document in EPA
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0008).
Application of this factor to our
assessment still indicates the potential
for acute concerns at two facilities, but
reduces the maximum potential offsite
impacts to HQ values of 8 and 4 based
on the acute REL for formaldehyde and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
arsenic, respectively, and no HQ values
exceeding 1 based on the AEGL or ERPG
values for formaldehyde (HQAEGL¥1 =
HQERPG¥1 = 0.7). Assuming peak hourly
emissions occur throughout the year,
meteorological conditions consistent
with exceedances of the formaldehyde
acute REL are estimated to occur 9
percent of the time, and such conditions
occur roughly 13 percent of the time for
arsenic exceedances. Details on the
refined acute assessment can be found
in Appendix 7 of the ‘‘Residual Risk
Assessment for 9 Source Categories’’
document. Further, under certain
meteorological conditions, the potential
to exceed the REL values for
formaldehyde and arsenic exists even at
average emission levels; this is
estimated to potentially occur 7 percent
of the time for formaldehyde and 4
percent of the time for arsenic.
Exceedances of the formaldehyde REL
indicate the potential for eye irritation;
exceedances of the arsenic REL indicate
the potential for effects to reproductive
and developmental systems. In addition,
the threshold exceedance was of the
REL value only and not of the AEGL or
ERPG values. As noted in the acute REL
documentation, ‘‘RELs are based on the
most sensitive, relevant, adverse health
effect reported in the medical and
toxicological literature. RELs 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 does not
automatically indicate an adverse health
impact.’’
These risks are based on reported
actual emission levels. Our analysis of
potential differences between actual
emission levels and emissions allowable
under the NESHAP indicated that
MACT allowable emission levels may be
up to two times greater than actual
emission levels. Considering this
difference, the highest maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk could be
as high as 60-in-1 million, the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could
be up to 0.8, and the maximum acute
HQ value could be as high as 16.
Considering MACT allowable
emissions, we do not expect potential
for human health multipathway risks or
adverse environmental impacts, based
on the very low emissions of PB–HAP.
8. Pharmaceuticals Production
All lifetime cancer risks associated
with emissions modeled from the 27
pharmaceuticals production facilities
are estimated to be less than 100-in-1
million. The highest maximum lifetime
individual cancer risk was estimated at
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60449
10-in-1 million. The total estimated
cancer incidence from these facilities is
0.001 excess cancer cases per year. We
estimate that 4,900 people exposed to
HAP from this source category may
experience an increased individual
lifetime cancer risk of greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million. We found no
significant risk of adverse noncancer
health effects associated with the
modeled chronic inhalation exposures.
The maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI value associated with emissions
from these pharmaceuticals production
facilities is 0.2. There were a few
reported emissions of small amounts of
PB–HAP including lead, mercury,
cadmium, and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons. Our screening analysis,
based on these low emission levels of
PB–HAP, indicates this source category
does not pose potential for human
health multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
The acute screening identified three
facilities with a potential maximum HQ
value greater than 1 based on REL
values for three pollutants—methylene
chloride, methanol, and chloroform—
with maximum HQ values of 4, 3, and
2, respectively. We also estimated a
maximum HQ value of 2 for acetonitrile
based on the AEGL–1 level. For the
facilities that exceeded acute thresholds
in the screening assessment, we refined
the assessment by plotting receptors on
facility aerial photographs and
determining maximum offsite
concentrations. Once we performed
these refinements, estimated maximum
offsite concentrations were seen to
exceed acute REL values at one facility,
and there were no exceedances of the
AEGL–1 levels for acetonitrile
(HQAEGL¥1 = 0.5). The highest offsite
concentration of chloroform exceeds the
REL by a factor of 2 (HQREL = 2,
HQAEGL¥1 = 0.04). At this facility,
meteorological conditions leading to
offsite exceedances of the REL could
occur as frequently as 13 hours per year,
or about 0.1 percent of the time. HQ
values from the refined assessment did
not exceed 1 for either methylene
chloride (HQREL = 1, HQAEGL¥1 = 0.03)
or methanol (HQREL = 0.9, HQAEGL¥1 =
0.04). The threshold exceedance was of
the REL value for chloroform only. As
noted in the acute REL documentation,
‘‘RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported
in the medical and toxicological
literature. RELs 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 does
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60450
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
not automatically indicate an adverse
health impact.’’ Details on the refined
acute assessment can be found in
Appendix 7 of the ‘‘Residual Risk
Assessment for 9 Source Categories’’
document.
These risks are based on reported
actual emission levels. Our analysis of
potential differences between actual
emission levels and emissions allowable
under the NESHAP indicated that
MACT allowable emission levels may be
up to 25 percent greater than actual
emission levels. Considering this
difference, the highest maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk could be
as high as 13-in-1 million, the maximum
chronic noncancer TOSHI value could
be up to 0.3, and the maximum acute
HQ value could be as high as 3.
Considering MACT allowable emission
levels, we do not expect potential for
human health multipathway risks or
adverse environmental impacts, based
on the very low emissions of PB–HAP.
9. Printing and Publishing Industry
All lifetime cancer risks associated
with emissions modeled from the 179
printing and publishing industry
facilities are estimated to be less than
100-in-1 million. The highest maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk was
estimated at 0.05-in-1 million. The total
estimated cancer incidence from these
facilities is 0.000009 excess cancer cases
per year. We estimate that no one
exposed to HAP from this source
category will experience an increased
individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million. We
found no significant risk of adverse
noncancer health effects associated with
the modeled chronic inhalation
exposures. The maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value associated with
emissions from these printing and
publishing facilities is 0.08. There were
a few reported emissions of small
amounts of PB–HAP including
cadmium, lead, mercury, and POM. Our
screening analysis, based on these low
emission levels of PB–HAP, indicates
this source category does not pose
potential for human health
multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts.
The screening assessment for acute
impacts suggests that short-term toluene
concentrations at seven of the
publication rotogravure facilities
modeled could exceed the acute REL
thresholds for toluene, assuming worstcase meteorological conditions are
present, using our default assumption
that the maximum hourly emissions of
toluene exceed the average hourly
emission rate by a factor of ten, and
using a default source to receptor
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
distance of 100 meters. Emissions of
toluene showed the potential to create
maximum hourly concentrations which
could exceed the acute REL by a factor
of 20 (HQREL = 20) and potentially reach
the level of the AEGL–1 (HQAEGL¥1 = 1).
Additionally, because there is no REL,
AEGL, or ERPG value available for
ethylene glycol, which was reported as
being emitted from this source category,
we used the acute MRL value as an
acute reference value for screening. The
results of this additional assessment
indicated that 4 facilities showed the
potential to exceed the MRL for
ethylene glycol by as much as a factor
of 3 (HQMRL = 3). As noted in the
documentation for MRL values,
‘‘exceeding the MRL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health
impact.’’ We also note that, since MRL
values can be applied to exposure
durations up to 14 days, these estimated
MRL exceedances are likely to be
overestimated.
For the publication rotogravure
facilities that exceeded acute toluene
thresholds in the screening assessment,
we refined the assessment by plotting
receptors on facility aerial photographs
and determining maximum offsite
concentrations. Once we performed
these refinements, estimated maximum
offsite concentrations were seen to
exceed the acute REL at six publication
rotogravure facilities. The highest offsite
concentration exceeds the REL by a
factor of 10 (HQREL = 10) and is about
half of the AEGL–1 value (HQAEGL¥1 =
0.5). This occurs near a public road
north of a facility. At this facility,
meteorological conditions leading to
offsite exceedances of the REL could
occur as frequently as 90 hours per year,
or about 1 percent of the time. At the
facility where we estimate the REL to be
most frequently exceeded, the
maximum REL exceedance is by a factor
of 4 (HQREL = 4), and meteorological
conditions leading to offsite
exceedances of the REL could occur as
frequently as 138 hours per year, or
about 2 percent of the time.
Thus, the highest offsite concentration
exceeds the REL by a factor of 10
(HQREL = 10) and the threshold
exceedance was of the REL value only.
As noted in the acute REL
documentation, ‘‘RELs are based on the
most sensitive, relevant, adverse health
effect reported in the medical and
toxicological literature. RELs 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 does not
automatically indicate an adverse health
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
impact.’’ Further, based on the extensive
information we have on this source
category and on engineering judgment,
we estimate that a factor of 10 emissions
multiplier is most likely high for
publication rotogravure printing.
Instead of 10, we believe a more
appropriate multiplier would be 5 or
less. Using a multiplier of 5 (or less)
would reduce the estimated acute
impacts by half or more from the values
presented. Details on the refined acute
assessment can be found in Appendix 7
of the ‘‘Residual Risk for 9 Source
Categories’’ document (See Docket EPA–
HQ–OAR–2008–0008).
These risks are based on reported
actual emission levels. Our analysis of
potential differences between actual
emission levels and emissions allowable
under the NESHAP indicated that
MACT allowable emission levels may be
up to five times greater than actual
emission levels. Considering this
difference, the highest maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk could be
as high as 0.3-in-1 million, the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
value could be up to 0.4, and the
maximum acute HQ value could be as
high as 50. Considering MACT
allowable emission levels, we do not
expect potential for human health
multipathway risks or adverse
environmental impacts, based on the
very low emissions of PB–HAP.
F. What are our proposed decisions on
acceptability and ample margin of
safety?
Section 112(f) of the CAA requires
that EPA promulgate standards for a
category if promulgation of such
standards is required to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors, an adverse
environmental effect. In determining
whether standards are required to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, EPA considers
both maximum individual cancer risk
and risk of non-cancer health effects
posed by emissions from the source
category, as well as any other relevant
public health-related information or
factors. With regard to maximum
individual cancer risk, the CAA states
that if the MACT standards ‘‘do not
reduce lifetime excess cancer risks [due
to HAP emissions] to the individual
most exposed to emissions from a
source in the category or subcategory to
less than one in one million,’’ EPA must
promulgate residual risk standards for
the source category (or subcategory) as
necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
As discussed in greater detail below,
cancer risks to the individual most
exposed to emissions from the Printing
and Publishing source category are
estimated to be below 1-in-1 million.
After considering this information as
well as an analysis of non-cancer health
effects and environmental effects, we
have determined that the current MACT
standard provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and
prevents an adverse environmental
effect. In reaching this conclusion, we
did not consider costs.
For each of the other source categories
that are the subject of today’s proposed
rulemaking, we estimated that risks to
the individual most exposed to
emissions from the category are 1-in-1
million or greater. Following our initial
determination that excess lifetime
individual cancer risk to the individual
most exposed to emissions from the
category considered exceeds 1-in-1
million, our approach to developing
residual risk standards is based on a
two-step determination of acceptable
risk and ample margin of safety. The
first step, determining whether risks are
acceptable, is only a starting point for
the analysis that determines a final
standard. The second step determines
an ample margin of safety, which is the
level at which the standard is set.
In the Benzene NESHAP, we
explained that we will generally
presume that if the risk to an individual
exposed to the maximum level of a
pollutant for a lifetime (the MIR) is no
higher than approximately 1 in 10
thousand (100-in-1 million), that risk
level is considered acceptable. However,
in determining acceptability we weigh
the magnitude of the MIR with a series
of other health measures and factors,
including overall incidence of cancer or
other serious health effects within the
exposed population, the numbers of
persons exposed within each individual
lifetime risk range and associated
incidence within, typically, a 50 km
exposure radius around facilities, the
science policy assumptions and
estimation uncertainties associated with
the risk measures, weight of the
scientific evidence for human health
effects, and other quantified or
unquantified health effects. Based on
the maximum individual cancer risk
estimates and other health factors
evaluated for the nine source categories,
we have concluded that the residual risk
for these source categories is acceptable.
EPA must consider health and risk
factors, as well as costs and economic
impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular
decision, to complete an overall
judgment on whether the public health
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
is protected with an ample margin of
safety. Because our analyses suggest
risks to the individual most exposed to
emissions equal or exceed 1-in-1 million
after application of the NESHAP for the
source categories other than Printing
and Publishing, we considered the
feasibility and costs of additional
controls to reduce emissions and
associated risks to address whether
additional controls were necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety for
these categories. For each source
category (with the exception of the
Printing and Publishing), we identified
emissions reduction options for each
emission point contributing
significantly to the risks and evaluated
the costs and emission reduction
benefits of these options. These analyses
can be found in impacts assessment
documents for each NESHAP, which are
available in the docket.
We did not consider facility-wide
risk. Although we believe we can
consider facility-wide risk as a relevant
factor in determining an ample margin
of safety, we do not have cost, technical
feasibility, and other data to analyze
emission sources at the facility that are
outside the source category for the nine
source categories in RTR Group 2A.
The sections below and the impact
memos in docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–
0008 provide more detailed discussions
about the emissions reduction options,
the impacts of the emissions reduction
options, and our ample margin of safety
decision for each of the nine source
categories.
1. Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production
For the Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production source category, we
identified only one control option to
address risks from equipment leaks,
which were shown to drive the
maximum individual cancer risks for
this source category. This control option
would require sources to install leakless
valves to prevent leaks from those
components.
We estimated HAP reduction
resulting from this control option is
about 0.4 tons per year from the baseline
actual emissions level. We estimated
that achieving these reductions would
involve a capital cost of about $725,000,
a total annualized cost of about $99,000,
and a cost-effectiveness of $244,000 per
ton of HAP emissions reduced.
Based on actual emissions, we
estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 30-in-1 million,
the annual cancer incidence is 0.0004,
and the population exposed to
individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 4,000.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60451
The additional control requirement
would achieve approximately 10
percent reduction of all three of these
cancer risk metrics at a very high cost.
Further, the analysis based on actual
emission levels has shown that both the
chronic and acute noncancer hazards
are below the threshold value of 1,
indicating little or no potential for
noncancer health effects resulting from
actual emissions from the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production
source category. We estimate that the
MACT allowable emissions from this
source category are approximately equal
to the reported, actual emissions.
Therefore, the estimated emission
reduction, costs, and risk reduction
discussed above would also be
applicable to the MACT allowable
emissions level. As a result, we propose
that, based on actual and MACT
allowable emissions, the existing MACT
standard provides an ample margin of
safety (considering cost, technical
feasibility, and other factors) to protect
public health.
We are also required to consider the
potential for adverse impacts to the
environment as part of a residual risk
assessment. We believe that human
toxicity values for the inhalation
pathway are generally protective of
terrestrial mammals. Because the
maximum cancer and noncancer
hazards to humans from inhalation
exposure are relatively low, we expect
there to be no potential for significant
and widespread adverse effect to
terrestrial mammals from inhalation
exposure to HAP emitted from the
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production
source category. As this source category
had no reported PB–HAP emissions, no
potential for an adverse environmental
effect exists. Because our results showed
no potential for any adverse
environmental effect, we also do not
believe there is any potential for an
adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). With these results, we have
concluded that a consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
In summary, we propose that the
current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. The additional control available
is not cost-effective in light of the
additional health protection against
maximum individual cancer risk and
chronic and acute noncancer hazards
that the control would provide. In
addition, we believe that there is no
potential for adverse environmental
effects. Thus, we are proposing to re-
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60452
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
adopt the existing MACT standard to
satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA.
2. HypalonTM Production
For the HypalonTM Production source
category, we identified only one control
option to address risks from back-end
operations, which were shown to drive
the maximum individual cancer risks
for this source category. This control
option would require HAP emissions
reduction through pollution prevention
or other measures for these operations.
We estimated HAP reduction resulting
from this control option is about 3.7
tons per year from the baseline actual
emissions level. We estimated that
achieving these reductions would
involve a capital cost of about
$3,500,000, a total annualized cost of
about $1,900,000, and a costeffectiveness of $521,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced.
Based on actual emissions, we
estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 1-in-1 million, the
annual cancer incidence is 0.0004, and
the population exposed to individual
lifetime cancer risk of greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million is 400. The
additional control requirement would
achieve approximately 20 percent
reduction of all three of these cancer
risk metrics at a very high cost. Further,
the analysis based on actual emission
levels has shown that both chronic and
acute noncancer hazards are below the
threshold value of 1, indicating little or
no potential for noncancer health effects
resulting from actual emissions from the
HypalonTM Production source category.
We estimate that the MACT allowable
emissions from this source category are
approximately equal to the reported,
actual emissions. Therefore, the
estimated emission reduction, costs, and
risk reduction discussed above would
also be applicable to the MACT
allowable emissions level. As a result,
we propose that, based on actual and
MACT allowable emissions, the existing
MACT standard provides an ample
margin of safety (considering cost,
technical feasibility, and other factors)
to protect public health.
We are also required to consider the
potential for adverse impacts to the
environment as part of a residual risk
assessment. As previously noted, we
believe that human toxicity values for
the inhalation pathway are generally
protective of terrestrial mammals.
Because the maximum cancer and
noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are relatively low,
we expect there to be no potential for
significant and widespread adverse
effect to terrestrial mammals from
inhalation exposure to HAP emitted
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
from the HypalonTM Production source
category. As this source category had no
reported PB–HAP emissions, no
potential for an adverse environmental
effect exists. Because our results showed
no potential for an adverse
environmental effect, we also do not
believe there is any potential for an
adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). With these results, we have
concluded that a consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
In summary, we propose that the
current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. The additional control available
is not cost effective in light of the
additional health protection against
maximum individual cancer risk and
chronic and acute noncancer hazard the
control would provide. In addition, we
believe that there is no potential for
adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing
MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA.
3. Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
For the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production source category, we
identified two control options; one to
address risks from front-end process
vent emissions and another to address
risks from equipment leak emissions.
Emissions from these sources were
shown to drive the maximum individual
cancer risk for this source category. The
control option for front-end process
vents would require controls to be
placed on more vents by expanding the
applicability of the current control
requirements, and the control option for
equipment leaks would involve a
requirement to install leakless valves to
prevent leaks from those components.
We estimated HAP reduction resulting
from additional front-end process vent
controls is about 14.9 tons per year from
the baseline actual emissions level. We
estimated that achieving these
reductions would involve a capital cost
of about $310,000, a total annualized
cost of about $750,000, and a costeffectiveness of $50,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced. We estimated HAP
reduction resulting from additional
equipment leak controls is about 3.7
tons per year from the baseline actual
emissions level. We estimated that
achieving these reductions would
involve a capital cost of about
$6,600,000, a total annualized cost of
about $910,000, and a cost-effectiveness
of $244,000 per ton of HAP emissions
reduced.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Based on actual emissions, we
estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 60-in-1 million,
the annual cancer incidence is 0.004,
and the population exposed to
individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 47,000.
The additional control requirement
would achieve approximately 25
percent reduction of all three of these
cancer risk metrics at a very high cost.
Further, the analysis based on actual
emission levels has also shown that
both the chronic and acute noncancer
hazards are below the threshold value of
1, indicating little or no potential for
noncancer health effects resulting from
actual emissions from the Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber source category. We
estimate that the MACT allowable
emissions from this source category are
approximately equal to the reported,
actual emissions. Therefore, the
estimated emission reduction, costs, and
risk reduction discussed above would
also be applicable to the MACT
allowable emissions level. As a result,
we propose that the existing MACT
standard, based on actual and MACT
allowable emissions, provides an ample
margin of safety (considering cost,
technical feasibility, and other factors)
to protect public health.
We are also required to consider the
potential for adverse impacts to the
environment as part of a residual risk
assessment. As previously noted, we
believe that human toxicity values for
the inhalation pathway are generally
protective of direct impacts on
terrestrial mammals and plants. Because
the maximum cancer and noncancer
hazards to humans from inhalation
exposure are relatively low, we expect
there to be no potential for significant
and widespread adverse effect to
terrestrial mammals from inhalation
exposure to HAP emitted from the
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
source category. As this source category
had no reported PB–HAP emissions, no
potential for an adverse effect exists.
Because our results showed no potential
for an adverse environmental effect, we
also do not believe there is any potential
for an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). With these results, we have
concluded that a consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
In summary, we propose that the
current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. The additional control available
is not cost effective in light of the
additional health protection against
maximum individual cancer risk and
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
chronic and acute noncancer hazard the
control would provide. In addition, we
believe that there is no potential for
adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing
MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA.
4. Polybutadiene Rubber Production
For the Polybutadiene Rubber
Production source category, we
identified two control options; one to
address risks from front-end process
vent emissions and another to address
risks from equipment leak emissions.
Emissions from these sources were
shown to drive the maximum individual
cancer risk for this source category. The
control option for front-end process
vents would require controls to be
placed on more vents by expanding the
applicability of the current control
requirements, and the control option for
equipment leaks would involve a
requirement to install leakless valves to
prevent leaks from those components.
We estimated HAP reduction
resulting from additional front-end
process vent controls is about 178 tons
per year from the baseline actual
emissions level. We estimated that
achieving these reductions would
involve a capital cost of about $310,000,
a total annualized cost of about
$750,000, and a cost-effectiveness of
$4,000 per ton of HAP emissions
reduced. We estimated HAP reduction
resulting from additional equipment
leak controls is about 52 tons per year
from the baseline actual emissions level.
We estimated that achieving these
reductions would involve a capital cost
of about $93,000,000, a total annualized
cost of about $13,000,000, and a costeffectiveness of $244,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced.
Based on actual emissions, we
estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 10-in-1 million,
the annual cancer incidence is 0.002,
and the population exposed to
individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 16,000.
The additional control requirement
would achieve approximately 10
percent reduction of all three of these
cancer risk metrics at a relatively high
cost considering that risks are low under
the current MACT standard and that the
reduction in risks is relatively small.
Further, the analysis based on actual
emissions has shown that both the
chronic and acute noncancer hazards
are below the threshold value of 1.
We estimate that the MACT allowable
emissions from this source category are
as high as five times actual emission
levels. However, the additional
emissions represented by the MACT
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
allowable emissions level are released
from a part of the production process
that does not contribute appreciably to
the risks and for which the control
option would not affect emission levels.
Therefore, we believe that the estimated
emission reductions, costs, and risk
reduction discuss above would also be
applicable to the MACT allowable
emissions level. As a result, we propose
that, based on actual and MACT
allowable emission levels, the existing
MACT standard provides an ample
margin of safety (considering cost,
technical feasibility, and other factors)
to protect public health.
We are also required to consider the
potential for adverse impacts to the
environment as part of a residual risk
assessment. As previously noted, we
believe that human toxicity values for
the inhalation pathway are generally
protective of terrestrial mammals.
Because the maximum cancer and
noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are relatively low,
we expect there to be no potential for
significant and widespread adverse
effect to terrestrial mammals from
inhalation exposure to HAP emitted
from the Polybutadiene Rubber
Production source category. As this
source category had no reported PB–
HAP emissions, no potential for an
adverse effect exists. Because our results
showed no potential for an adverse
environmental effect, we also do not
believe there is any potential for an
adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). With these results, we have
concluded that a consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
In summary, we propose that the
current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. The additional control available
is not cost-effective in light of the
additional health protection against
maximum individual cancer risk and
chronic and acute noncancer hazard the
control would provide. In addition, we
believe that there is no potential for
adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing
MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA.
5. Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production
For the Styrene Butadiene Rubber and
Latex Production source category, we
identified one available control option
to address risks from equipment leaks,
which were shown to drive the
maximum individual cancer risks for
this source category. This control option
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60453
would involve a requirement to install
leakless valves to prevent leaks from
those components.
We estimated HAP reduction
resulting from installing leakless valves
is about 6 tons per year from the
baseline actual emissions level. We
estimated that achieving these
reductions would involve a capital cost
of about $10,600,000, a total annualized
cost of about $1,500,000, and a costeffectiveness of $244,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced.
Based on actual emissions, we
estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 7-in-1 million, the
annual cancer incidence is 0.004, and
the population exposed to individual
lifetime cancer risk of greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million is 26,000. The
additional control requirement would
achieve approximately 25 percent
reduction of all three of these cancer
risk metrics at a relatively high cost.
Further, the analysis based on actual
emissions has shown that both the
chronic and acute noncancer hazards
are below the threshold value of 1.
We estimate that the MACT allowable
emissions from this source category are
as high as four times actual emission
levels. However, the additional
emissions represented by the MACT
allowable emissions level are released
from a part of the production process
that does not contribute appreciably to
the risks and for which the control
option would not affect emission levels.
Therefore, we believe that the estimated
emission reductions, costs, and risk
reduction discussed above would also
be applicable to the MACT allowable
emissions level. As a result, we propose
that, based on actual and MACT
allowable emission levels, the existing
MACT standard provides an ample
margin of safety (considering cost,
technical feasibility, and other factors)
to protect public health.
We are also required to consider the
potential for adverse impacts to the
environment (as part of a residual risk
assessment. As previously noted, we
believe that human toxicity values for
the inhalation pathway are generally
protective of terrestrial mammals.
Because the maximum cancer and
noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are relatively low,
we expect there to be no potential for
significant and widespread adverse
effect to terrestrial mammals from
inhalation exposure to HAP emitted
from the Styrene Butadiene Rubber and
Latex Production source category. As
this source category had no reported
PB–HAP emissions, no potential for an
adverse effect was identified. Since our
results showed no potential for an
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60454
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
adverse environmental effect, we also
do not believe there is any potential for
an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). With these results, we have
concluded that a consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
In summary, we propose that the
current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. The additional control available
is not cost-effective in light of the
additional health protection against
maximum individual cancer risk and
chronic and acute noncancer hazard the
control would provide. In addition, we
believe that there is no potential for
adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing
MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA.
6. Marine Vessel Loading Operations
For the Marine Vessel Loading
Operations source category, we
identified one control option to address
risks from ethylene dichloride
emissions, which were shown to drive
the maximum individual cancer risks
for this source category. This control
option would require the same
performance standard specified in the
original MACT standard to be used at
more facilities by lowering the
applicability limit for ethylene
dichloride emissions from 10 tons per
year to approximately 2.6 tons per year.
We estimated HAP reduction resulting
from this control option is about 15 tons
per year from the baseline actual
emissions level. We estimated that
achieving these reductions would
involve a capital cost of about
$57,000,000, a total annualized cost of
about $11,000,000, and a costeffectiveness of over $700,000 per ton of
HAP emissions reduced.
Based on actual emissions, we
estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 1-in-1 million, the
annual cancer incidence is 0.01, and the
population exposed to individual
lifetime cancer risk of greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million is 2,400. The
additional control requirement would
achieve approximately 5 percent
reduction of all three of these cancer
risk metrics at a very high cost. The
analysis based on actual emission levels
has also shown that both the chronic
and acute noncancer risks are below the
threshold value of 1.
We estimate that the MACT allowable
emissions from this source category
could be 10 times the reported actual
emissions, which could potentially
result in risk impacts up to 10 times
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
those estimated for the actual emissions
level. Assuming all impacts were
proportional to those predicted for
actual emissions, this control option
would result in an emission reduction
of around 150 tons per year (based on
a factor of 10). The risk reduction would
still be minimal. The cost would not
differ, resulting in a cost effectiveness of
around $700,000 per ton based on
MACT allowable emissions.
As a result, we propose that, based on
actual and MACT allowable emissions,
the existing MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety (considering
cost, technical feasibility, and other
factors) to protect public health.
We are also required to consider the
potential for adverse impacts to the
environment as part of a residual risk
assessment. As previously noted, we
believe that human toxicity values for
the inhalation pathway are generally
protective of terrestrial mammals.
Because the maximum cancer and
noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are relatively low,
we expect there to be no significant and
widespread adverse effect to terrestrial
mammals from inhalation exposure to
HAP emitted from the Marine Vessel
Loading Operations source category. To
assess the potential for adverse effect to
other wildlife, we have carried out a
screening-level assessment of adverse
environmental effects via exposure to
PB–HAP emissions. This source
category reported PB–HAP emissions,
but, based on our application of the
screening scenario developed for
TRIM.FaTE model, no potential for an
adverse environment effect via
multipathway exposures was identified.
Because our results showed no potential
for an adverse environmental effect, we
also do not believe there is any potential
for an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). With these results, we have
concluded that a consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
In summary, we propose that the
current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. The additional control available
is not cost-effective in light of the
additional health protection against
maximum individual cancer risk and
chronic and acute noncancer hazard the
control would provide. In addition, we
believe that there is no potential for
adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing
MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7. Mineral Wool Production
For the Mineral Wool Production
source category, we identified one
available control option to address risks
from fiber collection and cooling
chambers, the emission points which
were shown to drive the maximum
individual cancer risks for this source
category. This control option would
require sources to add thermal
incinerators to control emissions from
these areas.
We estimated HAP reduction
resulting from this control option is
about 48 tons per year from the baseline
actual emissions level. We estimated
that achieving these reductions would
involve a capital cost of about
$65,000,000, a total annualized cost of
about $13,000,000, and a costeffectiveness of $270,000 per ton of HAP
emissions reduced.
Based on actual emissions, we
estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 30-in-1 million,
the annual cancer incidence is 0.008,
and the population exposed to
individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million is
110,000. The additional control
requirement would achieve less than 10
percent reduction of all three of these
cancer risk metrics at a very high cost.
The analysis has also shown that the
chronic noncancer hazards are low
based on actual emissions. While the
refined assessment for acute impacts
using actual emission suggests that
short-term arsenic and formaldehyde
concentrations at five modeled facilities
could exceed their acute REL values by
as much as factors of 4 and 8,
respectively, if worst-case
meteorological conditions (which occur
roughly 10 percent of the time) are
present at the same time that maximum
hourly emissions of these chemicals
exceed the average hourly emission rate
by a factor of 2. However, as noted
earlier in this preamble, exceedances of
these REL values may occur even at
average emission rates for roughly 10
percent of the hours in a year. In
addition, the threshold exceedance was
of the REL value only. As noted in the
acute REL documentation, ‘‘RELs are
based on the most sensitive, relevant,
adverse health effect reported in the
medical and toxicological literature.
RELs 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 does not
automatically indicate an adverse health
impact.’’
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
We estimate that the MACT allowable
emissions from this source category
could be as high as two times the
reported actual emissions, which could
potentially result in risk impacts double
those estimated for the actual emissions
level. Assuming all impacts were
proportional to those predicted for
actual emissions, this incinerator
control option would result in an
emission reduction of around 96 tons
per year and a risk reduction of
approximately 20 percent. The cost
would not differ, resulting in a cost
effectiveness of around $135,000 per ton
based on MACT allowable emissions.
Finally, the REL value for arsenic is
designed for a four hour exposure
whereas the exposure duration used in
the modeling scenario was one hour,
making the use of the REL in this
application more protective of human
health than if the exposure durations
were the same. Considering these
factors, although we cannot completely
rule out the potential for acute impacts
from formaldehyde or arsenic at these
facilities, we believe it to be unlikely
any acute health impacts would actually
occur. As a result, we propose that,
based on actual and MACT allowable
emissions levels, the existing MACT
standard, provides an ample margin of
safety (considering cost, technical
feasibility, and other factors) to protect
public health.
We are also required to consider the
potential for adverse impacts to the
environment as part of a residual risk
assessment. As previously noted, we
believe that human toxicity values for
the inhalation pathway are generally
protective of terrestrial mammals.
Because the maximum cancer and
noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are relatively low,
we expect there to be no potential for
significant and widespread adverse
effect to terrestrial mammals from
inhalation exposure to HAP emitted
from the Mineral Wool Production
source category. To evaluate the
potential for adverse effects to other
wildlife, we carried out a screeninglevel assessment of adverse
environmental effects via exposure to
PB–HAP emissions. This source
category reported PB–HAP emissions,
but, based on our application of the
screening scenario developed for
TRIM.FaTE model, no potential for an
adverse environment effect via
multipathway exposures was identified.
Because our results showed no potential
for an adverse environmental effect, we
also do not believe there is any potential
for an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). With these results, we have
concluded that a consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
In summary, we propose that the
current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. The additional control available
is not cost-effective in light of the
additional health protection against
maximum individual cancer risk and
chronic and acute noncancer hazard the
control would provide. In addition, we
believe that there is no potential for
adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing
MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA.
8. Pharmaceuticals Production
For the Pharmaceuticals Production
source category, we identified one
available control option to address risks
from equipment leaks, which were
shown to drive the maximum individual
cancer risks for this source category.
This control option would involve a
work practice requirement to monitor
valves monthly until fewer than 0.5
percent of valves are leaking.
We estimated HAP reduction
resulting from this control option is
about 107 tons per year from the
baseline actual emissions level. We
estimated that achieving these
reductions would involve no capital
costs, a total annualized cost of about
$820,000, and a cost-effectiveness of
$7,600 per ton of HAP emissions
reduced.
Based on actual emissions, we
estimate the maximum individual
lifetime cancer risk is 10-in-1 million,
the annual cancer incidence is 0.001,
and the population exposed to
individual lifetime cancer risk of greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million is 4,900.
The application of the additional
control option would reduce all three of
these relatively low cancer risks metrics
by less than 10 percent. We propose that
the costs for this option are
disproportionate to the limited cancer
health benefit potentially achievable
with the controls. Further, the analysis
has also shown that both the chronic
and acute noncancer hazards are low,
based on actual emissions. While the
assessment for acute impacts using
actual emissions suggests that shortterm chloroform concentrations at one
modeled facility could exceed the acute
threshold, this is only if worst-case
meteorological conditions are present
(estimated at roughly 0.1 percent of the
year) at the same time that maximum
hourly emissions of these chemicals
exceed the average actual hourly
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60455
emission rate by a factor of 5. In
addition, the threshold exceedance was
of the REL value only. As noted in the
acute REL documentation, ‘‘RELs are
based on the most sensitive, relevant,
adverse health effect reported in the
medical and toxicological literature.
RELs 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 does not
automatically indicate an adverse health
impact.’’ Finally, the REL value for
chloroform (the only HAP with the
potential for acute impacts in the
refined analysis) is designed for a 7hour exposure, whereas the exposure
duration used in the modeled scenario
was 1 hour, making the uses of the REL
in this application more protective of
human health than if the exposure
durations were the same. Considering
these factors, we believe it to be
unlikely any acute health impacts
would actually occur.
We estimate that the MACT allowable
emissions from this source category
could be as much as 25 percent higher
than the reported actual emissions,
which could potentially result in risk
impacts 25 percent higher than those
estimated for the actual emissions level.
Assuming all impacts are proportional
to those predicted for actual emissions,
this equipment leak control option
would result in an emission reduction
of around 130 tons per year. The risk
reduction would still be minimal. The
cost would not differ, although the cost
effectiveness would be somewhat lower
at over $6,000 per ton when based on
MACT allowable emissions. As a result,
we propose that, based on actual and
MACT allowable emissions, the existing
MACT standard provides an ample
margin of safety (considering cost,
technical feasibility, and other factors)
to protect public health.
We are also required to consider the
potential for adverse impacts to the
environment as part of a residual risk
assessment. As previously noted, we
believe that human toxicity values for
the inhalation pathway are generally
protective of terrestrial mammals.
Because the maximum cancer and
noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are relatively low,
we expect there to be no potential for
significant and widespread adverse
effect to terrestrial mammals from
inhalation exposure to HAP emitted
from the Pharmaceuticals Production
source category. To evaluate the
potential for adverse effect to other
wildlife, we carried out a screeninglevel assessment of adverse
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60456
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
environmental effects via exposure to
PB–HAP emissions. This source
category reported PB–HAP emissions,
but, based on our application of the
screening scenario developed for
TRIM.FaTE model, no potential for an
adverse environment effect via
multipathway exposures was identified.
Since our results showed no potential
for an adverse environmental effect, we
also do not believe there is any potential
for an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). With these results, we have
concluded that a consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
In summary, we propose that the
current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. The additional control available
is not cost-effective in light of the
additional health protection against
maximum individual cancer risk and
chronic and acute noncancer hazard the
control would provide. In addition, we
believe that there is no potential for
adverse environmental effect. Thus, we
are proposing to re-adopt the existing
MACT standard to satisfy section 112(f)
of the CAA.
9. Printing and Publishing Industry
The Printing and Publishing source
category emits HAP which are known,
probable, or possible carcinogens. EPA
evaluated the emissions of these HAP
and determined that they pose
maximum individual cancer risks less
than 1-in-1 million to the individual
most exposed. Because these risks are
less than 1-in-1 million, EPA is not
required to promulgate standards under
112(f)(2) for the Printing and Publishing
source category unless promulgation of
standards is required to prevent an
adverse environmental effect.
Accordingly, EPA undertook further
analysis to assess whether
environmental effects might result from
emissions from this source category.
Our analysis demonstrated that
chronic noncancer risks are expected to
be low, based on actual and MACT
allowable emissions. We determined
that emissions from the Printing and
Publishing category would result in
chronic noncancer target organ-specific
HI less than or equal to 1 for the
individual most exposed. Thus we do
not anticipate that actual or MACT
allowable emissions would result in
adverse chronic noncancer health
effects.
While the refined assessment for
acute impacts suggests that short-term
toluene concentrations at six modeled
facilities could exceed acute thresholds,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
we believe it unlikely that acute impacts
would occur. Acute impacts of policy
significance are unlikely because we
based the refined assessment on worstcase meteorological conditions
(estimated to occur up to 2 percent of
the time) being present at the same time
that maximum hourly emissions of
toluene exceed the average hourly
emission rate by a factor of 10,
coincident with individuals being in the
location of maximum impact. This set of
assumptions results in an estimate of a
10-fold exceedance of the toluene REL.
As noted in the acute REL
documentation, ‘‘RELs are based on the
most sensitive, relevant, adverse health
effect reported in the medical and
toxicological literature. RELs 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 does not
automatically indicate an adverse health
impact.’’
We are also required to consider the
potential for adverse impacts to the
environment as part of a residual risk
assessment. As previously noted, we
believe that human toxicity values for
the inhalation pathway are generally
protective of terrestrial mammals.
Because the maximum cancer and
noncancer hazards to humans from
inhalation exposure are low, we expect
there to be no potential for significant
and widespread adverse effect to
terrestrial mammals from inhalation
exposure to HAP emitted from the
Printing and Publishing Industry source
category. To evaluate the potential for
adverse effect to other wildlife, we
carried out a screening-level assessment
of adverse environmental effects via
exposure to PB–HAP emissions. This
source category reported PB–HAP
emissions, but, based on our application
of the screening scenario developed for
TRIM.FaTE model, no potential for an
adverse environment effect via
multipathway exposures was identified.
Because our results showed no potential
for an adverse environmental effect, we
also do not believe there is any potential
for an adverse effect on threatened or
endangered species or on their critical
habitat within the meaning of 50 CFR
402.14(a). With these results, we have
concluded that a consultation with the
Fish and Wildlife Service is not
necessary.
In summary, we propose that the
current MACT standard provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health because the maximum individual
cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million, the
chronic noncancer risks are low, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
acute noncancer hazards are below a
level of concern. In addition, we believe
that there is no potential for adverse
environmental effect. In reaching this
conclusion, we did not consider costs.
Thus, we are proposing to re-adopt the
existing MACT standard to satisfy
section 112(f) of the CAA.
G. What are the results of the technology
review?
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires
us to review and revise MACT
standards, as necessary, every 8 years,
taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred during
that time. This authority provides us
with broad discretion to revise the
MACT standards as we determine
necessary, and to account for a wide
range of relevant factors. We interpret
CAA section 112(d)(6) as requiring us to
consider developments in pollution
control in the industry ‘‘taking into
account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies,’’
and to assess the costs of potentially
stricter standards reflecting those
developments (69 FR 48351). We
consider ‘‘developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies’’ to
be:
• Any add-on control technology or
other equipment (e.g., floating roofs for
storage tanks) that was not identified
and considered during MACT
development for the source category,
• Any improvements in add-on
control technology or other equipment
(that was identified and considered
during MACT development for the
source category) that could result in
significant additional emission
reduction,
• Any work practice or operational
procedure that was not identified and
considered during MACT development
for the source category, and
• Any process change or pollution
prevention alternative that could be
broadly applied that was not identified
and considered during MACT
development for the source category.
For the source categories in RTR
Group 2A, our review of developments
in practices, processes, and control
technologies has been on-going since
promulgation of the five NESHAP. In
the years since the RTR Group 2A
NESHAP were promulgated, EPA has
developed air toxics regulations for a
number of source categories that emit
HAP from the same type of emission
sources and have evaluated practices,
processes, and control techniques for
each rulemaking. Thus, the first source
of information about practices,
processes, and control technologies is
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
our own data and experience with the
various industry sectors and source
categories.
The second source of information is
EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER
clearinghouse. The RACT/BACT/LAER
clearinghouse is an EPA-maintained
central data base of case-specific
information on the ‘‘Best Available’’ air
pollution technologies that have been
required to reduce the emissions of air
pollutants from stationary sources (e.g.,
power plants, steel mills, chemical
plants, etc.). The third source of
information is information received
directly from the industry regarding any
developments in practices, processes, or
controls.
The sections below provide more
discussion about the technology review
analyses and results for each of the nine
source categories. More detail about the
technology review can be found in the
technology review documents written
for each source category. The
technology review documents are in the
RTR Group 2A docket.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
1. Polymers and Resins I
In the decade since the Polymers and
Resins I NESHAP was promulgated,
EPA has developed 18 air toxics
regulations for source categories that
emit organic HAP from the same type of
emission sources that are present in the
five Polymers and Resins source
categories in RTR Group 2A. We
reviewed the regulatory requirements
and/or technical analyses for these 18
regulations for new practices, processes,
and control techniques. We also
conducted a search of the BACT/RACT/
LAER clearinghouse for controls for
VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in
the Polymers and Resins and the
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)
categories with permits dating back to
1997. In addition to these two sources
of information, we obtained information
directly from the industry regarding any
developments in practices, processes, or
controls.
We identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission
sources in the Polymers and Resins I
source categories in our technology
review.
2. Marine Vessel Loading Operations
In the decade since the Marine Vessel
Loading NESHAP was promulgated,
EPA has developed eight air toxics
regulations for source categories that
emit organic HAP from the same type of
emission sources that are present in the
marine vessel loading source category.
We reviewed the regulatory
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
requirements and/or technical analyses
for these eight regulations for new
practices, processes, and control
techniques. We also conducted a search
of the BACT/RACT/LAER clearinghouse
for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting
loading processes in the Organic Liquid
Storage and Marketing categories with
permits dating back to 1997. In addition
to these two sources of information, we
also obtained information from
industries with similar emissions
sources with potentially transferable
controls to determine if they have any
developments in practices, processes, or
controls that could be applied here.
We identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission
sources in the Marine Vessel Loading
source category in our technology
review.
3. Mineral Wool Production
Since the Mineral Wool NESHAP was
promulgated, EPA has developed
several air toxics regulations for source
categories that emit organic HAP from
similar types of emission sources that
are present in the mineral wool source
category. These similar types of
emissions sources include both melting
furnaces and curing ovens. We reviewed
the regulatory requirements and/or
technical analyses associated with each
of the subsequent regulatory actions to
identify any practices, processes, and
control techniques considered in these
efforts that could possibly be applied to
the Mineral Wool Production source
category. In addition to the review of
subsequent regulatory actions for
similar emissions types such as melting
furnaces and curing ovens, EPA
conducted a review for other VOC- and
organic HAP-emitting processes that
have similar technology-transferable
controls.
We also conducted a search of the
BACT/RACT/LAER clearinghouse for
the Mineral Wool Production source
category and found the following
processes, practices, and control
technologies: wet scrubbers for
particulate matter (PM); baghouse dust
collectors for PM; electrostatic
precipitators for PM; and thermal
oxidizer for VOC. These practices,
processes, and control technologies are
all examples of the types of emission
reduction techniques that were
considered in the development of the
Mineral Wool MACT standard. In
addition to the search for similar
processes such as cupolas, melting
ovens or furnaces, and curing ovens, we
conducted a search for other PM, HAP
metals, VOC, and organic HAP
processes that have similar, technology-
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60457
transferable controls. No developments
in practices, processes, or control
technologies were revealed as a result of
that search.
In addition to these two sources of
information, we also obtained
information from industries with
technology transferable controls
regarding developments in practices,
processes, or controls.
We identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission
sources in the Mineral Wool Production
source category in our technology
review.
4. Pharmaceuticals Production
In the decade since the
Pharmaceutical NESHAP was
promulgated, EPA has developed 10 air
toxics regulations for source categories
that emit organic HAP from the same
type of emission sources that are present
in the pharmaceutical source category.
We reviewed the regulatory
requirements and/or technical analyses
for these 10 regulations for new
practices, processes, and control
techniques. We also conducted a search
of the BACT/RACT/LAER clearinghouse
for controls for VOC- and HAP-emitting
processes in the Pharmaceuticals source
category.
We identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission
sources in the Pharmaceuticals
Production source categories in our
technology review.
5. Printing and Publishing Industry
In the twelve years since the Printing
and Publishing NESHAP was
promulgated, EPA has developed three
air toxics regulations that emit organic
HAP from emission sources that are
similar to those addressed in the
Printing and Publishing NESHAP. We
reviewed the regulatory requirements
and/or technical analyses associated
with each of three subsequent regulatory
actions to identify any practices,
processes, and control techniques
considered in these efforts that could
possibly be applied to the Printing and
Publishing Industry source category. We
also conducted a search of the BACT/
RACT/LAER clearinghouse for permits
dating back to 1990 for controls for
VOC- and HAP-emitting processes in
the Printing and Publishing Industry
and four additional source categories
with emission sources similar to those
in the Printing and Publishing Industry
source category.
In addition to these two sources of
information, we obtained information
directly from the printing and
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60458
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
publishing industry and the closely
related paper, film, and foil coating
industry regarding developments in
practices, processes, or controls.
We identified no advancements in
practices, processes, and control
technologies applicable to the emission
sources in the Printing and Publishing
source category in our technology
review.
II. Proposed Action
We propose that each of the five
MACT standards for the nine source
categories evaluated in RTR Group 2A—
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production,
HypalonTM Production, Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber Production,
Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex
Production, Marine Vessel Loading
Operations, Mineral Wool Production,
Pharmaceuticals Production, and the
Printing and Publishing Industry—
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and adverse
environmental effect. Thus, we are
proposing to re-adopt each of these
standards for purposes of meeting the
requirements of CAA section 112(f)(2).
In addition, we propose that there are
no developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies that
support revision of the five MACT
standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
A. What is the rationale for our
proposed action under CAA Section
112(f)?
Section 112(f) of the CAA requires
that EPA promulgate standards for a
category if promulgation of such
standards is required to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors, an adverse
environmental effect. The approach we
use to make this determination is that
set forth in the preamble to the Benzene
NESHAP. First, we exclusively evaluate
health risk measures and information in
determining whether risks are
acceptable. Second, we may consider
costs and other factors in deciding
whether further emission reductions are
necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. The EPA
is not required to promulgate standards
for a source category under CAA section
112(f) if the emissions standards protect
public health with an ample margin of
safety and prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
We determined for the printing and
publishing industry that the maximum
individual cancer risks were less than 1in-1 million to the individual most
exposed, and that emissions were
unlikely to cause other adverse human
health or environmental effects. For the
other eight source categories addressed
in this proposal, Epichlorohydrin
Elastomers Production, Hypalon TM
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber
Production, Styrene-Butadiene Rubber
and Latex Production, Marine Vessel
Loading Operations, Mineral Wool
Production, and Pharmaceuticals
Production, we determined that
maximum individual cancer risks were
between 1-in-1 million and 100-in-1
million to the individual most exposed.
Because the risks to the individual most
exposed are greater than 1-in-1 million
for these source categories, we
considered whether the existing
NESAHP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public. In doing so, we
took into account chronic non-cancer
risks, acute risks, and environmental
risks. For each of these eight source
categories, we evaluated one or more
control options and considered the cost
of such controls, the emission
reductions that would achieve and the
impacts of those options on public
health. We determined that the existing
NESHAP for each source category
provides an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevents
adverse environmental effects.
Therefore, we determined that changes
to the NESHAP are not required to
satisfy section 112(f) of the CAA. This
finding considers the additional costs of
further control compared with the
relatively small reductions in health
risks achieved by the options for further
control for each source category.
B. What is the rationale for our
proposed action under CAA Section
112(d)(6)?
As explained in section I.F. of this
preamble, there have been no significant
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Facility data
County Name ............................................................................................
State County FIPS ....................................................................................
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
III. Request for Comments
We request comment on all aspects of
the proposed action. All significant
comments received during the comment
period will be considered. In addition to
general comments on the proposed
actions, we are also interested in
additional data to reduce the
uncertainties of the risk assessments.
Comments must provide supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to
allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or
information.
The facility-specific data for each
source category are available for
download on the RTR Web page at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/
rtrpg.html. The nine source categories
affected by this proposal are referred to
as Group 2A of RTR Phase 2. These data
files include detailed information for
each emissions release point at each
facility in the source category. For large
integrated facilities with multiple
processes representing multiple source
categories, it is often difficult to clearly
distinguish the source category to which
each emission point belongs. For this
reason, the data available for download
for each source category include all
emission points for each facility in the
source category, though only the
emission points marked as belonging to
the specific source category in question
were included in the analysis for that
source category.
The data files for each source category
must be downloaded from the RTR Web
page to be viewed (https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html). These are
Microsoft Access files, which require
Microsoft Access to be viewed (if you
do not have Microsoft Access, contact
us by e-mail at RTR@epa.gov). Each file
contains the following information from
the NEI for each facility in the source
category:
Emissions data
EPA Region ..............................................................................................
Tribal Code ...............................................................................................
Tribe Name ...............................................................................................
State Abbreviation ....................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies since promulgation
of the NESHAP. Because there have
been no such significant developments
and because existing standards provide
an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, we conclude that no
further revisions to the standards
affected by this proposal are needed
under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Pollutant Code.
Pollutant Code Description.
HAP Category Name.
Emissions (TPY).
Control Measure in Place (Y/N).
MACT Code.
MACT Source Category Name.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Facility data
Emissions data
NEI Site ID ................................................................................................
Facility Name ............................................................................................
Location Address ......................................................................................
City Name .................................................................................................
State Name ...............................................................................................
Zip Code ...................................................................................................
Facility Registry Identifier .........................................................................
State Facility Identifier ..............................................................................
SIC Code ..................................................................................................
SIC Code Description ...............................................................................
NAICS Code .............................................................................................
Facility Category Code .............................................................................
Facility Category .......................................................................................
More information on these NEI data
fields can be found in the NEI
documentation at https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/chief/net/2002inventory.html#
documentation.
IV. How do I submit suggested data
corrections?
If you believe that the data are not
representative or are inaccurate, please
MACT Flag.
MACT Compliance Status Code.
SCC Code.
SCC Code Description.
Emission Unit ID.
Process ID.
Emission Release Point ID.
Emission Release Point Type Code.
Emission Release Point Type.
Stack Default Flag.
Stack Default Flag Description.
Stack height.
Exit Gas Temperature.
Stack Diameter.
Exit Gas Velocity.
Exit Gas Flow Rate.
Fugitive Length.
Fugitive Width.
Fugitive Angle.
Longitude.
Latitude.
Location Default Flag.
Data Source Code.
Data Source Description.
HAP Emissions Performance Level Code.
HAP Emissions Performance Level Description.
Start Date.
End Date.
identify the data in question, provide
your reason for concern, and provide
improved data, if available. When
submitting data, we ask that you
provide documentation of the basis for
the revised values to support any
suggested changes.
Facility data
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
REVISED
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
REVISED Facility Category Code ............................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
To submit comments on the data
downloaded from the RTR Web page,
complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter
suggested revisions in the data fields
appropriate for that information. The
data fields that may be revised include
the following:
Emissions data
Tribal Code ..............................................................................
County Name ...........................................................................
Facility Name ...........................................................................
Location Address .....................................................................
City Name ................................................................................
State Name ..............................................................................
Zip Code ..................................................................................
Facility Registry Identifier ........................................................
2. Fill in the following commenter
information fields for each suggested
revision:
• Commenter Name
• Commenter Organization
• Commenter E-Mail Address
• Commenter Phone Number
60459
REVISED Emissions (TPY).
Emissions Calculation Method Code.
REVISED MACT Code.
REVISED SCC Code.
REVISED Emission Release Point Type.
REVISED Start Date.
REVISED End Date.
REVISED Pollutant Code.
REVISED Control Measure in Place (Y/N).
Control Measure.
REVISED Stack height.
REVISED Exit Gas Temperature.
REVISED Stack Diameter.
REVISED Exit Gas Velocity.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate.
REVISED Longitude.
REVISED Latitude.
North American Datum.
REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level.
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Access format and all accompanying
documentation to Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2008–0008 (through one of
the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble). To answer
questions on navigating through the
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
60460
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
data and to help expedite review of the
revisions, it would also be helpful to
submit revisions to EPA directly at
RTR@epa.gov 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 strongly urge that all data revision
comments be submitted in the form of
updated Microsoft Access files, which
are provided on the https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html Web page. Data
in the form of written descriptions or
other electronic file formats will be
difficult for EPA to translate into the
necessary format in a timely manner.
V. 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. This action
is a significant regulatory action because
it raises novel legal and policy issues.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
(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
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden. This
action is proposing no changes to the
existing regulations affecting the nine
source categories affected by this
proposal and will impose no additional
information collection burden.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
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 impact
of this rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impact of this rule on small entities, I
certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule will not impose any
requirements on small entities. EPA is
proposing no further action at this time
to revise the NESHAP.
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 contains no
Federal mandates under the provisions
of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The
rule imposes no enforceable duty on
State, local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector. Therefore, 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 the
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
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
facilities in the RTR Group 1 source
categories 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
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). 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 rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The 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’s health and risk assessments are
contained in section I.D., E., and F. of
this preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. It
does not impose any new energy
requirements. Further, we have
concluded that this rule will not have
any adverse energy effects.
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
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. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable VCS.
The proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
VCS.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Oct 09, 2008
Jkt 217001
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.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
60461
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. This proposed rule
would not relax the control measures on
sources regulated by the rule and,
therefore, would not cause emissions
increases from these sources.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 29, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–23373 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\10OCP2.SGM
10OCP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60432-60461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23373]
[[Page 60431]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:
Group I Polymers and Resins; Marine Vessel Loading Operations; Mineral
Wool Production; Pharmaceuticals Production; and Printing and
Publishing Industry; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 60432]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0008; FRL-8724-5]
RIN 2060-AO91
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins (Epichlorohydrin Elastomers
Production, Hypalon\TM\ Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber
Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex Production); Marine Vessel Loading Operations; Mineral
Wool Production; Pharmaceuticals Production; and Printing and
Publishing Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed action requests public comment on the residual
risk and technology reviews for nine industrial source categories
regulated by five national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants. The five national emission standards and nine source
categories include: National Emissions Standards for Group I Polymers
and Resins (Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, HypalonTM
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene Rubber
Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production);
National Emission Standards for Marine Vessel Loading Operations;
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral
Wool Production; National Emission Standards for Pharmaceuticals
Production; and National Emission Standards for the Printing and
Publishing Industry. The underlying national emission standards that
are under review in this action limit and control hazardous air
pollutants.
We are proposing that no revisions to the five national emission
standards regulating these nine source categories are required at this
time under section 112(f)(2) or 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 24,
2008.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by October 20, 2008, a public hearing will be held on
October 27, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0008, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket
Center (2822T), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0008, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two
copies.
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (2822T), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Please include a total of
two copies. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. We request that a separate copy of
each public comment also be sent to the contact person listed below
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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 https://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0008, EPA, West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and
Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4516; fax
number: (919) 685-3219; and e-mail address: kissell.mary@epa.gov. For
specific information regarding the modeling methodology, contact Ms.
Elaine Manning, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health
and Environmental Impacts Division, Sector Based Assessment Group
(C539-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5499; fax number: (919)
541-0840; and e-mail address: manning.elaine@epa.gov. For information
about the applicability of these five national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact the
appropriate person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.
[[Page 60433]]
Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for Group I Polymers and Resins, Marine Vessel Loading, Mineral Wool,
Pharmaceuticals, and Printing and Publishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP for: OECA contact \1\ OAQPS contact \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polymers and Resins Production, Group I........... Scott Throwe, (202) 564-7013, David Markwordt, (919) 541-
throwe.scott@epa.gov. 0837,
markwordt.david@epa.gov.
Marine Vessel Loading Operations.................. Maria Malave, (202) 564-7027, David Markwordt, (919) 541-
malave.maria@epa.gov. 0837,
markwordt.david@epa.gov.
Mineral Wool Production........................... Scott Throwe, (202) 564-7013, Jeff Telander, (919) 541-
throwe.scott@epa.gov. 5427, telander.jeff@epa.gov.
Pharmaceuticals Production........................ Marcia Mia, (202) 564-7042, Randy McDonald, (919) 541-
mia.marcia@epa.gov. 5402,
mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.
Printing and Publishing Industry.................. Len Lazarus, (202) 564-6369, David Salman, (919) 541-0859,
lazarus.leonard@epa.gov. salman.dave@epa.gov.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OECA stands for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\2\ OAQPS stands for EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The nine 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 regulated categories affected by this
action include:
Table 2--NESHAP for Nine Industrial Source Categories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS \1\ MACT \2\
Category code code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production............. 325212 1311
Hypalon \TM\ Production........................... 325212 1315
Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production............... 325212 1321
Polybutadiene Rubber Production................... 325212 1325
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production..... 325212 1339
Marine Vessel Loading............................. 4883 0603
Mineral Wool Production........................... 327993 0409
Pharmaceuticals Production........................ 3254 1201
Printing and Publishing Industry.................. 32311 0714
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
To determine whether your facility would be affected, you should
examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of any of these NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this
preamble in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Submitting Comments/CBI. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0008. If commenting on changes to the residual risk and
technology reviews (RTR) database, please submit your comments in the
format described in sections III and IV of this preamble. Do not submit
CBI to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Instead, send
or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0008. 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 Mr. Morales, 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.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following
signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the
following address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.
As discussed in more detail in sections III and IV of this
preamble, additional information is available on the RTR Phase II Web
page at https://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.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. on November 10, 2008 and will be held at EPA's campus in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby.
Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to
whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Mary Tom
Kissell, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies
and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-4516.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. Overview of RTR
C. Overview of the Five NESHAP
D. How did we estimate risk posed by the nine source categories?
[[Page 60434]]
E. What are the results of the risk assessment?
F. What are our proposed decisions on acceptability and ample
margin of safety?
G. What are the results of the technology review?
II. Proposed Action
A. What is the rationale for our proposed action under CAA
section 112(f)?
B. What is the rationale for our proposed action under CAA
section 112(d)(6)?
III. Request for Comments
IV. How do I submit suggested data corrections?
V. 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
I. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of 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 or more per year
of a single HAP or 25 tons per year 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.
The MACT ``floor'' is the minimum control level allowed for MACT
standards promulgated under section 112(d)(3). 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
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards 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.
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 this proposed rule,
we are publishing the results of our 8-year technology review for the
nine industrial source categories listed in Table 3, which we have
collectively termed ``Group 2A.''
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, actual health effects to persons in
proximity of emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation
regarding 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 CAA section 112(d) standards whether the
emissions limitations 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 (NRDC v. EPA, No. 07-1053, slip op. at 11, D.C.
Cir., decided June 6, 2008). 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. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first step in this process is the determination of acceptable
risk. The second step provides for an ample margin of safety to protect
public health, which is the level at which the standards are set
(unless a more stringent standard is required to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect).
The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA.
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) directs us to use the interpretation
set out in the Benzene NESHAP. 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
[[Page 60435]]
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 at 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 upperbound 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 upperbound 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 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
second step, EPA strives to provide protection to the greatest number
of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million. In 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 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 section 112.'' 54 FR at
38046.
B. Overview of RTR
We have begun to conduct the RTR for 96 MACT standards covering 174
sources categories. In an effort to streamline the RTR process and
focus our resources on source categories with the greatest potential
for risk to human health and the environment, we combined source
categories to create several groups, e.g., RTR Group 2A (which is the
subject of this proposed rule), and decided the order in which we would
propose each source category group. In deciding how to group source
categories, we considered factors such as the promulgation date of the
NESHAP, our preliminary analysis of the level of risk, completeness of
available emissions data, complexity of the risk assessment, and
whether we anticipated promulgating additional regulations pursuant to
the RTR.
In general, we are addressing source categories with the earliest
NESHAP promulgation dates first because they have the earliest RTR due
dates and because the 2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI) contains
emissions data which reflect implementation of the NESHAP.
Additionally, we are addressing lower risk source categories first
because they typically require less effort to complete the necessary
analysis than higher risk source categories. We expect that the higher
risk source categories will require more time to evaluate because we
will likely need to perform more refined risk assessments, and because
they may have more complex issues to address, such as the emissions of
persistent and bioaccumulative HAP. Moreover, we believe our reviews of
the higher risk source categories will benefit from an understanding of
the public's concerns about our RTR approaches (through the comments we
receive on the earlier proposals).
For the nine source categories in today's proposal for RTR Group
2A, we have concluded that emissions levels remaining after compliance
with the existing MACT standards: (1) Pose no unacceptable maximum
individual cancer risks (i.e., because the MIR is less than 100-in-1
million the risk is acceptable); (2) pose no significant chronic
noncancer health effects (i.e., maximum individual target organ-
specific hazard index (HI) values are all less than or equal to 1); (3)
are unlikely to result in acute adverse health effects from peak short-
term excursions; and (4) are unlikely to result in any adverse
environmental effect. Thus, we are proposing that the existing
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
and prevent adverse environmental effects.
Future RTR actions for other source categories may require changes
to existing MACT standards to achieve the protection of public health
with an ample margin of safety and/or to
[[Page 60436]]
prevent adverse environmental effects. Future actions may also require
additional emission reductions pursuant to the technology review. We
plan to conduct RTR assessments for 12 source categories (RTR Groups 2B
and 2C, which were included in an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking in March 2007) and propose our findings.\2\ In addition, we
plan to publish at least three more advanced notices of proposed
rulemaking. We may also publish some RTR for individual MACT standards
because of special circumstances such as court ordered deadlines. (See,
for example, the proposed RTR for Petroleum Refineries, 72 FR 50716,
09/04/2007.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ RTR Group 2B: Oil and Natural Gas Production; Natural Gas
Transmission; and Aerospace Operations. RTR Group 2C: Primary
Aluminum; Polymers and Resins IV (seven source categories); and Ship
Building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Overview of the Five NESHAP
The nine industrial source categories and five NESHAP that are the
subject of this proposal are listed in Table 3 to this preamble. NESHAP
limit and control HAP that are known or suspected to cause cancer or
that may cause other serious human health or environmental effects. The
NESHAP for these nine source categories generally require
implementation of emissions reduction technologies such as combustion
devices, recovery devices, scrubbers, and fabric filters for point
sources and work practice and equipment standards for fugitive sources.
Table 3--List of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Industrial Source
Categories Affected by Today's Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source categories
Title of NESHAP affected by this Promulgated rule Compliance NESHAP as referred
proposal reference date to in this preamble
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP: Group I Polymers and Epichlorohydrin 61 FR 46905 (09/05/ 07/31/97 Polymers and Resins
Resins \1\. Elastomers 96). I.
Production Hypalon
\TM\ Production.
Nitrile Butadiene
Rubber Production.
Polybutadiene Rubber
Production.
Styrene-Butadiene
Rubber and Latex
Production.
National Emission Standards for Marine Vessel 60 FR 48388 (09/19/ 09/19/99 Marine Vessels.
Marine Vessel Loading Operations. Loading Operations. 95).
NESHAP for Mineral Wool Mineral Wool 64 FR 29489 (06/01/ 06/01/02 Mineral Wool.
Production. Production. 99).
National Emission Standards for Pharmaceuticals 63 FR 50280 (09/21/ 09/21/01 Pharmaceuticals.
Pharmaceuticals Production. Production. 98).
National Emission Standards for Printing/Publishing 61 FR 27131 (05/30/ 05/30/99 Printing and
the Printing and Publishing (Surface Coating). 96). Publishing.
Industry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Polymers and Resins I NESHAP regulates nine source categories. We are performing the RTR for five of
these in this proposal. The four other Polymers and Resins I source categories are being addressed in a
separate RTR rulemaking. (See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I
Polymers and Resins (Polysulfide Rubber Production, Ethylene Propylene Rubber Production, Butyl Rubber
Production, Neoprene Production); National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Epoxy Resins
Production and Non-Nylon Polyamides Production; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (Acetal Resins Production and
Hydrogen Fluoride Production), proposed on December 12, 2007, at 72 FR 70543.)
1. Polymers and Resins I
The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins were promulgated on September 5,
1996 (62 FR 46925). The Polymers and Resins I NESHAP applies to major
sources and regulates HAP emissions from nine source categories. In
this proposal, we address five of the Polymer and Resins I sources
categories--Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Hypalon \TM\
Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene Rubber
Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production.
The Polymers and Resins I NESHAP regulate HAP emissions resulting
from the production of elastomers (i.e., synthetic rubber). An
elastomer is a synthetic polymeric material that can stretch 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).
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 process ``back-end'' 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
[[Page 60437]]
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 five Polymers and Resins I source categories addressed
in this proposal are discussed further below.
a. Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production
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-EO-AGE terpolymer.
Epichlorohydrin elastomers are widely used in the automotive industry.
We identified one epichlorohydrin elastomers production facility
currently subject to the Polymers and Resins I NESHAP. This facility
produces epichlorohydrin elastomers primarily, but the plant site also
has equipment regulated by other NESHAP, which have been or will be
addressed in separate RTR rulemaking actions.
Toluene accounts for the majority of the HAP emissions from the
epichlorohydrin production processes at this facility (approximately
105 tons per year (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 75 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 NESHAP) from
this source category are approximately equal to the reported, actual
emissions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Our analysis of the impacts of the worst case MACT allowable
emissions as compared to reported actual emissions for each of the
nine source categories is discussed in more detail in ``Estimation
of MACT Allowable Emission Levels and Associated Risks and Impacts
for the RTR Group 2A Source Categories.''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Hypalon \TM\ Production
Hypalon,\TM\ or chlorosulfonated polyethylene, is a synthetic
rubber produced by reacting polyethylene with chlorine and sulfur
dioxide, transforming the thermoplastic polyethylene into a vulcanized
elastomer. The reaction is conducted in a solvent reaction medium
containing carbon tetrachloride. These elastomers are commonly used in
wire insulation and jacketing, automotive components, adhesives, and
protective coatings.
We identified one Hypalon \TM\ production facility currently
subject to the Polymers and Resins I NESHAP. The plant site for this
facility also has other HAP-emitting sources which are regulated under
separate NESHAP, including Marine Vessel Loading Operations, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart Y. Marine Vessel Loading Operations are addressed
separately in this proposed rule, but RTR for the other NESHAP have
been or will be addressed in separate rulemaking actions.
Carbon tetrachloride accounts for the majority of the HAP emissions
from the Hypalon \TM\ production processes at this facility
(approximately 22 TPY and 71 percent of the total HAP emissions by
mass). This facility also reported relatively small emissions of
chlorine, chloroform, and hydrochloric acid. The majority of HAP
emissions are from front-end process vents (approximately 63 percent of
the total HAP by mass) and back-end process operations (approximately
33 percent of the total HAP by mass). We estimate that MACT allowable
emissions from this source category are approximately equal to
reported, actual emissions.
c. Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production
Nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR) is a copolymer of 1,3-butadiene and
acrylonitrile, and the NBR production source category includes any
facility that polymerizes 1,3-butadiene and acrylonitrile. While NBR 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, NBR
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 four NBR production facilities currently subject to
the Polymers and Resins I NESHAP. Two of these facilities are at plant
sites that also have operations which produce styrene-butadiene rubber
and latex, another Polymers and Resins I source category. The styrene-
butadiene rubber and latex processes and emissions are addressed
separately in today's proposed action under the Styrene Butadiene
Rubber and Latex source category. Some of these facilities also have
other HAP-emitting sources that are regulated under separate NESHAP,
which have been or will be addressed in separate RTR rulemaking
actions.
Styrene, 1,3-butadiene, and acrylonitrile account for the majority
of the HAP emissions from this source category (approximately 46 TPY
and over 99 percent of the total HAP emissions by mass). The facilities
in this source category also reported relatively small emissions of
carbon disulfide. The majority of HAP emissions are from back-end
process operations (approximately 43 percent of the total HAP by mass)
and front-end process vents (approximately 34 percent of the total HAP
by mass) for this source category. However, the emissions from one
facility were not included in this estimation of emissions by source
type, as it was not possible to positively discern which types of
emission sources were responsible for emissions from this facility in
all instances. Based on the emissions release characteristics for this
facility, we estimate that of the facility's 48 TPY of HAP emissions,
the majority are from back-end process operations and equipment leaks
(approximately 58 and 23 percent by mass, respectively). We estimate
that MACT allowable emissions from this source category are
approximately equal to reported, actual emissions.
d. Polybutadiene Rubber Production
Polybutadiene rubber (PBR) 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 PBR, 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 PBR 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
PBR manufactured in the United States is used in the production of
tires in the construction of the tread and
[[Page 60438]]
sidewalls. PBR is also used as a modifier in the production of other
polymers and resins (e.g., polystyrene).
We identified five PBR production facilities currently subject to
the Polymers and Resins I NESHAP. Some of these facilities are located
at plant sites that also have other HAP-emitting sources regulated
under separate NESHAP, which have been or will be addressed in separate
RTR actions.
Three of the PBR 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 accounts for
the majority of the HAP emissions from this source category
(approximately 1,455 TPY and 72 percent of the total HAP emissions by
mass). The facilities in this source category also reported substantive
emissions of styrene and 1,3-butadiene and relatively minor quantities
of three other HAP. The majority of HAP emissions are from back-end
process operations (approximately 73 percent of the total HAP by mass).
We estimate that MACT allowable emissions from this source category
could be as high as five times the actual emissions.
e. Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production
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 two styrene butadiene rubber production facilities
using the emulsion process and 12 styrene butadiene rubber latex
production facilities currently subject to the Polymers and Resins I
NESHAP. 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. Two of these
facilities are located at plant sites that also have operations which
produce NBR, another Polymers and Resins I source category. The NBR
processes and emissions are addressed separately in this proposed
action under the Nitrile Butadiene Rubber source category. Some of
these facilities are located at plant sites that also have other HAP-
emitting sources regulated under separate NESHAP, which have been or
will be addressed in separate RTR 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 13 other HAP. The majority of HAP emissions are from
back-end process operations (approximately 80 percent of the total HAP
by mass). We estimate that MACT allowable emissions from this source
category could be as high as four times the actual emissions.
2. Marine Vessels
The National Emission Standards for Marine Vessel Loading
Operations were promulgated on September 19, 1995 (60 FR 48388). The
Marine Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP applies to major sources and
regulates HAP emissions from: Land-based terminals, off-shore
terminals, and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company's Valdez Marine
Terminal.
Marine vessel loading operations are facilities that load and
unload 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 and into a storage compartment (tank) on the vessel.
Emissions occur as vapors are displaced from the tank as it is being
filled. Most marine tank vessel loading operations are associated with
petroleum refineries, synthetic organic chemical manufacturers, or are
independent terminals.
The primary emission sources of displaced vapors at marine vessel
loading operations include open tank hatches and overhead vent systems.
Other possible emission points are hatch covers or domes, pressure-
vacuum relief valves, seals, and vents. Emissions may also occur during
ballasting (i.e., the process of drawing ballast as water into a cargo
hold). The NESHAP requires control of all displaced vapors that occur
during product loading. Typical control devices used to reduce HAP
emissions include vapor collection systems routed to combustion or
recovery devices, such as flares, incinerators, absorbers, carbon
adsorbers, and condensers.
Additional data indicate that approximately 800 terminals load HAP-
containing organic liquids. An unknown fraction of these are
containerized liquids that are not subject to the Marine Vessel Loading
Operations NESHAP. Therefore, we estimate up to 800 facilities may be
subject to the Marine Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP. However, data
in the 2002 NEI were available for only 135 facilities and our analyses
are based on these 135 modeled facilities. We believe the 135 modeled
facilities are representative of the source category because we expect
that generally the same HAP, in the same range of quantities, are
emitted from the 135 modeled facilities as are emitted from rest of the
facilities in the source category. We extrapolated the risk results for
the 135 modeled facilities up to the approximately 800 facilities in
the source category and believe the resulting cancer and noncancer
risks either represent or overstate risk from the 800 facilities in
source category. However, we request comment on this approach,
additional data on pollutant-specific emissions from facilities in the
NEI, and identification of emissions from marine vessel loading
facilities not included in the NEI.
Marine terminals that are part of the petroleum refineries source
category are not regulated by the Marine Vessel Loading Operations
NESHAP. Therefore, marine terminals that are part of the petroleum
refineries source category were not included in this risk assessment.
The petroleum refineries marine terminals are being addressed in a
separate RTR rulemaking action. (See the proposed RTR for Petroleum
Refineries, 72 FR 50716, 09/04/2007.)
Hexane, methanol, toluene, and mixed xylenes account for the
majority of the HAP emissions from the 135 NEI facilities
(approximately 184 TPY and 73 percent of the total HAP emissions by
mass). These facilities also reported relatively small emissions of 42
other HAP. These emissions are from the loading operations at the
terminals. MACT allowable emission levels from this source category
could be higher than actual emission levels due primarily to states
requiring controls (typically 90 percent reduction) for some marine
terminals that are not controlled by the Marine Vessel Loading
Operations NESHAP. Based on typical state rule emission reduction
requirements we estimate that the MACT allowable emissions from this
source category would be 10 times the actual emissions for terminals
not controlled by the Marine Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP and
approximately
[[Page 60439]]
two times the actual emissions for marine terminals that are controlled
by the Marine Vessel Loading Operations NESHAP.
3. Mineral Wool Production
The National Emission Standards for Mineral Wool Production were
promulgated on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29489). The Mineral Wool Production
NESHAP applies to major sources of HAP.
Mineral wool is a fibrous, glassy substance made from natural rock
(such as basalt), blast furnace slag, or other similar materials. In
the mineral wool manufacturing process, rock and/or blast furnace slag
and other raw materials (e.g., gravel) are melted in a furnace (cupola)
using coke as a fuel. The molten material is then formed into fiber.
Mineral wool is manufactured as either a ``bonded'' product that
incorporates a binder to increase structural rigidity or a less rigid
``nonbonded'' product. Products made from mineral wool are used for
insulation, sound control and attenuation, and fire protection. The
industry is declining significantly due to economic and competitive
reasons (e.g., availability of alternative products such as cellulose
insulation).
Emission sources at mineral wool production facilities include the
cupola furnace where the mineral charge is melted; a blow chamber, in
which air or a binder is drawn over the fibers, forming them into a
screen; a curing oven that bonds the fibers (for bonded products); and
a cooling chamber. The majority of the emissions originate from the
cupolas and curing ovens. The NESHAP requires control of particulate
matter emissions from the cupolas and formaldehyde emissions from the
curing ovens. Typical control devices used to reduce HAP emissions from
the cupola include baghouses/fabric filters, and emissions from the
curing ovens are generally controlled with thermal incinerators.
We identified eight facilities currently subject to the Mineral
Wool Production NESHAP. Some of these facilities also have other HAP-
emitting sources that are regulated under separate NESHAP, which have
been or will be addressed in separate RTR rulemaking actions.
Carbonyl sulfide accounts for the majority of the HAP emissions
from these facilities (approximately 416 TPY and 87 percent of the
total HAP emissions by mass). These facilities also reported relatively
small emissions of 16 other HAP. The majority of HAP emissions are from
the cupolas (approximately 80 percent of the total HAP by mass). The
majority of HAP emissions (primarily formaldehyde) that were
significant in evaluating risk are from the cooling chambers. We
estimate that MACT allowable emissions from this source category could
be as high as two times the actual emissions.
4. Pharmaceuticals Production
The National Emission Standards for Pharmaceuticals Production were
promulgated on September 21, 1998 (63 FR 50280). The Pharmaceuticals
Production NESHAP applies to major sources of HAP.
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 are typically reduced by leak detection and repair work
practice programs, and in some cases, by equipment modifications.
We identified 27 facilities currently subject to the
Pharmaceuticals Production NESHAP. Some of these facilities are located
at plant sites that also have other HAP-emitting sources regulated
under separate NESHAP, which have been or will be addressed in separate
rulemaking actions.
Methylene chloride, methanol, acetonitrile, and toluene account for
the majority of the HAP emissions from these facilities (approximately
891 TPY and 90 percent of the total HAP emissions by mass). These
facilities also reported relatively small emissions of 65 other HAP.
The majority of HAP emissions are from the process vents (approximately
70 percent of the total HAP by mass emitted from process vents, with 20
percent and 10 percent of the total HAP by mass emitted from equipment
leaks and wastewater operations, respectively). 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 NESHAP.
5. Printing and Publishing Industry
The National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing
Industry were promulgated on May 30, 1996 (61 FR 27132). The Printing
and Publishing NESHAP applies to major sources of HAP.
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 NESHAP focuses on 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.
We estimate that approximately 200 facilities are subject to the
Printing and Publishing NESHAP based on the information we gathered in
support of the rule development in 1996. As data were available for 179
major source facilities in the 2002 NEI, our analyses are based on
these 179 facilities. We believe the 179 facilities represent the
source category because: (1) We have no reason to believe that
emissions from the other facilities are different from the facilities
we modeled; (2) the difference between the number of facilities counted
in 1996 and 2002 might be accounted for by facility closures and by
some facilities achieving area source status for HAP before the first
compliance date of the Printing and Publishing NESHAP; and, (3) we
believe in most cases data on 90 percent of the facilities in a source
category will be representative of the source category as a whole. Some
of these facilities are located at plant sites that also have other
HAP-emitting sources regulated
[[Page 60440]]
under separate NESHAP, which have been or will be addressed in separate
RTR rulemaking actions.
Toluene accounts for the majority of the HAP emissions from these
facilities (approximately 6,606 TPY or 88 percent of the total HAP
emissions by mass). These facilities also reported relatively small
emissions of 56 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 this source category could be up to 5 times greater than
the actual emissions, as it is possible that the capture systems and
control devices used at some facilities achieve greater emission
reductions than what is required by the NESHAP.
D. How did we estimate risk posed by the nine source categories?
To support the proposed decisions presented in today's notice, EPA
conducted a risk assessment that provided estimates of MIR, maximum
individual cancer risk distribution within the exposed populations,
cancer incidence, hazard indices for chronic exposures to HAP with non-
cancer health effects, hazard quotients (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with non-cancer health effects, and estimates of the potential for
adverse environmental effects. The risk assessment consisted of seven
primary activities: (1) Establishing the nature and magnitude of
emissions from the source categories, (2) identifying the emissions
release characteristics (e.g., stack parameters), (3) conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (4) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 km of the modeled sources, (5)
estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks using the
exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information, (6)
estimating the potential for adverse human health multipathway risks
and for adverse environmental effects, and (7) characterizing risk. In
general, the risk assessment followed a tiered, iterative approach,
beginning with a conservative (worst case) screening-level analysis
and, where the screening analyses indicated the potential for non-
negligible risks, following that with more refined analyses. The
following sections summarize these activities. For more information on
the risk assessment inputs and models, see ``Residual Risk Assessment
for Nine Source Categories,'' available in the docket.
We engaged in a consultation with a panel from the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) on the ``Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Assessment Plan''
in December of 2006. The results of this consultation were transmitted
to us in June 2007 in a letter from the SAB which also contained a
summary listing of the key messages from the panel. The letter is
available from the docket and from https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/33152C83D29530F08525730D006C3ABF/$File/sab-07-009.pdf.
In developing the risk assessments for the nine source categories
covered by this proposal, we followed the RTR Assessment Plan,
addressing the key messages from the panel, where appropriate and
relevant to these assessments.
1. Emissions and Emissions Release Characteristic Data
The basic approach taken to obtain the most accurate and reliable
emissions and emissions release characteristic data was to compile
preliminary data sets using readily available information for each
source category and to share these data with the public via an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). 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 Polymers and Resins I source categories
(Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, HypalonTM Production, Nitrile
Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and
Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production),