National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Residual Risk and Technology Review, 14984-15014 [2018-06541]
Download as PDF
14984
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309; FRL–9975–99–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AT47
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Residual
Risk and Technology Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments
to the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production to
address the results of the residual risk
and technology review (RTR) that the
EPA is required to conduct in
accordance with section 112 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). We found risks
due to emissions of air toxics to be
acceptable from this source category,
determined that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, and identified no
new cost-effective controls under the
technology review to achieve further
emissions reductions. Therefore, we are
proposing no revisions to the numerical
emission limits based on these analyses.
However, the EPA is proposing to revise
provisions pertaining to emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM); add
requirements for electronic submittal of
performance test results; revise certain
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements; and make other
miscellaneous technical and editorial
changes. While the proposed
amendments would not result in
reductions in emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP), if finalized, they
would result in improved compliance
and implementation of the rule.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be
received on or before May 21, 2018.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of
consideration if the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
receives a copy of your comments on or
before May 7, 2018.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is
requested by April 11, 2018, then we
will hold a public hearing on April 23,
2018 at the location described in the
ADDRESSES section. The last day to preregister in advance to speak at the
public hearing will be April 19, 2018.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
Comments. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
(See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
detail about how EPA treats submitted
comments.) Regulations.gov is our
preferred method of receiving
comments. However, other submission
methods are accepted. To ship or send
mail via the United States Postal
Service, use the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2004–0309, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. Use the
following Docket Center address if you
are using express mail, commercial
delivery, hand delivery or courier: EPA
Docket Center, EPA William Jefferson
Clinton (WJC) West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20004. Delivery
verification signatures will be available
only during regular business hours.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is
requested, it will be held at EPA
Headquarters, EPA WJC East Building,
1201 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20004. If a public
hearing is requested, then we will
provide details about the public hearing
on our website at: https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/wetformed-fiberglass-mat-productionnational-emission-standards. The EPA
does not intend to publish another
document in the Federal Register
announcing any updates on the request
for a public hearing. Please contact
Virginia Hunt at (919) 541–0832 or by
email at hunt.virginia@epa.gov to
request a public hearing, to register to
speak at the public hearing, or to inquire
as to whether a public hearing will be
held. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
for instructions on registering and
attending a public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this proposed action,
contact Mary Johnson, Sector Policies
and Programs Division (Mail Code
D243–01), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
5025; fax number: (919) 541–4991; and
email address: johnson.mary@epa.gov or
Christian Fellner, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (Mail Code D243–
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
ADDRESSES:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–4003; fax number:
(919) 541–4991; and email address:
fellner.christian@epa.gov.
For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Ted
Palma, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (Mail Code C539–02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone
number: (919) 541–5470; fax number:
(919) 541–0840; and email address:
palma.ted@epa.gov.
For information about the
applicability of the national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact
Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code E–19J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604; telephone number: (312)
353–6266; and email address:
ayres.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. The EPA will make
every effort to accommodate all speakers
who arrive and register. If a hearing is
held at a U.S. government facility,
individuals planning to attend should
be prepared to show a current, valid
state- or federal-approved picture
identification to the security staff in
order to gain access to the meeting
room. An expired form of identification
will not be permitted. Please note that
the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in
2005, established new requirements for
entering federal facilities. If your
driver’s license is issued by a
noncompliant state, you must present
an additional form of identification to
enter a federal facility. Acceptable
alternative forms of identification
include: Federal employee badge,
passports, enhanced driver’s licenses,
and military identification cards.
Additional information on the Real ID
Act is available at https://www.dhs.gov/
real-id-frequently-asked-questions. In
addition, you will need to obtain a
property pass for any personal
belongings you bring with you. Upon
leaving the building, you will be
required to return this property pass to
the security desk. No large signs will be
allowed in the building, cameras may
only be used outside of the building and
demonstrations will not be allowed on
federal property for security reasons.
Docket. The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the Regulations.gov index. Although
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA
WJC West Building, 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.
Instructions. Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–
0309. The 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 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 email. This type
of information should be submitted by
mail as discussed in section I.C of this
preamble.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov
website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means the EPA will not
know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an
email comment directly to the EPA
without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:56 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the 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 the EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should not include
special characters or any form of
encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about the EPA’s public docket, visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
Preamble Acronyms and
Abbreviations. We use multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble.
While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the
following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by
the HEM–3 model
ARMA Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers
Association
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
BBDR biologically based dose response
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance
History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning
Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version
1.1.0
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
kg/Mg kilograms per megagram
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14985
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB–HAP hazardous air pollutants known
to be persistent and bio-accumulative in
the environment
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QA quality assurance
RACT reasonably available control
technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UF uncertainty factor
mg/m3 microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Organization of this Document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for the EPA?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What is this source category and how
does the current NESHAP regulate its
HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action?
D. What other relevant background
information and data are available?
III. Analytical Procedures
A. How do we consider risk in our
decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology
review?
C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks
posed by the source category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed
Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk
assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse
environmental effects?
C. What are the results and proposed
decisions based on our technology
review?
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. What compliance dates are we
proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
14986
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the
NESHAP and the associated regulated
industrial source category that is the
subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not
intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding
the entities that this proposed action is
likely to affect. The proposed standards,
once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources.
Federal, state, local, and tribal
government entities would not be
affected by this proposed action. The
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category was added to the list of
categories of major sources of HAP
published under section 112(c) of the
CAA in an action that concurrently
promulgated NESHAP for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category (67 FR 17824, April 11,
2002). As defined in that action, in wetformed fiberglass mat production, glass
fibers are bonded with an organic resin.
The mat is formed as the resin is dried
and cured in heated ovens.
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION
NAICS code 1
Source category
NESHAP
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production .....................................
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production ....................................
1 North
American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this action
is available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the
EPA will post a copy of this proposed
action at https://www.epa.gov/
stationary-sources-air-pollution/wetformed-fiberglass-mat-productionnational-emission-standards. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the
EPA will post the Federal Register
version of the proposal and key
technical documents at this same
website. Information on the overall RTR
program is available at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the proposed
changes in this action is available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309).
comments that includes information
claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy
of the comments that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI 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 the EPA’s electronic public
docket without prior notice. Information
marked as CBI will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures
set forth in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI
only to the following address: OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404–02),
OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0309.
II. Background
C. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for the EPA?
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
327212
A. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit
information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov or
email. 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 the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
The statutory authority for this action
is provided by sections 112 and 301 of
the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.). Section 112 of the CAA
establishes a two-stage regulatory
process to develop standards for
emissions of HAP from stationary
sources. Generally, the first stage
involves establishing technology-based
standards and the second stage involves
evaluating those standards that are
based on maximum achievable control
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
technology (MACT) to determine
whether additional standards are
needed to further address any remaining
risk associated with HAP emissions.
This second stage is commonly referred
to as the ‘‘residual risk review.’’ In
addition to the residual risk review, the
CAA also requires the EPA to review
standards set under CAA section 112
every 8 years to determine if there are
‘‘developments in practices, processes,
or control technologies’’ that may be
appropriate to incorporate into the
standards. This review is commonly
referred to as the ‘‘technology review.’’
When the two reviews are combined
into a single rulemaking, it is commonly
referred to as the ‘‘risk and technology
review.’’ The discussion that follows
identifies the most relevant statutory
sections and briefly explains the
contours of the methodology used to
implement these statutory requirements.
A more comprehensive discussion
appears in the document, CAA Section
112 Risk and Technology Reviews:
Statutory Authority and Methodology,
which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section
112 standard setting process, the EPA
promulgates technology-based standards
under CAA section 112(d) for categories
of sources identified as emitting one or
more of the HAP listed in CAA section
112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are
either major sources or area sources, and
CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards
and area source standards. ‘‘Major
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sources’’ are those that emit or have the
potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy)
or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or
more of any combination of HAP. All
other sources are ‘‘area sources.’’ For
major sources, CAA section 112(d)
provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum
degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost,
energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts). These standards are
commonly referred to as MACT
standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also
establishes a minimum control level for
MACT standards, known as the MACT
‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider
control options that are more stringent
than the floor. Standards more stringent
than the floor are commonly referred to
as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain
instances, as provided in CAA section
112(h), EPA may set work practice
standards where it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce a numerical
emission standard. For area sources,
CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on
generally available control technologies
or management practices (GACT
standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
The second stage in standard-setting
focuses on identifying and addressing
any remaining (i.e., ‘‘residual’’) risk
according to CAA section 112(f). Section
112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to
determine for source categories subject
to MACT standards whether
promulgation of additional standards is
needed to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or to
prevent an adverse environmental
effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA
provides that this residual risk review is
not required for categories of area
sources subject to GACT standards.
Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA’s use of the
two-step approach for developing
standards to address any residual risk
and the Agency’s interpretation of
‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in
the National Emissions 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
EPA notified Congress in the Risk
Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in
making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p.
ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted
this approach in its residual risk
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
determinations and the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (the Court) upheld the
EPA’s interpretation that CAA section
112(f)(2) incorporates the approach
established in the Benzene NESHAP.
See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083
(DC Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the
CAA and used by the EPA to evaluate
residual risk and to develop standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) is a twostep approach. In the first step, the EPA
determines whether risks are acceptable.
This determination ‘‘considers all health
information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive
limit on maximum individual lifetime
[cancer] risk (MIR) 1 of approximately
[1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1
million].’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA
must determine the emissions standards
necessary to bring risks to an acceptable
level without considering costs. In the
second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions
standards provide an ample margin of
safety ‘‘in consideration of all health
information, including the number of
persons at risk levels higher than
approximately [1-in-1 million], as well
as other relevant factors, including costs
and economic impacts, technological
feasibility, and other factors relevant to
each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA
must promulgate emission standards
necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. After
conducting the ample margin of safety
analysis, we consider whether a more
stringent standard is necessary to
prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately
requires the EPA to review standards
promulgated under CAA section 112
and revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking
into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)’’ no
less frequently than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call
the ‘‘technology review,’’ the EPA is not
required to recalculate the MACT floor.
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084
(D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery
Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667
(D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider
cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
1 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual
risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one
metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated
risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14987
B. What is this source category and how
does the current NESHAP regulate its
HAP emissions?
The NESHAP for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source
category were promulgated on April 11,
2002 (67 FR 17824), in an action that
also added the source category to the list
of categories of major sources of HAP
published under section 112(c) of the
CAA and to the source category
schedule for NESHAP. The NESHAP are
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH. Wet-formed fiberglass mat is
used as a substrate for multiple roofing
products, as reinforcement for various
plastic, cement, and gypsum products,
and in miscellaneous specialty
products. The fiberglass mat is made of
glass fibers that have been bonded with
a formaldehyde-based resin. Methanol is
also present in some, but not all, resins
used to produce wet-formed fiberglass
mat. In a typical wet-formed fiberglass
mat production line, glass fibers are
mixed with water and emulsifiers in
large mixing vats to form a slurry of
fibers and water. The glass fiber slurry
is then pumped to a mat forming
machine, where it is dispensed in a
uniform curtain over a moving screen
belt. The mat is then carried beneath a
binder saturator, where binder solution
is uniformly applied onto the surface of
the mat. This resin-binder application
process includes the screen passing over
a vacuum which draws away the excess
binder solution for recycling. The mat of
fibers and binder then passes into
drying and curing ovens that use heated
air to carry away excess moisture and
harden (i.e., cure) the binder. Upon
exiting the ovens, the mat is cooled,
trimmed, wound, and packaged to
product specifications. The primary
HAP emitted during production of wetformed fiberglass mat are formaldehyde,
which is classified as a known,
probable, or possible carcinogen, and
methanol. We are aware of seven wetformed fiberglass mat production
facilities that are subject to the
NESHAP. Five of the affected facilities
have single mat lines and two of the
affected facilities have two mat lines.
The affected source is each wetformed fiberglass mat drying and curing
oven. The NESHAP regulates emissions
of HAP through emission standards for
formaldehyde, which is also used as a
surrogate for total HAP emissions.
Facilities subject to the NESHAP must
meet either a mass emission limit or
percentage reduction requirement for
each drying and curing oven. The
emission standards are the same for new
and existing drying and curing ovens.
The emission limits for the exhaust from
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
14988
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
new and existing drying and curing
ovens are (1) a maximum formaldehyde
emission rate of 0.03 kilograms per
megagram (kg/Mg) of wet-formed
fiberglass mat produced (0.05 pounds
per ton (lb/ton) of wet-formed fiberglass
mat produced) or (2) a minimum of 96percent destruction efficiency of
formaldehyde. Thermal oxidizers or
similar controls (e.g., regenerative
thermal oxidizer, regenerative catalytic
oxidizer) are used by facilities subject to
the NESHAP to control their drying and
curing oven exhausts.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action?
The EPA used several means to
collect the information necessary to
conduct the residual risk assessment
and technology review for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category. To confirm whether
facilities identified as potentially
subject to the NESHAP were in fact
subject to the standards, we requested
air permits and/or performance test data
from various state and local agencies.
After developing our final list of
affected facilities, the status of each
facility was confirmed in consultation
with the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers
Association (ARMA) and ARMAmember companies. The EPA had
discussions with the four companies
that own one or more of the affected
facilities regarding each facility’s
production process and emission
sources, available emissions test data
and emissions estimates, measures used
to control emissions, and other aspects
of facility operations. The facilityspecific information from state and local
agencies and companies with affected
facilities provided support for this
action’s risk and technology reviews.
D. What other relevant background
information and data are available?
The EPA used multiple sources of
information to support this proposed
action. Before developing the final list
of affected facilities described in section
II.C of this preamble, the EPA’s
Enforcement and Compliance History
Online (ECHO) database was used as a
tool to identify potentially affected
facilities with wet-formed fiberglass mat
production operations that are subject to
the NESHAP. The ECHO database
provides integrated compliance and
enforcement information for
approximately 800,000 regulated
facilities nationwide.
The 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) database provided
facility-specific data and MACT
category data that were used to
supplement the performance test data in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
developing the modeling file for the risk
review. The NEI is a database that
contains information about sources that
emit criteria air pollutants, their
precursors, and HAP. The database
includes estimates of annual air
pollutant emissions from point,
nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA
collects this information and releases an
updated version of the NEI database
every 3 years. The NEI includes
information necessary for conducting
risk modeling, including annual HAP
emissions estimates from individual
emission points at facilities and the
related emissions release parameters.
In conducting the technology review,
we examined information in the
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)/Best Available
Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
Clearinghouse (RBLC) to identify
technologies in use and determine if
there have been developments in
practices, processes, or control
technologies. The RBLC is a database
that contains case-specific information
of air pollution technologies that have
been required to reduce the emissions of
air pollutants from stationary sources.
Under the EPA’s New Source Review
(NSR) program, if a facility is planning
new construction or a modification that
will increase the air emissions by a large
amount, an NSR permit must be
obtained. This central database
promotes the sharing of information
among permitting agencies and aids in
case-by-case determinations for NSR
permits. The EPA also reviewed other
information sources to determine if
there have been developments in
practices, processes, or control
technologies in the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source
category. We reviewed regulatory
actions for emission sources similar to
mat drying and curing ovens and
conducted a review of literature
published by industry organizations,
technical journals, and government
organizations.
III. Analytical Procedures
In this section, we describe the
analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and
other issues addressed in this proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our
decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this
preamble and in the Benzene NESHAP,
in evaluating and developing standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2), we apply
a two-step approach to determine
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
whether or not risks are acceptable and
to determine if the standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ‘‘the first step judgment on
acceptability cannot be reduced to any
single factor’’ and, thus, ‘‘[t]he
Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is
best judged on the basis of a broad set
of health risk measures and
information.’’ 54 FR 38046, September
14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the
ample margin of safety determination,
‘‘the Agency again considers all of the
health risk and other health information
considered in the first step. Beyond that
information, additional factors relating
to the appropriate level of control will
also be considered, including cost and
economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties,
and any other relevant factors.’’ Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach
provides flexibility regarding factors the
EPA may consider in making
determinations and how the EPA may
weigh those factors for each source
category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of
the MIR posed by the HAP emissions
from each source in the source category,
the hazard index (HI) for chronic
exposures to HAP with the potential to
cause noncancer health effects, and the
hazard quotient (HQ) for acute
exposures to HAP with the potential to
cause noncancer health effects.2 The
assessment also provides estimates of
the distribution of cancer risks within
the exposed populations, cancer
incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for adverse environmental
effects. The scope of EPA’s risk analysis
is consistent with EPA’s response to
comment on our policy under the
Benzene NESHAP where the EPA
explained that:
‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator
permits consideration of multiple measures
of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure
be considered, but also incidence, the
presence of non-cancer health effects, and the
uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this
way, the effect on the most exposed
individuals can be reviewed as well as the
impact on the general public. These factors
can then be weighed in each individual case.
This approach complies with the Vinyl
Chloride mandate that the Administrator
ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the
public by employing his expertise to assess
2 The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated
with a lifetime of exposure at the highest
concentration of HAP where people are likely to
live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential exposure
to the HAP to the level at or below which no
adverse chronic noncancer effects are expected; the
HI is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same
target organ or organ system.
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
available data. It also complies with the
Congressional intent behind the CAA, which
did not exclude the use of any particular
measure of public health risk from the EPA’s
consideration with respect to CAA section
112 regulations, and thereby implicitly
permits consideration of any and all
measures of health risk which the
Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
appropriate to determining what will ‘protect
the public health’.’’
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989.
Thus, the level of the MIR is only one
factor to be weighed in determining
acceptability of risks. The Benzene
NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of
approximately one in 10 thousand
should ordinarily be the upper end of
the range of acceptability. As risks
increase above this benchmark, they
become presumptively less acceptable
under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk
measures and information in making an
overall judgment on acceptability. Or,
the Agency may find, in a particular
case, that a risk that includes MIR less
than the presumptively acceptable level
is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045.
Similarly, with regard to the ample
margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated
in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA
believes the relative weight of the many
factors that can be considered in
selecting an ample margin of safety can
only be determined for each specific
source category. This occurs mainly
because technological and economic
factors (along with the health-related
factors) vary from source category to
source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also
consider the uncertainties associated
with the various risk analyses, as
discussed earlier in this preamble, in
our determinations of acceptability and
ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not
considered certain health information to
date in making residual risk
determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify those HAP risks that
may be associated with emissions from
other facilities that do not include the
source category under review, mobile
source emissions, natural source
emissions, persistent environmental
pollution, or atmospheric
transformation in the vicinity of the
sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential
importance of considering an
individual’s total exposure to HAP in
addition to considering exposure to
HAP emissions from the source category
and facility. We recognize that such
consideration may be particularly
important when assessing noncancer
risks, where pollutant-specific exposure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
health reference levels (e.g., reference
concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for
adverse health effects. For example, the
EPA recognizes that, although exposures
attributable to emissions from a source
category or facility alone may not
indicate the potential for increased risk
of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting
from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of
the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to
which an individual is exposed may be
sufficient to result in increased risk of
adverse noncancer health effects. In
May 2010, the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) advised the EPA ‘‘that RTR
assessments will be most useful to
decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader
context of aggregate and cumulative
risks, including background
concentrations and contributions from
other sources in the area.’’ 3
In response to the SAB
recommendations, the EPA is
incorporating cumulative risk analyses
into its RTR risk assessments, including
those reflected in this proposal. The
Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide
assessments, which include source
category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the
facilities; (2) combining exposures from
multiple sources in the same category
that could affect the same individuals;
and (3) for some persistent and
bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing
the ingestion route of exposure. In
addition, the RTR risk assessments have
always considered aggregate cancer risk
from all carcinogens and aggregate
noncancer HI from all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing
source category and facility-wide HAP
risks in the context of total HAP risks
from all sources combined in the
vicinity of each source, we are
concerned about the uncertainties of
doing so. Because of the contribution to
total HAP risk from emission sources
other than those that we have studied in
depth during this RTR review, such
estimates of total HAP risks would have
significantly greater associated
uncertainties than the source category or
facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate
or cumulative assessments would
3 The EPA’s responses to this and all other key
recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR
risk assessment methodologies (which is available
at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a
memorandum to this rulemaking docket from David
Guinnup titled EPA’s Actions in Response to the
Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR
Risk Assessment Methodologies.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14989
compound those uncertainties, making
the assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology
review?
Our technology review focuses on the
identification and evaluation of
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that have
occurred since the MACT standards
were promulgated. Where we identify
such developments, in order to inform
our decision of whether it is
‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions
standards, we analyze the technical
feasibility of applying these
developments and the estimated costs,
energy implications, and non-air
environmental impacts, and we also
consider the emission reductions. In
addition, we consider the
appropriateness of applying controls to
new sources versus retrofitting existing
sources. For this exercise, we consider
any of the following to be a
‘‘development’’:
• Any add-on control technology or
other equipment that was not identified
and considered during development of
the original MACT standards;
• Any improvements in add-on
control technology or other equipment
(that were identified and considered
during development of the original
MACT standards) that could result in
additional emissions reduction;
• Any work practice or operational
procedure that was not identified or
considered during development of the
original MACT standards;
• Any process change or pollution
prevention alternative that could be
broadly applied to the industry and that
was not identified or considered during
development of the original MACT
standards; and
• Any significant changes in the cost
(including cost effectiveness) of
applying controls (including controls
the EPA considered during the
development of the original MACT
standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices,
processes, and control technologies that
were considered at the time we
originally developed (or last updated)
the NESHAP, we review a variety of
data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or
controls to consider. Among the sources
we reviewed were the NESHAP for
various industries that were
promulgated since the MACT standards
being reviewed in this action. We
reviewed the regulatory requirements
and/or technical analyses associated
with these regulatory actions to identify
any practices, processes, and control
technologies considered in these efforts
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
14990
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
that could be applied to emission
sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category,
specifically drying and curing ovens, as
well as the costs, non-air impacts, and
energy implications associated with the
use of these technologies. Additionally,
during discussions with affected
facilities, we asked about developments
in practices, processes, or control
technology. Finally, we reviewed
information from other sources, such as
state and/or local permitting agency
databases and industry-supported
databases.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. How did we estimate post-MACT
risks posed by the source category?
The EPA conducted a risk assessment
that provides estimates of the MIR for
cancer posed by the HAP emissions
from each source in the source category,
the HI for chronic exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the HQ for acute
exposures to HAP with the potential to
cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of
the distribution of cancer risks within
the exposed populations, cancer
incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for adverse environmental
effects. The seven sections that follow
this paragraph describe how we
estimated emissions and conducted the
risk assessment. The docket for this
action contains the following document
which provides more information on the
risk assessment inputs and models:
Residual Risk Assessment for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category in Support of the
February 2018 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule. The methods
used to assess risks (as described in the
seven primary steps below) are
consistent with those peer-reviewed by
a panel of the EPA’s Science Advisory
Board (SAB) in 2009 and described in
their peer review report issued in
2010; 4 they are also consistent with the
key recommendations contained in that
report.
1. How did we estimate actual
emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
Data for nine wet-formed fiberglass
mat production lines at seven facilities
were used to create the RTR emissions
dataset as described in sections II.C and
II.D of this preamble. The emission
sources included in the RTR emissions
dataset include drying and curing
4 U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review
(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review
by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case
Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and
Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
ovens, which are the primary HAP
emission sources at wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities and
currently regulated by the NESHAP. The
RTR emissions dataset also includes
emissions from the binder application
vacuum exhaust which is the emission
release point for the resin-binder
application process. As stated in section
II.B of this preamble, the primary HAP
emitted are formaldehyde and
methanol.
Actual emissions estimates for drying
and curing oven exhaust and binder
application vacuum exhaust at the
seven affected facilities were based on
stack test data, NEI data, and
engineering estimates. For drying and
curing oven exhaust, actual
formaldehyde emissions were based on
emissions data from the most recent
stack test. For the facilities using
binders containing methanol in addition
to formaldehyde, actual methanol
emissions from the drying and curing
oven exhaust were estimated by
adjusting each drying and curing oven’s
actual formaldehyde emissions estimate
based on the ratio of methanol to
formaldehyde emissions reported to the
2014 NEI for each oven. For binder
application vacuum exhaust, actual
formaldehyde emissions and actual
methanol emissions at facilities using
binders containing methanol were based
on stack test emissions data in the
limited instances where available.
Where formaldehyde data were
unavailable, actual formaldehyde
emissions were estimated using a factor
based on data from one affected facility
that tested both the uncontrolled
emissions from the drying and curing
oven and the emissions from the binder
application vacuum exhaust. Where
methanol data were unavailable, actual
methanol emissions from the binder
application vacuum exhaust were
estimated by adjusting the actual
formaldehyde emissions estimate for the
binder application vacuum exhaust
based on the ratio of methanol to
formaldehyde emissions reported to the
2014 NEI for the oven associated with
each binder application process.
For each emission release point (i.e.,
drying and curing oven exhaust and
binder application vacuum exhaust),
emissions release characteristic data
such as emission release height,
diameter, temperature, velocity, flow
rate, and locational latitude/longitude
coordinates were identified. For drying
and curing ovens, the emission release
point is an exhaust stack. For the resinbinder application process, the emission
release point is the location of the
binder application vacuum exhaust,
which is most commonly routed to one
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
or more roof vents. With one exception,
the binder application vacuum exhaust
release points were modeled as stacks.
The one process that exhausts to a
louvered sidewall was modeled as a
fugitive release. Parameters for the
emission release points were primarily
obtained from performance tests, the
2014 NEI database, air permits, and
information collected in consultation
with each facility. Default parameter
values based on MACT source category
2014 NEI information were used for the
binder application vacuum exhaust
when site-specific information was not
available.
The EPA conducted a quality
assurance (QA) check of source
locations, emission release
characteristics, and annual emissions
estimates. In addition, each company
had the opportunity to review the
information regarding their sources and
provide updated source data. The
revisions we received and incorporated
into the modeling file regarded emission
release point details (e.g., number of
emission release points, release height
and diameter, latitude/longitude
coordinates).
Additional details on the data and
methods used to develop actual
emissions estimates for the risk
modeling, including EPA’s QA review,
are provided in the memorandum, WetFormed Fiberglass: Residual Risk
Modeling File Documentation (Modeling
File Documentation Memo), which is
available in the docket for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the
RTR emissions dataset include estimates
of the mass of HAP emitted during a
specified annual time period. These
‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often lower
than the emission levels allowed under
the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions level allowed
to be emitted under the MACT
standards is referred to as the ‘‘MACTallowable’’ emissions level. We
discussed the use of both MACTallowable and actual emissions in the
final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR
19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the
proposed and final Hazardous Organic
NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428, June 14,
2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21,
2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risks at the
MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since these risks reflect the
maximum level facilities could emit and
still comply with national emission
standards. We also explained that it is
reasonable to consider actual emissions,
where such data are available, in both
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
steps of the risk analysis, in accordance
with the Benzene NESHAP approach.
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.)
MACT-allowable emissions estimates
were based on the level of control
required by the Wet-formed Fiberglass
Mat Production NESHAP. For drying
and curing ovens, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH requires a 96-percent
destruction efficiency for formaldehyde.
The MACT-allowable formaldehyde
emissions for drying and curing oven
exhaust were calculated based on the
actual formaldehyde emissions levels
adjusted to reflect 96 percent control,
which is the minimum percent
destruction efficiency for formaldehyde
allowed under the NESHAP. MACTallowable methanol emissions from
drying and curing oven exhaust were
estimated by adjusting each drying and
curing oven’s MACT-allowable
formaldehyde emissions estimate based
on the ratio of methanol to
formaldehyde emissions reported to the
2014 NEI for each oven. For binder
application vacuum exhaust, which has
no control requirements under the
NESHAP, the MACT-allowable
formaldehyde and methanol emissions
were assumed equal to the actual
emissions estimates with the exception
of one facility where the binder
application vacuum exhaust is
combined with the drying and curing
oven exhaust. The Modeling File
Documentation Memo, available in the
docket for this action, contains
additional information on the
development of estimated MACTallowable emissions for the risk
modeling.
3. How did we conduct dispersion
modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and
population inhalation risks?
Both long-term and short-term
inhalation exposure concentrations and
health risks from the source category
addressed in this proposal were
estimated using the Human Exposure
Model (HEM–3). The HEM–3 performs
three primary risk assessment activities:
(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
kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and
population-level inhalation risks using
the exposure estimates and quantitative
dose-response information.
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model, AERMOD,
used by the HEM–3 model, is one of the
EPA’s preferred models for assessing air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
pollutant concentrations from industrial
facilities.5 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 (2016) of hourly surface and upper
air observations from 824
meteorological stations, selected to
provide coverage of the United States
and Puerto Rico. A second library of
United States Census Bureau census
block 6 internal point locations and
populations provides the basis of
human exposure calculations (U.S.
Census, 2010). In addition, for each
census block, the census library
includes the elevation and controlling
hill height, which are also used in
dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response
values is used to estimate health risks.
These dose-response values are the
latest values recommended by the EPA
for HAP. They are available at https://
www.epa.gov/fera/dose-responseassessment-assessing-health-risksassociated-exposure-hazardous-airpollutants and are discussed in more
detail later in this section.
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
That May Cause Cancer
In developing the risk assessment for
chronic exposures, we used the
estimated annual average ambient air
concentrations of each HAP emitted by
each source for which we have
emissions data in the source category.
The air concentrations at each nearby
census block centroid were used as a
surrogate for the chronic inhalation
exposure concentration for all the
people who reside in that census block.
We calculated the MIR for each facility
as the cancer risk associated with a
continuous lifetime (24 hours per day,
7 days per week, 52 weeks per year, for
a 70-year period) exposure to the
maximum concentration at the centroid
of inhabited census blocks. Individual
cancer risks were calculated by
multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration
of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic
meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk estimate
(URE). The URE is an upper bound
estimate of an individual’s probability
of contracting cancer over a lifetime of
exposure to a concentration of 1
5 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air
Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General
Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion
Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218,
November 9, 2005).
6 A census block is the smallest geographic area
for which census statistics are tabulated.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14991
microgram of the pollutant per cubic
meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs
from the EPA’s Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For
carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable
sources of cancer dose-response values,
often using California EPA (CalEPA)
UREs, where available. In cases where
new, scientifically credible doseresponse values have been developed in
a manner consistent with the EPA
guidelines and have undergone a peer
review process similar to that used by
the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in
addition to, other values, if appropriate.
In 2004, the EPA determined that the
Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology (CIIT) cancer dose-response
value for formaldehyde (5.5 × 10–9 per
milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3))
was based on better science than the
1991 IRIS dose-response value (1.3 ×
10–5 per mg/m3), and we switched from
using the IRIS value to the CIIT value
in risk assessments supporting
regulatory actions. Based on subsequent
published research, however, the EPA
changed its determination regarding the
CIIT model, and, in 2010, the EPA
returned to using the 1991 IRIS value.
The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) completed its review of the EPA’s
draft assessment in April of 2011
(https://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?recordid=13142), and the
EPA has been working on revising the
formaldehyde assessment. The EPA will
follow the NAS Report
recommendations and will present
results obtained by implementing the
biologically based dose response (BBDR)
model for formaldehyde. The EPA will
compare these estimates with those
currently presented in the External
Review draft of the assessment and will
discuss their strengths and weaknesses.
As recommended by the NAS
committee, appropriate sensitivity and
uncertainty analyses will be an integral
component of implementing the BBDR
model. The draft IRIS assessment will
be revised in response to the NAS peer
review and public comments and the
final assessment will be posted on the
IRIS database. In the interim, we will
present findings using the 1991 IRIS
value as a primary estimate and may
also consider other information as the
science evolves. To estimate
incremental individual lifetime cancer
risks associated with emissions from the
facilities in the source category, EPA
summed the risks for each of the
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
14992
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
carcinogenic HAP 7 emitted by the
modeled sources. Cancer incidence and
the distribution of individual cancer
risks for the population within 50 km of
the sources were also estimated for the
source category by summing individual
risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent
with both the analysis supporting the
1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044,
September 14, 1989) and the limitations
of Gaussian dispersion models,
including AERMOD.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
c. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
To assess the risk of noncancer health
effects from chronic exposure to HAP,
we calculate either an HQ or a target
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI).
We calculate an HQ when a single
noncancer HAP is emitted. Where more
than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we
sum the HQ for each of the HAP that
affects a common TOSHI. The HQ is the
estimated exposure divided by the
chronic noncancer dose-response value,
which is a value selected from one of
several sources. The preferred chronic
noncancer dose-response value is the
EPA RfC (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_
internet/registry/termreg/searchand
retrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/
search.do?details=&vocabName=
IRIS%20Glossary), 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.’’ In cases where an
RfC from the EPA’s IRIS database is not
available or where the EPA determines
that using a value other than the RfC is
7 EPA classifies carcinogens as: Carcinogenic to
humans, likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and
suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.
These classifications also coincide with the terms
‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and
possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the
terms advocated in the EPA’s Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51
FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the
document, Supplemental Guidance for Conducting
Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures
(EPA/630/R–00/002) was published as a
supplement to the 1986 document. Copies of both
documents can be obtained from https://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=
20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944.
Summing the risks of these individual compounds
to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach
that was recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their
2002 peer review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics
Assessment (NATA) titled NATA—Evaluating the
National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—
an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915
BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/
ecadv02001.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from
the following prioritized sources, which
define their dose-response values
similarly to EPA: (1) The Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2)
the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure
Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/
crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hotspots-program-guidance-manualpreparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as
noted above, a scientifically credible
dose-response value that has been
developed in a manner consistent with
the EPA guidelines and has undergone
a peer review process similar to that
used by the EPA.
d. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP
That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate
acute inhalation dose-response values
are available, the EPA also assesses the
potential health risks due to acute
exposure. For these assessments, the
EPA makes conservative assumptions
about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. We use the peak
hourly emission rate,8 worst-case
dispersion conditions, and, in
accordance with our mandate under
section 112 of the CAA, the point of
highest off-site exposure to assess the
potential risk to the maximally exposed
individual.
To characterize the potential health
risks associated with estimated acute
inhalation exposures to a HAP, we
generally use multiple acute doseresponse values, including acute RELs,
acute exposure guideline levels
(AEGLs), and emergency response
planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour
exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is
calculated by dividing the estimated
acute exposure by the acute doseresponse value. For each HAP for which
acute dose-response values are
available, the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ‘‘the
concentration level at or below which
no adverse health effects are anticipated
8 In the absence of hourly emission data, we
develop estimates of maximum hourly emission
rates by multiplying the average actual annual
emissions rates by a default factor (usually 10) to
account for variability. This is documented in
Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in
Support of the February 2018 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the
report: Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission
Rates Relative to Long-term Emission Rates. Both
are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for a specified exposure duration.’’ 9
Acute RELs are based on the most
sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect
reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are
designed to protect the most sensitive
individuals in the population through
the inclusion of margins of safety.
Because margins of safety are
incorporated to address data gaps and
uncertainties, exceeding the REL does
not automatically indicate an adverse
health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general
public and are applicable to emergency
exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8
hours.10 They are guideline levels for
‘‘once-in-a-lifetime, short-term
exposures to airborne concentrations of
acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’
Id. at 21. The AEGL–1 is specifically
defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration
(expressed as ppm (parts per million) or
mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) 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.’’
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.’’ Id. AEGL–2 are
defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration
(expressed as parts per million or
milligrams per cubic meter) 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.’’ Id.
9 CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air
Toxics Hot Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8hour values are documented in Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I,
The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure
Levels for Airborne Toxicants, which is available at
https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-relsummary.
10 NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for
Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/
documents/sop_final_standing_operating_
procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the National
Advisory Committee/AEGL Committee ended in
October 2011, but the AEGL program continues to
operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs, (https://
www.epa.gov/aegl).
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
ERPGs are developed for emergency
planning and are intended as healthbased guideline concentrations for
single exposures to chemicals.’’ 11 Id. at
1. The ERPG–1 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.’’ Id. at 2. 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.’’ Id. at 1.
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure
durations is typically lower than its
corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1.
Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL–1s are often the
same as the corresponding ERPG–1s,
and AEGL–2s are often equal to ERPG–
2s. The maximum HQs from our acute
inhalation screening risk assessment
typically result when we use the acute
REL for a HAP. In cases where the
maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also
report the HQ based on the next highest
acute dose-response value (usually the
AEGL–1 and/or the ERPG–1).
For this source category, hourly
emissions data were used to estimate
maximum hourly emissions. In general,
emissions used to assess the potential
health risks due to acute exposure were
estimated using the same approach used
to develop actual emissions estimates
described in section III.C.1 of this
preamble, except that emissions used to
estimate acute exposure were based on
maximum hourly emission rates
reported during stack tests. For drying
and curing oven exhaust, formaldehyde
emissions were based on maximum
hourly emissions data, considering all
test runs from available stack tests. For
the facilities using binders containing
methanol, methanol emissions from the
drying and curing oven exhaust were
estimated by adjusting each drying and
curing oven’s formaldehyde emissions
estimate based on the ratio of methanol
to formaldehyde emissions reported to
the 2014 NEI for each oven. For binder
11 ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March
2014. American Industrial Hygiene Association.
Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/
AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponse
PlanningGuidelines/Documents/
ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20
Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%20
2014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-22014%29.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
application vacuum exhaust,
formaldehyde emissions and methanol
emissions at facilities using binders
containing methanol were based on
maximum hourly emissions data from
stack tests in the limited instances
where available. Where formaldehyde
data were unavailable, formaldehyde
emissions were estimated using a factor
based on one facility’s uncontrolled
emissions from its drying and curing
oven and emissions from its binder
application vacuum exhaust. Where
methanol data were unavailable,
methanol emissions were estimated by
adjusting the formaldehyde emissions
estimate for the binder application
vacuum exhaust based on the ratio of
methanol to formaldehyde emissions
reported to the 2014 NEI for the oven
associated with each binder application
vacuum exhaust.
A further discussion of the
development of emissions used to
estimate acute exposure for the risk
modeling can be found in the risk
document, Residual Risk Assessment for
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category in Support
of the February 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule,
which is available in the docket for this
action.
In our acute inhalation screening risk
assessment, acute impacts are deemed
negligible for HAP where acute HQs are
less than or equal to 1 (even under the
conservative assumptions of the
screening assessment), and no further
analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the
screening step is greater than 1, we
consider additional site-specific data to
develop a more refined estimate of the
potential for acute impacts of concern.
4. How did we conduct the
multipathway exposure and risk
screening assessment?
The EPA conducted a tiered screening
assessment examining the potential for
significant human health risks due to
exposures via routes other than
inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first
determined whether any sources in the
source category emitted any HAP
known to be persistent and
bioaccumulative in the environment
(PB–HAP), as identified in the EPA’s Air
Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See
Volume 1, Appendix D, at https://
www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessmentand-modeling-air-toxics-riskassessment-reference-library).
For the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category, we did not
identify emissions of any PB–HAP.
Because we did not identify PB–HAP
emissions, no further evaluation of
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14993
multipathway risk was conducted for
this source category.
5. How did we conduct the
environmental risk screening
assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effects,
Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening
assessment to examine the potential for
adverse environmental effects as
required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of
the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA
defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’
as ‘‘any significant and widespread
adverse effect, which may reasonably be
anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or
other natural resources, including
adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or
significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad
areas.’’
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which
are referred to as ‘‘environmental HAP,’’
in its screening assessment: Six PB–
HAP and two acid gases. The PB–HAP
included in the screening assessment
are arsenic compounds, cadmium
compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic
organic matter, mercury (both inorganic
mercury and methyl mercury), and lead
compounds. The acid gases included in
the screening assessment are
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen
fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate
are of particular environmental concern
because they accumulate in the soil,
sediment, and water. The acid gases,
HCl and HF, were included due to their
well-documented potential to cause
direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening
assessment, we evaluate the following
four exposure media: terrestrial soils,
surface water bodies (includes watercolumn and benthic sediments), fish
consumed by wildlife, and air. Within
these four exposure media, we evaluate
nine ecological assessment endpoints,
which are defined by the ecological
entity and its attributes. For PB–HAP
(other than lead), both community-level
and population-level endpoints are
included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant
communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a
concentration of HAP that has been
linked to a particular environmental
effect level. For each environmental
HAP, we identified the available
ecological benchmarks for each
assessment endpoint. We identified,
where possible, ecological benchmarks
at the following effect levels: Probable
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
14994
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
effect levels, lowest-observed-adverseeffect level, and no-observed-adverseeffect level. In cases where multiple
effect levels were available for a
particular PB–HAP and assessment
endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine
whether ecological risks exist and, if so,
whether the risks could be considered
significant and widespread.
For further information on how the
environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a
discussion of the risk metrics used, how
the environmental HAP were identified,
and how the ecological benchmarks
were selected, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category in Support of the Risk
and Technology Review February 2018
Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this action.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
b. Environmental Risk Screening
Methodology
For the environmental risk screening
assessment, the EPA first determined
whether any facilities in the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category emitted any of the
environmental HAP. For the WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category, we did not identify
emissions of any of the seven
environmental HAP included in the
screen. Because we did not identify
environmental HAP emissions, no
further evaluation of environmental risk
was conducted.
6. How did we conduct facility-wide
assessments?
To put the source category risks in
context, we typically examine the risks
from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the
facility includes all HAP-emitting
operations within a contiguous area and
under common control. In other words,
we examine the HAP emissions not only
from the source category emission
points of interest, but also emissions of
HAP from all other emission sources at
the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we
conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset that the EPA compiled
from the 2014 NEI. We used the NEI
data for the facility and did not adjust
any category or ‘‘non-category’’ data.
Therefore, there could be differences in
the dataset from that used for the source
category assessments described in this
preamble. We analyzed risks due to the
inhalation of HAP that are emitted
‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations
residing within 50 km of each facility,
consistent with the methods used for
the source category analysis described
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
above. For these facility-wide risk
analyses, we made a reasonable attempt
to identify the source category risks, and
these risks were compared to the
facility-wide risks to determine the
portion of facility-wide risks that could
be attributed to the source category
addressed in this proposal. We also
specifically examined the facility that
was associated with the highest estimate
of risk and determined the percentage of
that risk attributable to the source
category of interest. The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review February 2018
Proposed Rule, available through the
docket for this action, provides the
methodology and results of the facilitywide analyses, including all facilitywide risks and the percentage of source
category contribution to facility-wide
risks.
7. How did we consider uncertainties in
risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias
are inherent in all risk assessments,
including those performed for this
proposal. Although uncertainty exists,
we believe that our approach, which
used conservative tools and
assumptions, ensures that our decisions
are health and environmentally
protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions
dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation
exposure estimates, and dose-response
relationships follows below. Also
included are those uncertainties specific
to our acute screening assessments,
multipathway screening assessments,
and our environmental risk screening
assessments. A more thorough
discussion of these uncertainties is
included in the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review February 2018
Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this action. If a multipathway
site-specific assessment was performed
for this source category, a full
discussion of the uncertainties
associated with that assessment can be
found in Appendix 11 of that document,
Site-Specific Human Health
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment
Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions
Dataset
Although the development of the RTR
emissions dataset involved QA/quality
control processes, the accuracy of
emissions values will vary depending
on the source of the data, the degree to
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
which data are incomplete or missing,
the degree to which assumptions made
to complete the datasets are accurate,
errors in emission estimates, and other
factors. The emission estimates
considered in this analysis generally are
annual totals for certain years, and they
do not reflect short-term fluctuations
during the course of a year or variations
from year to year. The estimates of peak
hourly emission rates for the acute
effects screening assessment were based
on maximum hourly emission rates and
emission adjustment factors, which are
intended to account for emission
fluctuations due to normal facility
operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in
ambient concentration estimates
associated with any model, including
the EPA’s recommended regulatory
dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a
model to estimate ambient pollutant
concentrations, the user chooses certain
options to apply. For RTR assessments,
we select some model options that have
the potential to overestimate ambient air
concentrations (e.g., not including
plume depletion or pollutant
transformation). We select other model
options that have the potential to
underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not
including building downwash). Other
options that we select have the potential
to either under- or overestimate ambient
levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor
locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties
commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion
models, the approach we apply in the
RTR assessments should yield unbiased
estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the
selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the
risk estimates. As we continue to update
and expand our library of
meteorological station data used in our
risk assessments, we expect to reduce
this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
Assessment
Although every effort is made to
identify all of the relevant facilities and
emission points, as well as to develop
accurate estimates of the annual
emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory
likely dominate the uncertainties in the
exposure assessment. Some
uncertainties in our exposure
assessment include human mobility,
using the centroid of each census block,
assuming lifetime exposure, and
assuming only outdoor exposures. For
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
most of these factors, there is neither an
under nor overestimate when looking at
the maximum individual risks or the
incidence, but the shape of the
distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures,
actual exposures may not be as high if
people spend time indoors, especially
for very reactive pollutants or larger
particles. For all factors, we reduce
uncertainty when possible. For
example, with respect to census-block
centroids, we analyze large blocks using
aerial imagery and adjust locations of
the block centroids to better represent
the population in the blocks. We also
add additional receptor locations where
the population of a block is not well
represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response
Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in
the development of the dose-response
values used in our risk assessments for
cancer effects from chronic exposures
and noncancer effects from both chronic
and acute exposures. Some
uncertainties are generally expressed
quantitatively, and others are generally
expressed in qualitative terms. We note,
as a preface to this discussion, a point
on dose-response uncertainty that is
stated in the 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’s 2005 Cancer
Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized
in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs 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).12 In some
circumstances, the true risk could be as
low as zero; however, in other
circumstances the risk could be
greater.13 Chronic noncancer RfC and
reference dose (RfD) values represent
chronic exposure levels that are
intended to be health-protective levels.
12 IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_
internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/
glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=
&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
13 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
To derive dose-response values that are
intended to be ‘‘without appreciable
risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an
uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S.
EPA, 1993 and 1994) which considers
uncertainty, variability, and gaps in the
available data. The UFs are applied to
derive dose-response values that are
intended to protect against appreciable
risk of deleterious effects.
Many of the UFs used to account for
variability and uncertainty in the
development of acute dose-response
values are quite similar to those
developed for chronic durations.
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 dose-response value at
another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour).
Not all acute dose-response 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
dose-response value or values being
exceeded. Where relevant to the
estimated exposures, the lack of acute
dose-response values at different levels
of severity should be factored into the
risk characterization as potential
uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the
selection of ecological benchmarks for
the environmental risk screening
assessment. We established a hierarchy
of preferred benchmark sources to allow
selection of benchmarks for each
environmental HAP at each ecological
assessment endpoint. We searched for
benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e.,
no-effects level, threshold-effect level,
and probable effect level), but not all
combinations of ecological assessment/
environmental HAP had benchmarks for
all three effect levels. Where multiple
effect levels were available for a
particular HAP and assessment
endpoint, we used all of the available
effect levels to help us determine
whether risk exists and whether the risk
could be considered significant and
widespread.
For a group of compounds that are
unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we
conservatively use the most protective
dose-response value of an individual
compound in that group to estimate
risk. Similarly, for an individual
compound in a group (e.g., ethylene
glycol diethyl ether) that does not have
a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response
value from the other compounds in the
group to estimate risk.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14995
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation
Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties
highlighted above, there are several
factors specific to the acute exposure
assessment that the EPA conducts as
part of the risk review under section 112
of the CAA. 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 the
presence of humans at the location of
the maximum concentration. In the
acute screening assessment that we
conduct under the RTR program, we
assume that peak emissions from the
source category and worst-case
meteorological conditions co-occur,
thus, resulting in maximum ambient
concentrations. These two events are
unlikely to occur at the same time,
making these assumptions conservative.
We then include the additional
assumption that a person is located at
this point during this same time period.
For this source category, these
assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures as it is unlikely
that a person would be located at the
point of maximum exposure during the
time when peak emissions and worstcase meteorological conditions occur
simultaneously.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed
Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk
assessment and analyses?
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
The results of the chronic inhalation
cancer risk assessment, based on actual
emissions, show the cancer MIR posed
by the seven facilities is less than 1-in1 million, with formaldehyde as the
major contributor to the risk. The total
estimated cancer incidence from this
source category is 0.0003 excess cancer
cases per year, or one excess case in
every 3,000 years. No people were
estimated to have cancer risks above 1in-1 million from HAP emitted from the
seven facilities in this source category.
The maximum chronic noncancer HI
value for the source category could be
up to 0.006 (respiratory) driven by
emissions of formaldehyde. No one is
exposed to TOSHI levels above 1.
Risk results from the inhalation risk
assessment using the MACT-allowable
emissions indicate that the cancer MIR
could be as high as 1-in-1 million with
formaldehyde emissions driving the
risks, and that the maximum chronic
noncancer TOSHI value could be as
high as 0.009 at the MACT-allowable
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
14996
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
emissions level with formaldehyde
emissions driving the TOSHI. The total
estimated cancer incidence from this
source category considering allowable
emissions is expected to be about 0.0009
excess cancer cases per year or 1 excess
case in every 1,000 years. Based on
allowable emission rates, no people
were estimated to have cancer risks
above 1-in-1 million.
2. Acute Risk Results
Worst-case acute HQs were calculated
for every HAP that has an acute doseresponse value (formaldehyde and
methanol). Based on actual emissions,
the highest screening acute HQ value
was 0.6 (based on the acute REL for
formaldehyde). Since none of the
screening HQ were greater than 1,
further refinement of the estimates was
not warranted.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
No PB–HAP were emitted from this
source category; therefore, a
multipathway assessment was not
warranted.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
We did not identify any PB–HAP or
acid gas emissions from this source
category. We are unaware of any adverse
environmental effect caused by
emissions of HAP that are emitted by
the source category. Therefore, we do
not expect an adverse environmental
effect as a result of HAP emissions from
this source category.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
The results of the facility-wide (both
MACT and non-MACT sources)
assessment indicate that four of the
seven facilities included in the analysis
have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater
than 1-in-1 million. The maximum
facility-wide cancer MIR is 6-in-1
million, mainly driven by formaldehyde
emissions from non-MACT sources. The
total estimated cancer incidence from
the seven facilities is 0.001 excess
cancer cases per year, or one excess case
in every 1,000 years. Approximately
13,000 people were estimated to have
cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from
exposure to HAP emitted from both
MACT and non-MACT sources of the
seven facilities in this source category.
The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for
the source category is estimated to be
less than 1 (at a respiratory HI of 0.5),
mainly driven by emissions of acrylic
acid and formaldehyde from non-MACT
sources.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
6. What demographic groups might
benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any
environmental justice issues that might
be associated with the source category,
we performed a demographic analysis,
which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups of the
populations living within 5 km and
within 50 km of the facilities. In the
analysis, we evaluated the distribution
of HAP-related cancer and noncancer
risks from the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category across
different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.14
Results of the demographic analysis
indicate that, for two of the 11
demographic groups, African American
and people living below the poverty
level, the percentage of the population
living within 5 km of facilities in the
source category is greater than the
corresponding national percentage for
the same demographic groups. When
examining the risk levels of those
exposed to source category emissions
from the wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities, we find that no
one is exposed to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
The methodology and the results of
the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report, Risk and
Technology Review Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production, which is available in the
docket for this action.
B. What are our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse
environmental effects?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section II.A of this
preamble, the EPA sets standards under
CAA section 112(f)(2) using ‘‘a two-step
standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an
‘acceptable risk’ that considers all
health information, including risk
estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on MIR of
approximately 1-in-10 thousand.’’ (54
FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
In this proposal, the EPA estimated
risks based on actual and allowable
emissions from the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source
14 Demographic groups included in the analysis
are: White, African American, Native American,
other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino,
children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64
years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults
without a high school diploma, people living below
the poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
category. As discussed above, we
consider our analysis of risk from
allowable emissions to be conservative
and, as such, to represent an upper
bound estimate of risk from emissions
allowed under the NESHAP for the
source category.
The inhalation cancer risk to the
individual most exposed to emissions
from sources in the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source
category is less than 1-in-1 million,
based on actual emissions. The
estimated incidence of cancer due to
inhalation exposure is 0.0003 excess
cancer cases per year, or 1 case in 3,000
years, based on actual emissions. For
allowable emissions, we estimate that
the inhalation cancer risk to the
individual most exposed to emissions
from sources in this source category is
1-in-1 million. The estimated incidence
of cancer due to inhalation exposure is
0.0009 excess cancer cases per year, or
one case in every 1,000 years, based on
allowable emissions.
The Agency estimates that the
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
from inhalation exposure is 0.006 due to
actual emissions and 0.009 due to
allowable emissions. The screening
assessment of worst-case acute
inhalation impacts from worst-case 1hour emissions indicates that no HAP
exceed an acute HQ of 1.
Since no PB–HAP are emitted by this
source category, a multipathway risk
assessment was not warranted.
In determining whether risk is
acceptable, the EPA considered all
available health information and risk
estimation uncertainty, as described
above. The results indicate that both the
actual and allowable inhalation cancer
risks to the individual most exposed are
less than or equal to 1-in-1 million, well
below the presumptive limit of
acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The
maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
due to inhalation exposures is less than
1 for actual and allowable emissions.
Finally, the evaluation of acute
noncancer risks was conservative and
showed that acute risks are below a
level of concern. Further, since no PB–
HAP are emitted, no multipathway risks
are expected as a result of HAP
emissions from this source category.
Taking into account this information,
the EPA proposes that the risk
remaining after implementation of the of
the existing MACT standards for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category is acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety
Under the ample margin of safety
analysis, we evaluated the cost and
feasibility of available control
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
technologies and other measures
(including the controls, measures, and
costs reviewed under the technology
review) that could be applied in this
source category to further reduce the
risks (or potential risks) due to
emissions of HAP, considering all of the
health risks and other health
information considered in the risk
acceptability determination described
above. In this analysis, we considered
the results of the technology review, risk
assessment, and other aspects of our
MACT rule review to determine
whether there are any cost-effective
controls or other measures that would
reduce emissions further and would be
necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health.
Our risk analysis indicated the risks
from the source category are low for
both cancer and noncancer health
effects, and, therefore, any risk
reductions, from further available
control options would result in minimal
health benefits. Moreover, as noted in
our discussion of the technology review
in section IV.C of this preamble, no
additional measures were identified for
reducing HAP emissions from affected
sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category. Thus,
we are proposing that the 2002 WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production
NESHAP requirements provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
3. Adverse Environmental Effects
We did not identify emissions of any
of the seven environmental HAP
included in our environmental risk
screening, and we are unaware of any
adverse environmental effects caused by
HAP emitted by the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source
category. Therefore, we do not expect
adverse environmental effects as a result
of HAP emissions from this source
category and we are proposing that it is
not necessary to set a more stringent
standard to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors, an adverse
environmental effect.
C. What are the results and proposed
decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this
preamble, our technology review
focused on identifying developments in
practices, processes, and control
technologies for control of
formaldehyde emissions from drying
and curing ovens at wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities. In
conducting the technology review, we
reviewed various informational sources
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
regarding the emissions from drying and
curing ovens. The review included a
search of the RBLC database and
reviews of air permits for wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities,
regulatory actions for emission sources
similar to mat drying and curing ovens,
and a review of relevant literature. We
reviewed these data sources for
information on practices, processes, and
control technologies that were not
considered during the development of
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production NESHAP. We also looked for
information on improvements in
practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since
development of the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production NEHSAP.
After reviewing information from the
aforementioned sources, we did not
identify any developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies to
reduce formaldehyde emissions from
the drying and curing ovens used at
wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities. We considered the following
four control technologies and processes
in our review: carbon absorbers,
biofilters, thermal oxidizers, and lowHAP or no-HAP binder formulations.
Due to the characteristics of the drying
and curing oven exhaust, we concluded
that neither carbon adsorbers or
biofilters are technically feasible control
options. Further, while advancements
have been made with low and no-HAP
binder formulations, they are not
broadly available for the various types
of wet-formed fiberglass produced. For
example, some wet-formed fiberglass
products are used in roofing
applications, and mats that are
produced with low or no-HAP binders
tend to sag, shrink, or become distorted
when they come into contact with hot
asphalt used in roofing applications.
Therefore, we concluded the use of low
or no-HAP binder formulations is not a
technically feasible process change. We
considered improvements in thermal
oxidizers given they were identified as
technically feasible for reducing HAP
emission from drying and curing ovens
in the 2002 rulemaking and because all
facilities currently subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH use thermal
oxidizers to reduce formaldehyde
emissions. We did not identify any
improvements in performance of
thermal oxidizers at existing facilities
that consistently demonstrated greater
reduction in formaldehyde emissions
than is currently required by the
NESHAP. Furthermore, a more stringent
standard could have the perverse
environmental impact of increasing
HAP emissions. As owner/operators
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
14997
move towards use of lower HAP
binders, HAP emissions are reduced.
However, due to the relatively dilute
HAP emissions in the exhaust gases, it
becomes more difficult to maintain high
percent reductions in emissions. A more
stringent standard would likely require
the refurbishment or replacement of
existing thermal oxidizers and could
slow the development and adoption of
the lower HAP binders. Finally, there
are cost considerations that militate
against setting more stringent standards
for formaldehyde under CAA section
112(d(6). For example, any new facility
that becomes subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH would likely be a rebuilt
line at an existing location and would
likely use the existing thermal oxidizer
rather than installing a new thermal
oxidizer. A more stringent standard
could instead require the replacement of
the existing thermal oxidizer, resulting
in a large capital expenditure for minor
HAP reductions.
Based on the technology review, we
determined that there are no costeffective developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT
standards for this source category.
Therefore, we are not proposing
revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH under CAA section 112(d)(6).
Additional details of our technology
review can be found in the
memorandum, Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production, which is
available in the docket for this action.
We solicit comment on our proposed
decision.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions
described above, the EPA is proposing
additional revisions. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the
MACT rule in order to ensure that they
are consistent with the Court decision in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), which vacated two
provisions that exempted sources from
the requirement to comply with
otherwise applicable CAA section
112(d) emission standards during
periods of SSM. We also are proposing
various other changes to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements and miscellaneous
technical and editorial changes to the
regulatory text. Our analyses and
proposed changes related to these issues
are discussed below.
1. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Requirements
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
14998
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Court vacated portions of two
provisions in the EPA’s CAA section
112 regulations governing the emissions
of HAP during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding
that under section 302(k) of the CAA,
emissions standards or limitations must
be continuous in nature and that the
SSM exemption violates the CAA’s
requirement that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of
the SSM exemption in this rule which
appears at 40 CFR 63.2986(g)(1).
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we
are proposing standards in this rule that
apply at all times. We are also proposing
several revisions to Table 2 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH (the General
Provisions Applicability Table) as is
explained in more detail below. For
example, we are proposing to eliminate
the incorporation of the General
Provisions’ requirement that the source
develop an SSM plan. We also are
proposing to eliminate and revise
certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM
exemption as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that
the provisions we are proposing to
eliminate are inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant in the
absence of the SSM exemption. We are
specifically seeking comment on
whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for
the reasons explained below, has not
proposed alternate standards for those
periods.
Periods of startup, normal operations,
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operations.
Owners and operators of all seven wetformed fiberglass mat production
facilities employ thermal oxidizer
controls to limit emissions from drying
and curing ovens. Ovens along with
their thermal oxidizer controls begin
operating and reach designated
operational temperatures prior to
fiberglass mat first entering the oven
and remain operating at those
temperatures at least until mat is no
longer being dried and cured in the
oven. Because thermal oxidizer controls
are employed during all periods that the
drying and curing oven is processing
fiberglass mat, there is no need to
establish separate formaldehyde
standards for periods of startup and
shutdown. We do, however, find it
necessary to propose establishing
definitions of startup and shutdown for
purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
HHHH. The proposed definitions are
needed to clarify that it is not the setting
in operation of, and cessation of
operation of, the drying and curing oven
(i.e., affected source) that accurately
define startup and shutdown, but,
rather, the setting in operation of, and
cessation of operation of, the drying and
curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat. The
formaldehyde standards can only be met
during periods that fiberglass mat is
being dried and cured in the oven.
Therefore, it is appropriate to define
startup and shutdown on such periods.
Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither
predictable nor routine. Instead, they
are, by definition, sudden, infrequent
and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or
monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored
into development of CAA section 112
standards and this reading has been
upheld as reasonable by the Court in
U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579,
606–610 (2016). Under CAA section
112, emissions standards for new
sources must be no less stringent than
the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no
less stringent than the average emission
limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the
category. There is nothing in CAA
section 112 that directs the Agency to
consider malfunctions in determining
the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best
performing sources when setting
emission standards. As the Court has
recognized, the phrase ‘‘average
emissions limitation achieved by the
best performing 12 percent of’’ sources
‘‘says nothing about how the
performance of the best units is to be
calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water
Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141
(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA
accounts for variability in setting
emissions standards, nothing in CAA
section 112 requires the Agency to
consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. The EPA is not required to
treat a malfunction in the same manner
as the type of variation in performance
that occurs during routine operations of
a source. A malfunction is a failure of
the source to perform in a ‘‘normal or
usual manner’’ and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider
such events in setting CAA section 112
standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar
Corp, accounting for malfunctions in
setting standards would be difficult, if
not impossible, given the myriad
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category
and given the difficulties associated
with predicting or accounting for the
frequency, degree, and duration of
various malfunctions that might occur.
Id. at 608 (‘‘the EPA would have to
conceive of a standard that could apply
equally to the wide range of possible
boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects.
Any possible standard is likely to be
hopelessly generic to govern such a
wide array of circumstances.’’) As such,
the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v.
EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(‘‘The EPA typically has wide latitude
in determining the extent of datagathering necessary to solve a problem.
We generally defer to an agency’s
decision to proceed on the basis of
imperfect scientific information, rather
than to ’invest the resources to conduct
the perfect study.’ ’’) See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of
things, no general limit, individual
permit, or even any upset provision can
anticipate all upset situations. After a
certain point, the transgression of
regulatory limits caused by
‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’
such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of
other eventualities, must be a matter for
the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for
specification in advance by
regulation.’’). In addition, emissions
during a malfunction event can be
significantly higher than emissions at
any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control
device with 99-percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as
might happen if, for example, the bags
in a baghouse catch fire) and the
emission unit is a steady state type unit
that would take days to shut down, the
source would go from 99-percent
control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source’s
emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during
normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction
period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal
operations. As this example illustrates,
accounting for malfunctions could lead
to standards that are not reflective of
(and significantly less stringent than)
levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source.
It is reasonable to interpret CAA section
112 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
approach to malfunctions is consistent
with CAA section 112 and is a
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language
compels EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the
discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery
Sector Risk and Technology Review, the
EPA established a work practice
standard for unique types of
malfunction that result in releases from
pressure relief devices or emergency
flaring events because the EPA had
information to determine that such work
practices reflected the level of control
that applies to the best performers. 80
FR 75178, 75211–14 (December 1,
2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards
for a particular type of malfunction and,
if so, whether the EPA has sufficient
information to identify the relevant best
performing sources and establish a
standard for such malfunctions. We also
encourage commenters to provide any
such information.
In the event that a source fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section
112(d) standards as a result of a
malfunction event, the EPA would
determine an appropriate response
based on, among other things, the good
faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods,
including preventative and corrective
actions, as well as root cause analyses
to ascertain and rectify excess
emissions. The EPA would also
consider whether the source’s failure to
comply with the CAA section 112(d)
standard was, in fact, sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable
and was not instead caused in part by
poor maintenance or careless operation.
40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular
case that an enforcement action against
a source for violation of an emission
standard is warranted, the source can
raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal
district court will determine what, if
any, relief is appropriate. The same is
true for citizen enforcement actions.
Similarly, the presiding officer in an
administrative proceeding can consider
any defense raised and determine
whether administrative penalties are
appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of
the CAA and, in particular, CAA section
112 is reasonable and encourages
practices that will avoid malfunctions.
Administrative and judicial procedures
for addressing exceedances of the
standards fully recognize that violations
may occur despite good faith efforts to
comply and can accommodate those
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830
F.3d 579, 606–610 (2016).
a. 40 CFR 63.2986 General Duty
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty
to minimize emissions. Some of the
language in that section is no longer
necessary or appropriate in light of the
elimination of the SSM exemption. We
are proposing instead to add general
duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.2986(g) that reflects the general duty
to minimize emissions while
eliminating the reference to periods
covered by an SSM exemption. The
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
characterizes what the general duty
entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption,
there is no need to differentiate between
normal operations, startup and
shutdown, and malfunction events in
describing the general duty. Therefore,
the language the EPA is proposing for 40
CFR 63.2986(g) does not include that
language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section
63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that
are not necessary with the elimination
of the SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.2986.
14999
language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards
during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated
the exemptions contained in this
provision and held that the CAA
requires that some CAA section 112
standards apply continuously.
Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this
rule to apply at all times.
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’
in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these
paragraphs require development of an
SSM plan and specify SSM
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the SSM plan.
As noted, the EPA is proposing to
remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore,
affected units will be subject to an
emission standard during such events.
The applicability of a standard during
such events will ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and
achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM
plan requirements are no longer
necessary.
d. 40 CFR 63.2992 Performance
Testing
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’
in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1)
describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead
proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.2992(e). The
performance testing requirements we
are proposing to add differ from the
General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The
regulatory text does not include the
language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that
restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and
shutdown periods from being
considered ‘‘representative’’ for
purposes of performance testing. The
proposed performance testing
provisions exclude periods of startup
and shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this
subpart should not be conducted during
malfunctions because conditions during
malfunctions are often not
representative of normal operating
conditions. The EPA is proposing to add
language that requires the owner or
operator to record the process
information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation.
Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner
or operator make available to the
Administrator such records ‘‘as may be
necessary to determine the condition of
the performance test’’ available to the
Administrator upon request, but does
not specifically require the information
to be recorded. The regulatory text the
EPA is proposing to add to this
provision builds on that requirement
and makes explicit the requirement to
record the information.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing the ‘‘yes’’
in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The current
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) by
changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
15000
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
‘‘no.’’ The cross-references to the
general duty and SSM plan
requirements in those subparagraphs are
not necessary in light of other
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require
good air pollution control practices (40
CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a quality control
program for monitoring equipment (40
CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing the ‘‘yes’’
in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The final
sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to
the General Provisions’ SSM plan
requirement which is no longer
applicable. The EPA is proposing to add
to the rule at 40 CFR 63.2994(a)(2) text
that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3)
except that the final sentence is
replaced with the following sentence:
‘‘The program of corrective action
should be included in the plan required
under § 63.8(d)(2).’’
f. 40 CFR 63.2998 Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during
startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary
because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable
to normal operations will apply to
startup and shutdown. In the absence of
special provisions applicable to startup
and shutdown, such as a startup and
shutdown plan, there is no reason to
retain additional recordkeeping for
startup and shutdown periods.
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section
63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a
malfunction. The EPA is proposing to
add such requirements to 40 CFR
63.2998(e). The regulatory text we are
proposing to add differs from the
General Provisions it is replacing in that
the General Provisions requires the
creation and retention of a record of the
occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution
control, and monitoring equipment. The
EPA is proposing that this requirement
apply to any failure to meet an
applicable standard and is requiring that
the source record the date, time, and
duration of the failure rather than the
‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2998(e)
a requirement that sources keep records
that include a list of the affected source
or equipment and actions taken to
minimize emissions, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to
estimate the emissions. Examples of
such methods would include productloss calculations, mass balance
calculations, measurements when
available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters.
The EPA is proposing to require that
sources keep records of this information
to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to
determine the severity of any failure to
meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met
the general duty to minimize emissions
when the source has failed to meet an
applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When
applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during
SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate
because SSM plans will no longer be
required. The requirement previously
applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to
minimize emissions and record
corrective actions is now applicable by
reference to 40 CFR 63.2988(e).
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ When
applicable, the provision requires
sources to record actions taken during
SSM events to show that actions taken
were consistent with their SSM plan.
The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required.
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ The EPA
is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer apply. When applicable, the
provision allows an owner or operator
to use the affected source’s SSM plan or
records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of the SSM plan, specified
in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to
eliminate this requirement because SSM
plans would no longer be required, and,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
serves any useful purpose for affected
units.
g. 40 CFR 63.3000 Reporting
We are proposing to revise the
General Provisions table (Table 2 to 40
CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for
40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the
‘‘yes’’ in column 3 to a ‘‘no.’’ Section
63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting
requirement, the EPA is proposing to
add reporting requirements to 40 CFR
63.3000(c). The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions
requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone
report. We are proposing language that
requires sources that fail to meet an
applicable standard at any time to report
the information concerning such events
in a compliance report already required
under this rule on a semiannual basis.
We are proposing that the report must
contain the number, date, time,
duration, and the cause of such events
(including unknown cause, if
applicable), a list of the affected sources
or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would
include product-loss calculations, mass
balance calculations, measurements
when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process
parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is
adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to
determine the severity of the failure to
meet an applicable standard, and to
provide data that may document how
the source met the general duty to
minimize emissions during a failure to
meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or
operators to determine whether actions
taken to correct a malfunction are
consistent with an SSM plan, because
plans would no longer be required. The
proposed amendments, therefore,
eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains the
description of the previously required
SSM report format and submittal
schedule from this section. These
specifications are no longer necessary
because the events will be reported in
otherwise required reports with similar
format and submittal requirements.
The proposed amendments also
eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR
63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
describes an immediate report for
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
when a source failed to meet an
applicable standard, but did not follow
the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when
actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction were not
consistent with an SSM plan, because
plans would no longer be required.
h. Definitions
We are proposing that definitions of
‘‘Startup’’ and ‘‘Shutdown’’ be added to
40 CFR 63.3004. The current rule relies
on the 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
definitions of these terms which are
based on the setting in operation of, and
cessation of operation of, the affected
source (i.e., drying and curing oven). As
previously explained in this section, the
formaldehyde standards can only be met
during periods that fiberglass mat is
being dried and cured in the oven.
Because we are proposing that standards
in this rule apply at all times, we find
it appropriate to propose definitions of
startup and shutdown based on these
periods to clarify that it is the setting in
operation of, and cessation of operation
of, the drying and curing of wet-formed
fiberglass mat that define startup and
shutdown for purposes of 40 CFR part
63, subpart HHHH. The new definition
of ‘‘Startup’’ being proposed reads:
‘‘Startup means the setting in operation
of the drying and curing of wet-formed
fiberglass mat for any purpose. Startup
begins when resin infused fiberglass mat
enters the oven to be dried and cured for
the first time or after a shutdown
event.’’ The new definition of
‘‘Shutdown’’ being proposed reads:
‘‘Shutdown means the cessation of
operation of the drying and curing of
wet-formed fiberglass mat for any
purpose. Shutdown ends when
fiberglass mat is no longer being dried
or cured in the oven and the oven no
longer contains any resin infused
binder.’’
We are proposing that the definition
of ‘‘Deviation’’ in 40 CFR 63.3004 be
revised to remove language that
differentiates between normal
operations, startup and shutdown, and
malfunction events. The current
definition of ‘‘Deviation’’ is ‘‘any
instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart, or an owner or
operator of such a source: (1) Fails to
meet any requirement or obligation
established by this subpart, including,
but not limited to, any emission limit,
or operating limit, or work practice
standard; (2) fails to meet any term or
condition that is adopted to implement
an applicable requirement in this
subpart and that is included in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
operating permit for any affected source
required to obtain such a permit; or (3)
fails to meet any emission limit, or
operating limit, or work practice
standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted
by this subpart.’’ The revised definition
of ‘‘Deviation’’ being proposed which
eliminates the third criteria reads:
‘‘Deviation means any instance in which
an affected source subject to this
subpart, or an owner or operator of such
a source: (1) Fails to meet any
requirement or obligation established by
this subpart including, but not limited
to, any emission limit, operating limit,
or work practice standard; or (2) fails to
meet any term or condition that is
adopted to implement an applicable
requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any
affected source required to obtain such
a permit.’’
2. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements
The EPA proposes to revise the rule’s
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in three ways:
(1) Performance test results would be
submitted electronically; (2) compliance
reports would be submitted
semiannually when deviations from
applicable standards occur; and (3)
parameter monitoring would no longer
be required during periods when a nonHAP binder is being used.
a. Electronic Reporting
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH does
not currently require electronic
reporting. Through this action, the EPA
is proposing that owners and operators
of wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, submit electronic copies
of required performance test reports
through the EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). The EPA believes that the
electronic submittal of the reports
addressed in this proposed rulemaking
will increase the usefulness of the data
contained in those reports, is in keeping
with current trends in data availability,
will further assist in the protection of
public health and the environment, and
will ultimately result in less burden on
the regulated community. Under current
requirements, paper test reports are
often stored in filing cabinets or boxes,
which make the reports more difficult to
obtain and use for data analysis and
sharing. Electronic storage of such
reports would make data more
accessible for review, analyses, and
sharing. Electronic reporting also
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15001
eliminates paper-based, manual
processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry,
eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to affected
facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the
public.
In 2011, in response to Executive
Order 13563, the EPA developed a
plan 15 to periodically review its
regulations to determine if they should
be modified, streamlined, expanded, or
repealed in an effort to make regulations
more effective and less burdensome.
The plan includes replacing outdated
paper reporting with electronic
reporting. In keeping with this plan and
the White House’s Digital Government
Strategy,16 in 2013 the EPA issued an
agency-wide policy specifying that new
regulations will require reports to be
electronic to the maximum extent
possible.17 By proposing electronic
submission of performance test reports
for 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH
facilities, the EPA is taking steps to
implement this policy.
The EPA website that stores the
submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, is
easily accessible to everyone and
provides a user-friendly interface that
any stakeholder can access. By making
data readily available, electronic
reporting increases the amount of data
that can be used for many purposes.
One example is the development of
emissions factors. An emissions factor is
a representative value that attempts to
relate the quantity of a pollutant
released to the atmosphere with an
activity associated with the release of
that pollutant (e.g., kg of particulate
emitted per Mg of coal burned). Such
factors facilitate the estimation of
emissions from various sources of air
pollution and are an important tool in
developing emissions inventories,
which in turn are the basis for
numerous efforts, including trends
analysis, regional and local scale air
quality modeling, regulatory impact
assessments, and human exposure
modeling. Emissions factors are also
widely used in regulatory applicability
15 EPA’s Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan
for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing
Regulations, August 2011. Available at: https://
www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA–HQ–
OA–2011–0156–0154.
16 Digital Government: Building a 21st Century
Platform to Better Serve the American People, May
2012. Available at: https://obamawhite
house.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/
digital-government/digital-government.html.
17 E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA
Regulations, September 2013. Available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/
documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-201309-30.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
15002
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
determinations and in permitting
decisions.
The EPA has received feedback from
stakeholders asserting that many of the
EPA’s emissions factors are outdated or
not representative of a particular
industry emission source. While the
EPA believes that the emissions factors
are suitable for their intended purpose,
we recognize that the quality of
emissions factors varies based on the
extent and quality of underlying data.
We also recognize that emissions
profiles on different pieces of
equipment can change over time due to
a number of factors (fuel changes,
equipment improvements, industry
work practices), and it is important for
emissions factors to be updated to keep
up with these changes. The EPA is
currently pursuing emissions factor
development improvements that
include procedures to incorporate the
source test data that we are proposing be
submitted electronically. By requiring
the electronic submission of the reports
identified in this proposed action, the
EPA would be able to access and use the
submitted data to update emissions
factors more quickly and efficiently,
creating factors that are characteristic of
what is currently representative of the
relevant industry sector. Likewise, an
increase in the number of test reports
used to develop the emissions factors
would provide more confidence that the
factor is of higher quality and
representative of the whole industry
sector.
Additionally, by making the reports
addressed in this proposed rulemaking
readily available, the EPA, the regulated
community, and the public will benefit
when the EPA conducts its CAArequired technology and risk-based
reviews. As a result of having
performance test reports and air
emission data readily accessible, our
ability to carry out comprehensive
reviews will be increased and achieved
within a shorter period of time. These
data will provide useful information on
control efficiencies being achieved and
maintained in practice within a source
category and across source categories for
regulated sources and pollutants. These
reports can also be used to inform the
technology-review process by providing
information on improvements to add-on
technology and new control technology.
Under an electronic reporting system,
the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) would have air
emissions and performance test data in
hand; OAQPS would not have to collect
these data from the EPA Regional offices
or from delegated air agencies or
industry sources in cases where these
reports are not submitted to the EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate
fewer or less substantial information
collection requests (ICRs) may be
needed in conjunction with prospective
CAA-required technology and riskbased reviews. We expect this to result
in a decrease in time spent by industry
to respond to data collection requests.
We also expect the ICRs to contain less
extensive stack testing provisions, as we
will already have stack test data
electronically. Reduced testing
requirements would be a cost savings to
industry. The EPA should also be able
to conduct these required reviews more
quickly, as OAQPS will not have to
include the ICR collection time in the
process or spend time collecting reports
from the EPA Regional offices. While
the regulated community may benefit
from a reduced burden of ICRs, the
general public benefits from the
agency’s ability to provide these
required reviews more quickly, resulting
in increased public health and
environmental protection.
Electronic reporting minimizes
submission of unnecessary or
duplicative reports in cases where
facilities report to multiple government
agencies and the agencies opt to rely on
the EPA’s electronic reporting system to
view report submissions. Where air
agencies continue to require a paper
copy of these reports and will accept a
hard copy of the electronic report,
facilities will have the option to print
paper copies of the electronic reporting
forms to submit to the air agencies, and,
thus, minimize the time spent reporting
to multiple agencies. Additionally,
maintenance and storage costs
associated with retaining paper records
could likewise be minimized by
replacing those records with electronic
records of electronically submitted data
and reports.
Air agencies could benefit from more
streamlined and automated review of
the electronically submitted data. For
example, because performance test data
would be readily-available in standard
electronic format, air agencies would be
able to review reports and data
electronically rather than having to
conduct a review of the reports and data
manually. Having reports and associated
data in electronic format facilitates
review through the use of software
‘‘search’’ options, as well as the
downloading and analyzing of data in
spreadsheet format. Additionally, air
agencies would benefit from the
reported data being accessible to them
through the EPA’s electronic reporting
system wherever and whenever they
want or need access (as long as they
have access to the internet). The ability
to access and review reports
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
electronically assists air agencies in
determining compliance with applicable
regulations more quickly and
accurately, potentially allowing a faster
response to violations, which could
minimize harmful air emissions. This
benefits both air agencies and the
general public.
The proposed electronic reporting of
test data is consistent with electronic
data trends (e.g., electronic banking and
income tax filing). Electronic reporting
of environmental data is already
common practice in many media offices
at the EPA. The changes being proposed
in this rulemaking are needed to
continue the EPA’s transition to
electronic reporting.
Additionally, we have identified two
broad circumstances in which electronic
reporting extensions may be provided.
In both circumstances, the decision to
accept your claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of
the Administrator, and reporting should
occur as soon as possible.
In 40 CFR 63.3000, we address the
situation where an extension may be
warranted due to outages of the EPA’s
CDX or CEDRI which preclude you from
accessing the system and submitting
required reports. If either the CDX or
CEDRI is unavailable at any time
beginning 5 business days prior to the
date that the submission is due, and the
unavailability prevents you from
submitting a report by the required date,
you may assert a claim of EPA system
outage. We consider 5 business days
prior to the reporting deadline to be an
appropriate timeframe because if the
system is down prior to this time, you
still have 1 week to complete reporting
once the system is back online.
However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down
during the week a report is due, we
realize that this could greatly impact
your ability to submit a required report
on time. We will notify you about
known outages as far in advance as
possible by CHIEF Listserv notice,
posting on the CEDRI website, and
posting on the CDX website so that you
can plan accordingly and still meet your
reporting deadline. However, if a
planned or unplanned outage occurs
and you believe that it will affect or it
has affected your ability to comply with
an electronic reporting requirement, we
have provided a process to assert such
a claim.
In 40 CFR 63.3000, we address the
situation where an extension may be
warranted due to a force majeure event,
which is defined as an event that will
be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected
facility, its contractors, or any entity
controlled by the affected facility that
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
prevents you from complying with the
requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule.
Examples of such events are acts of
nature, acts of war or terrorism, or
equipment failure or safety hazards
beyond the control of the facility. If
such an event occurs or is still occurring
or if there are still lingering effects of
the event in the 5 business days prior to
a submission deadline, we have
provided a process to assert a claim of
force majeure.
We are providing these potential
extensions to protect you from
noncompliance in cases where you
cannot successfully submit a report by
the reporting deadline for reasons
outside of your control as described
above. We are not providing an
extension for other instances. You
should register for CEDRI far in advance
of the initial compliance date, in order
to make sure that you can complete the
identity proofing process prior to the
initial compliance date. Additionally,
we recommend you start developing
reports early, in case any questions arise
during the reporting process.
b. Frequency of Compliance Reports
Section 63.3000(c) of the current rule
requires owners and operators of wetformed fiberglass mat production
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, to submit compliance
reports on a semiannual basis unless
there are deviations from emission
limits or operating limits. In those
instances, the current rule requires that
compliance reports be submitted on a
quarterly basis. The EPA is proposing to
revise 40 CFR 63.3000(c) to require that
compliance reports be submitted on a
semiannual basis in all instances.
Reporting on a semiannual basis will
adequately provide a check on the
operation and maintenance of process,
control, and monitoring equipment and
identify any problems with complying
with rule requirements.
c. Parameter Monitoring and Recording
During Use of Binder Containing No
HAP
Section 63.2984 of the current rule
requires owners and operators of wetformed fiberglass mat production
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH to maintain the
operating parameters established during
the most recent performance test.
Sections 63.2996 and 63.2998 of the
current rule require owners and
operators to monitor and record the
parameters listed in Table 1 to subpart
HHHH. The EPA is proposing that
during periods when the binder
formulation being used to produce mat
15003
does not contain any HAP (i.e.,
formaldehyde or any other HAP listed
under section 112(b) of the CAA),
owners and operators would not be
required to monitor or record any of the
parameters listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH, including
control device parameters. For each of
these periods, we propose that owners
and operators would be required to
record the dates and times that
production of mat using a non-HAP
binder began and ended. To clearly
identify these periods when the binder
formulation being used to produce mat
does not contain any HAP, we are
proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, sections 63.2984,
63.2996, and 63.2998 and table 1, and
also proposing that a definition of NonHAP binder be added to 40 CFR
63.3004. The new definition of ‘‘NonHAP binder’’ being proposed reads:
‘‘Non-HAP binder means a binder
formulation that does not contain any
hazardous air pollutants listed on the
material safety data sheets of the
compounds used in the binder
formulation.’’
3. Technical and Editorial Changes
We are also proposing several
clarifying revisions to the final rule as
described in Table 2 of this preamble.
TABLE 2—MISCELLANEOUS PROPOSED CHANGES TO 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART HHHH
Section of subpart HHHH
Description of proposed change
40 CFR 63.2984 .................
• Amend paragraph (a)(4) to clarify compliance with a different operating limit means the operating limit specified
in paragraph (a)(1).
• Amend paragraph (e) to allow use of a more recent edition of the currently referenced ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A
Manual of Recommended Practice,’’ American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, i.e., the appropriate chapters of ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for Design’’ (27th edition), or an
alternate as approved by the Administrator.
• Revise text regarding incorporation by reference (IBR) in paragraph (e) by replacing the reference to 40 CFR
63.3003 with, instead, 40 CFR 63.14.
• Amend paragraphs (a) and (b) to update a reference.
• Re-designate paragraph (c) as paragraph (e) and amend the newly designated paragraph to clarify that EPA
Method 320 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A–2) is an acceptable method for measuring the concentration of formaldehyde.
• Add new paragraph (c) to clarify that EPA Methods 3 and 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) are acceptable
methods for measuring oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations needed to correct formaldehyde concentration
measurements to a standard basis.
• Add new paragraph (d) to clarify that EPA Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A–3) is an acceptable method
for measuring the moisture content of the stack gas.
• Amend paragraph (b) to update list of example electronic medium on which records may be kept.
• Add paragraph (c) to clarify that any records that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CEDRI may be
maintained in electronic format.
• Remove text and reserve the section consistent with revisions to the IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
40 CFR 63.2993 .................
40 CFR 63.2999 .................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
40 CFR 63.3003 .................
E. What compliance dates are we
proposing?
The EPA is proposing that existing
affected sources and affected sources
that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before April 6,
2018 must comply with all of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
amendments no later than 180 days after
the effective date of the final rule. (The
final action is not expected to be a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2), so the effective date of the final
rule will be the promulgation date as
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10)).
For existing sources, we are proposing
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
four changes that would impact ongoing
compliance requirements for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH. As discussed
elsewhere in this preamble, we are
proposing to add a requirement that
performance test results be
electronically submitted, we are
proposing to change the frequency of
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
15004
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
required submissions of compliance
reports for facilities with deviations
from applicable standards from a
quarterly basis to a semiannual basis,
we are proposing to change the
requirements for SSM by removing the
exemption from the requirements to
meet the standard during SSM periods,
and we are proposing to no longer
require parameter monitoring during
periods when a non-HAP binder is
being used to produce mat. Our
experience with similar industries that
are required to convert reporting
mechanisms to install necessary
hardware and software, become familiar
with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically
through the EPA’s CEDRI, test these new
electronic submission capabilities, and
reliably employ electronic reporting and
to convert logistics of reporting
processes to different time-reporting
parameters shows that a time period of
a minimum of 90 days, and, more
typically, 180 days is generally
necessary to successfully accomplish
these revisions. Our experience with
similar industries further shows that
this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to
read and understand the amended rule
requirements; to evaluate their
operations to ensure that they can meet
the standards during periods of startup
and shutdown as defined in the rule and
make any necessary adjustments; to
adjust parameter monitoring and
recording systems to accommodate
revisions such as those proposed here
for periods of non-HAP binder use; and
to update their operation, maintenance,
and monitoring plan to reflect the
revised requirements. The EPA
recognizes the confusion that multiple
different compliance dates for
individual requirements would create
and the additional burden such an
assortment of dates would impose. From
our assessment of the timeframe needed
for compliance with the entirety of the
revised requirements, the EPA considers
a period of 180 days to be the most
expeditious compliance period
practicable and, thus, is proposing that
existing affected sources be in
compliance with all of this regulation’s
revised requirements within 180 days of
the regulation’s effective date. We solicit
comment on this proposed compliance
period, and we specifically request
submission of information from sources
in this source category regarding
specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the
proposed amended requirements and
the time needed to make the
adjustments for compliance with any of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in
changes to the proposed compliance
date. Affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after
April 6, 2018 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including
the amendments being proposed, no
later than the effective date of the final
rule or upon startup, whichever is later.
All affected facilities would have to
continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH until the applicable compliance
date of the amended rule.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The EPA estimates that there are
seven wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities that are subject to
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production NESHAP and would be
affected by the proposed amendments.
The bases of our estimate of affected
facilities are provided in the
memorandum, Wet-Formed Fiberglass:
Residual Risk Modeling File
Documentation (Modeling File
Documentation Memo), which is
available in the docket for this action.
We are not currently aware of any
planned or potential new or
reconstructed wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA estimates that annual HAP
emissions from the seven wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities that
are subject to the NESHAP are
approximately 23 tpy. Because we are
not proposing revisions to the emission
limits, we do not anticipate any air
quality impacts as a result of the
proposed amendments.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The seven wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities that would be
subject to the proposed amendments
would incur minimal net costs to meet
revised recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, some estimated to have
costs and some estimated to have cost
savings. Nationwide annual costs
associated with the proposed
requirements are estimated to be $200
per year in each of the 3 years following
promulgation of amendments. The EPA
believes that the seven wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities
which are known to be subject to the
NESHAP can meet the proposed
requirements without incurring
additional capital or operational costs.
Therefore, the only costs associated
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with the proposed amendments are
related to recordkeeping and reporting
labor costs. For further information on
the requirements being proposed, see
section IV of this preamble. For further
information on the costs and cost
savings associated with the
requirements being proposed, see the
memorandum, Cost Impacts of WetFormed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk
and Technology Review Proposal, and
the document, Supporting Statement for
NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production, which are both available in
the docket for this action. We solicit
comment on these estimated cost
impacts.
D. What are the economic impacts?
As noted earlier, the nationwide
annual costs associated with the
proposed requirements are estimated to
be $200 per year in each of the 3 years
following promulgation of the
amendments. The present value of the
total cost over these 3 years is
approximately $550 in 2016 dollars
under a 3-percent discount rate, and
$510 in 2016 dollars under a 7-percent
discount rate. These costs are not
expected to result in business closures,
significant price increases, or
substantial profit loss.
For further information on the
economic impacts associated with the
requirements being proposed, see the
memorandum, Proposal Economic
Impact Analysis for the Risk and
Technology Review: Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category, which is available in the
docket for this action.
E. What are the benefits?
Although the EPA does not anticipate
reductions in HAP emissions as a result
of the proposed amendments, we
believe that the action, if finalized,
would result in improvements to the
rule. Specifically, the proposed
amendment requiring electronic
submittal of performance test results
will increase the usefulness of the data,
is in keeping with current trends of data
availability, will further assist in the
protection of public health and the
environment, and will ultimately result
in less burden on the regulated
community. In addition, the proposed
amendments reducing parameter
monitoring and recording requirements
when non-HAP binder is being used to
produce mat and reducing frequency of
compliance reports will reduce burden
for regulated facilities while continuing
to protect public health and the
environment. See section IV.D.2 of this
preamble for more information.
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on all aspects of
this proposed action. In addition to
general comments on this proposed
action, we are also interested in
additional data that may improve the
risk assessments and other analyses. We
are specifically interested in receiving
any improvements to the data used in
the site-specific emissions profiles used
for risk modeling. Such data should
include supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow
characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or
information. Section VII of this
preamble provides more information on
submitting data.
We specifically solicit comment on an
additional issue under consideration
that would reduce regulatory burden for
owner/operators of certain drying and
curing ovens. We are requesting
comment on exempting performance
testing requirements for drying and
curing ovens that are subject to a
federally enforceable permit requiring
the use of only non-HAP binders. 40
CFR 63.2991 currently requires
formaldehyde testing for all drying and
curing ovens subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, even if the facility only
uses a non-HAP binder. Such an
exemption would reduce burden for
owners and operators that have
switched to using only non-HAP
binders without any increase in HAP
emissions. Owners and operators of
drying and curing ovens that are still
permitted to use HAP containing
binders would still be required to
conduct periodic performance testing
even if they are not currently using
binders that contain HAP.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles
used in the source category risk and
demographic analyses and instructions
are available for download on the RTR
website at https://www3.epa.gov/
airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files
include detailed information for each
HAP emissions release point for the
facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not
representative or are inaccurate, please
identify the data in question, provide
your reason for concern, and provide
any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we
request that you provide documentation
of the basis for the revised values to
support your suggested changes. To
submit comments on the data
downloaded from the RTR website,
complete the following steps:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
1. Within this downloaded file, enter
suggested revisions to the data fields
appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information
fields for each suggested revision (i.e.,
commenter name, commenter
organization, commenter email address,
commenter phone number, and revision
comments).
3. Gather documentation for any
suggested emissions revisions (e.g.,
performance test reports, material
balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file
with suggested revisions in Microsoft®
Access format and all accompanying
documentation to Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2004–0309 (through the
method described in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on
a single facility or multiple facilities,
you need only submit one file for all
facilities. The file should contain all
suggested changes for all sources at that
facility (or facilities). We request that all
data revision comments be submitted in
the form of updated Microsoft® Excel
files that are generated by the
Microsoft® Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://
www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/
rtrpg.html.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant
under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities
in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under
the PRA. The ICR document that the
EPA prepared has been assigned EPA
ICR number 1964.08. You can find a
copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
We are proposing changes to the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15005
part 63, subpart HHHH, in the form of
eliminating the SSM plan and reporting
requirements; requiring electronic
submittal of performance test reports;
reducing the frequency of compliance
reports to a semiannual basis when
there are deviations from applicable
standards; and reducing the parameter
monitoring and recording requirements
during use of binder containing no HAP.
We also included review of the
amended rule by affected facilities in
the updated ICR for this proposed rule.
In addition, the number of facilities
subject to the standards changed. The
number of respondents was reduced
from 14 to 7 based on consultation with
industry representatives and state/local
agencies.
Respondents/affected entities: The
respondents to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are owners or
operators of facilities that produce wetformed fiberglass mat subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH.
Respondent’s obligation to respond:
Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH).
Estimated number of respondents:
Seven.
Frequency of response: The frequency
of responses varies depending on the
burden item. Responses include onetime review of rule amendments, reports
of periodic performance tests, and
semiannual compliance reports.
Total estimated burden: The annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden for
responding facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the NESHAP,
averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is
estimated to be 1,470 hours (per year).
Of these, 3 hours (per year) is the
incremental burden to comply with the
proposed rule amendments. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual
recordkeeping and reporting cost for
responding facilities to comply with all
of the requirements in the NESHAP,
averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is
estimated to be $95,500 (per year),
including $0 annualized capital or
operation and maintenance costs. Of the
total, $200 (per year) is the incremental
cost to comply with the proposed
amendments to the rule.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the
Agency’s need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
15006
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also
send your ICR-related comments to
OMB’s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs via email to OIRA_
submission@omb.eop.gov, Attention:
Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than May 7, 2018. The EPA will
respond to any ICR-related comments in
the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. There are no small entities
affected in this regulated industry. See
the document, Proposal Economic
Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration
of the Risk and Technology Review:
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
Source Category, available in the docket
for this action.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. None of the seven wetformed fiberglass mat production
facilities that have been identified as
being affected by this proposed action
are owned or operated by tribal
governments or located within tribal
lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in sections
III.A and C and sections IV.A and B of
this preamble, and further documented
in the risk report, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category in Support of the February
2018 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, available in the docket
for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
part 51
This action involves technical
standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted a search to identify
potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards (VCS). The EPA
proposes to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3,
3A, 4, 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A. While the EPA
identified 11 VCS as being potentially
applicable as alternatives to EPA
Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 of 40 CFR
part 60, the Agency does not propose to
use them. Use of these VCS would be
impractical because of their lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation
data, and/or other important technical
and policy considerations. Results of the
search are documented in the
memorandum, Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Wet-formed Fiberglass Mat
Production, which is available in the
docket for this action. Methods 316,
318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A are used to determine the
formaldehyde concentrations before and
after the control device (e.g., thermal
oxidizer). Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A are used the
determine the gas flow rate which is
used with the concentration of
formaldehyde to calculate the mass
emission rate. Additional information
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/
emc/emc-promulgated-test-methods.
Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice, 23rd Edition,
1998, Chapter 3, ‘‘Local Exhaust Hoods’’
and Chapter 5, ‘‘Exhaust System Design
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Procedure,’’ and Industrial Ventilation:
A Manual of Recommended Practice for
Design, 27th Edition, 2010, are
compilations of research data and
information on design, maintenance,
and evaluation of industrial exhaust
ventilation systems. They include
suggestions for appropriate hood design
considerations and aspects for fan
design. The Manuals are used by
engineers and industrial hygienists as
guidance for design and evaluation of
industrial ventilation systems.
Additional information can be found at
https://www.acgih.org.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision
is contained in section IV.A of this
preamble and the technical report, Risk
and Technology Review Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production, available in the docket for
this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 19, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Section 63.14 is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(a) and paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to read
as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
§ 63.14
Incorporations by reference.
(a) * * * For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
call 202–741–6030 or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html.
(b) * * *
(2) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual
of Recommended Practice, 23rd Edition,
1998, Chapter 3, ‘‘Local Exhaust Hoods’’
and Chapter 5, ‘‘Exhaust System Design
Procedure.’’ IBR approved for
§§ 63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table
2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to Subpart
RRR, Appendix A to Subpart RRR, and
63.2984(e).
(3) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual
of Recommended Practice for Design,
27th Edition, 2010. IBR approved for
§§ 63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table
2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to Subpart
RRR, Appendix A to Subpart RRR, and
63.2984(e).
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart HHHH—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production
3. Section 63.2984 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(1), (4), (b), and
(e) to read as follows:
■
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.2984
meet?
What operating limits must I
(a) * * *
(1) You must operate the thermal
oxidizer so that the average operating
temperature in any 3-hour block period
does not fall below the temperature
established during your performance
test and specified in your OMM plan,
except during periods when using a
non-HAP binder.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) If you use an add-on control
device other than a thermal oxidizer or
wish to monitor an alternative
parameter and comply with a different
operating limit than the limit specified
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you
must obtain approval for the alternative
monitoring under § 63.8(f). You must
include the approved alternative
monitoring and operating limits in the
OMM plan specified in § 63.2987.
(b) When during a period of normal
operation, you detect that an operating
parameter deviates from the limit or
range established in paragraph (a) of this
section, you must initiate corrective
actions within 1 hour according to the
provisions of your OMM plan. The
corrective actions must be completed in
an expeditious manner as specified in
the OMM plan.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
(e) If you use a thermal oxidizer or
other control device to achieve the
emission limits in § 63.2983, you must
capture and convey the formaldehyde
emissions from each drying and curing
oven according to the procedures in
chapters 3 and 5 of ‘‘Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended
Practice’’ (23rd Edition) or the
appropriate chapters of ‘‘Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended
Practice for Design’’ (27th edition) (both
incorporated by reference, see § 63.14).
In addition, you may use an alternate as
approved by the Administrator.
■ 4. Section 63.2985 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 63.2985 When do I have to comply with
these standards?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Drying and curing ovens
constructed or reconstructed after May
26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018 must
be in compliance with this subpart at
startup or by April 11, 2002, whichever
is later.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Drying and curing ovens
constructed or reconstructed after April
6, 2018 must be in compliance with this
subpart at startup or by [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], whichever is
later.
■ 5. Section 63.2986 is amended by
revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 63.2986 How do I comply with the
standards?
*
*
*
*
*
(g) You must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], you must be in
compliance with the emission limits in
§ 63.2983 and the operating limits in
§ 63.2984 at all times, except during
periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], you must be
in compliance with the emission limits
in § 63.2983 and the operating limits in
§ 63.2984 at all times.
(2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], you must always
operate and maintain any affected
source, including air pollution control
equipment and monitoring equipment,
according to the provisions in
§ 63.6(e)(1). After [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], at all times,
you must operate and maintain any
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15007
affected source, including associated air
pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require
you to make any further efforts to
reduce emissions if levels required by
the applicable standard have been
achieved. Determination of whether a
source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance
requirements will be based on
information available to the
Administrator which may include, but
is not limited to, monitoring results,
review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of
the source.
(3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], you must
develop a written startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan according to the
provisions in § 63.6(e)(3). The startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan must
address the startup, shutdown, and
corrective actions taken for
malfunctioning process and air
pollution control equipment. A startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan is not
required after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
■ 6. Section 63.2992 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to read
as follows:
§ 63.2992
test?
How do I conduct a performance
*
*
*
*
*
(b) You must conduct the
performance test according to the
requirements in § 63.7(a) through (d),
(e)(2) through (4), and (f) through (h).
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Performance tests must be
conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies to you based on
representative performance of the
affected source for the period being
tested. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and
shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of
malfunction. You must record the
process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation.
Upon request, you must make available
to the Administrator such records as
may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Section 63.2993 is amended by:
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
15008
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)
through (e) as paragraphs (e) through (g);
■ c. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d);
and
■ d. Revising newly redesignated
paragraph (e).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 63.2993 What test methods must I use in
conducting performance tests?
(a) Use EPA Method 1 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A–1) for selecting the
sampling port location and the number
of sampling ports.
(b) Use EPA Method 2 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A–1) for measuring the
volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(c) Use EPA Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–2) for measuring
oxygen and carbon dioxide
concentrations needed to correct
formaldehyde concentration
measurements to a standard basis.
(d) Use EPA Method 4 (40 CFR part
60, appendix A–3) for measuring the
moisture content of the stack gas.
(e) Use EPA Method 316, 318, or 320
(40 CFR part 63, appendix A) for
measuring the concentration of
formaldehyde.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Section 63.2994 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.2994 How do I verify the performance
of monitoring equipment?
(a) Before conducting the performance
test, you must take the steps listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section:
(1) Install and calibrate all process
equipment, control devices, and
monitoring equipment.
(2) Develop and implement a
continuous monitoring system (CMS)
quality control program that includes
written procedures for CMS according
to § 63.8(d)(1) and (2). You must keep
these written procedures on record for
the life of the affected source or until
the affected source is no longer subject
to the provisions of this part, to be made
available for inspection, upon request,
by the Administrator. If the performance
evaluation plan is revised, you must
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions
of the performance evaluation plan on
record to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator, for a period of 5 years
after each revision to the plan. The
program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under
§ 63.8(d)(2).
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation
of the CMS according to § 63.8(e), which
specifies the general requirements and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
requirements for notifications, the sitespecific performance evaluation plan,
conduct of the performance evaluation,
and reporting of performance evaluation
results.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 63.2996 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 63.2996
What must I monitor?
(a) You must monitor the parameters
listed in table 1 of this subpart and any
other parameters specified in your
OMM plan. The parameters must be
monitored, at a minimum, at the
corresponding frequencies listed in
table 1 of this subpart, except as
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) During periods when using a nonHAP binder, you are not required to
monitor the parameters in table 1 of this
subpart.
■ 10. Section 63.2998 is amended by:
■ a. Revising the introductory text,
paragraphs (a) and (c), and paragraph (e)
introductory text;
■ b. Revising paragraph (f);
■ c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as
paragraph (h)
■ d. Adding new paragraph (g).
The revisions read as follows:
§ 63.2998
What records must I maintain?
You must maintain records according
to the procedures of § 63.10. You must
maintain the records listed in
paragraphs (a) through (h) of this
section.
(a) All records required by § 63.10,
where applicable. Table 2 of this
subpart presents the applicable
requirements of the general provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) During periods when the binder
formulation being applied contains
HAP, records of values of monitored
parameters listed in Table 1 of this
subpart to show continuous compliance
with each operating limit specified in
Table 1 of this subpart. During periods
when using non-HAP binder, and that
you elect not to monitor the parameters
in table 1 of this subpart, you are
required to record the dates and times
that production of mat using non-HAP
binder began and ended.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], if an operating
parameter deviation occurs, you must
record:
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], keep all records
specified in § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v)
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
related to startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
(g) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], in the event that
an affected source fails to meet an
applicable standard, including
deviations from an emission limit in
§ 63.2983 or an operating limit in
§ 63.2984, you must record the number
of failures and, for each failure, you
must:
(1) Record the date, time, and
duration of the failure;
(2) Describe the cause of the failure;
(3) Record and retain a list of the
affected sources or equipment, an
estimate of the quantity of each
regulated pollutant emitted over any
emission limit and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions;
and
(4) Record actions taken to minimize
emissions in accordance with
§ 63.2986(g)(2), and any corrective
actions taken to return the affected unit
to its normal or usual manner of
operation and/or the operating
parameter to the limit or to within the
range specified in the OMM plan, along
with dates and times at which corrective
actions were initiated and completed.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Section 63.2999 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 63.2999 In what form and for how long
must I maintain records?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Your records must be readily
available and in a form so they can be
easily inspected and reviewed. You can
keep the records on paper or an
alternative medium, such as microfilm,
computer, computer disks, compact
disk, digital versatile disk, flash drive,
other commonly used electronic storage
medium, magnetic tape, or on
microfiche.
(c) Any records required to be
maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA’s
Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be
maintained in electronic format. This
ability to maintain electronic copies
does not affect the requirement for
facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a
delegated air agency or the EPA as part
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
■ 11. Section 63.3000 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) introductory
text, (1), (4), (5), (d), and (e) and adding
paragraphs (c)(6), (f), and (g) to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
§ 63.3000 What notifications and reports
must I submit?
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Semiannual compliance reports.
You must submit semiannual
compliance reports according to the
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) Dates for submitting reports.
Unless the Administrator has agreed to
a different schedule for submitting
reports under § 63.10(a), you must
deliver or postmark each semiannual
compliance report no later than 30 days
following the end of each semiannual
reporting period. The first semiannual
reporting period begins on the
compliance date for your affected source
and ends on June 30 or December 31,
whichever date immediately follows
your compliance date. Each subsequent
semiannual reporting period for which
you must submit a semiannual
compliance report begins on July 1 or
January 1 and ends 6 calendar months
later. Before [DATE 1 DAY AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], as required by
§ 63.10(e)(3), you must begin submitting
quarterly compliance reports if you
deviate from the emission limits in
§ 63.2983 or the operating limits in
§ 63.2984. After [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], quarterly
compliance reports are not required.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) No deviations. If there were no
instances where an affected source
failed to meet an applicable standard,
including no deviations from the
emission limit in § 63.2983 or the
operating limits in § 63.2984, the
semiannual compliance report must
include a statement to that effect. If
there were no periods during which the
continuous parameter monitoring
systems were out-of-control as specified
in § 63.8(c)(7), the semiannual
compliance report must include a
statement to that effect.
(5) Deviations. Before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
if there was an instance where an
affected source failed to meet an
applicable standard, including a
deviation from the emission limit in
§ 63.2983 or an operating limit in
§ 63.2984, the semiannual compliance
report must record the number of
failures and contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this
section:
(i) The date, time, and duration of
each failure.
(ii) The date and time that each
continuous parameter monitoring
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
system was inoperative, except for zero
(low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that
each continuous parameter monitoring
system was out-of-control, including the
information in § 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) A list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the quantity
of each regulated pollutant emitted over
any emission limit and a description of
the method used to estimate the
emissions.
(v) The date and time that corrective
actions were taken, a description of the
cause of the failure, and a description of
the corrective actions taken.
(vi) A summary of the total duration
of each failure during the semiannual
reporting period and the total duration
as a percent of the total source operating
time during that semiannual reporting
period.
(vii) A breakdown of the total
duration of the failures during the
semiannual reporting period into those
that were due to control equipment
problems, process problems, other
known causes, and other unknown
causes.
(viii) A brief description of the
process units.
(ix) A brief description of the
continuous parameter monitoring
system.
(6) Deviations. After [DATE 180
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
if there was an instance where an
affected source failed to meet an
applicable standard, including a
deviation from the emission limit in
§ 63.2983 or an operating limit in
§ 63.2984, the semiannual compliance
report must record the number of
failures and contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this
section:
(i) The date, time, and duration of
each failure.
(ii) The date and time that each
continuous parameter monitoring
system was inoperative, except for zero
(low-level) and high-level checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that
each continuous parameter monitoring
system was out-of-control, including the
information in § 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) A list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the quantity
of each regulated pollutant emitted over
any emission limit and a description of
the method used to estimate the
emissions.
(v) The date and time that corrective
actions were taken, a description of the
cause of the failure, and a description of
the corrective actions taken.
(vi) A summary of the total duration
of each failure during the semiannual
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15009
reporting period and the total duration
as a percent of the total source operating
time during that semiannual reporting
period.
(vii) A breakdown of the total
duration of the failures during the
semiannual reporting period into those
that were due to control equipment
problems, process problems, other
known causes, and other unknown
causes.
(viii) A brief description of the
process units.
(ix) A brief description of the
continuous parameter monitoring
system.
(d) Performance test results. You must
submit results of each performance test
(as defined in § 63.2) required by this
subpart no later than 60 days after
completing the test as specified in
§ 63.10(d)(2). You must include the
values measured during the
performance test for the parameters
listed in Table 1 of this subpart and the
operating limits or ranges to be included
in your OMM plan. For the thermal
oxidizer temperature, you must include
15-minute averages and the average for
the three 1-hour test runs. Beginning no
later than [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], you must submit
the results following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test
methods supported by the EPA’s
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as
listed on the EPA’s ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test,
you must submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI.
(CEDRI can be accessed through the
EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)
(https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test
data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of the EPA’s
ERT or an alternate electronic file
format consistent with the extensible
markup language (XML) schema listed
on the EPA’s ERT website.
(2) For data collected using test
methods that are not supported by the
EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT
website at the time of the test, you must
submit the results of the performance
test to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in § 63.13,
unless the Administrator agrees to or
specifies an alternate reporting method.
(3) If you claim that some of the
performance test information being
submitted under paragraph (d)(1) is
confidential business information (CBI),
you must submit a complete file
generated through the use of the EPA’s
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
15010
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed
on the EPA’s ERT website, including
information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disc, flash drive or other
commonly used electronic storage
medium to the EPA. The electronic
medium must be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE
CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, Mail Drop
C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham,
NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate
file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX
as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section.
(e) Startup, shutdown, malfunction
reports. Before [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], if you have a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction
during the semiannual reporting period,
you must submit the reports specified
§ 63.10(d)(5).
(f) If you are required to electronically
submit a report through the CEDRI in
the EPA’s CDX, and due to a planned or
actual outage of either the EPA’s CEDRI
or CDX systems within the period of
time beginning 5 business days prior to
the date that the submission is due, you
will be or are precluded from accessing
CEDRI or CDX and submitting a
required report within the time
prescribed, you may assert a claim of
EPA system outage for failure to timely
comply with the reporting requirement.
You must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or caused a delay in reporting. You must
provide to the Administrator a written
description identifying the date, time
and length of the outage; a rationale for
attributing the delay in reporting
beyond the regulatory deadline to the
EPA system outage; describe the
measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and
identify a date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the report must be
submitted electronically as soon as
possible after the outage is resolved. The
decision to accept the claim of EPA
system outage and allow an extension to
the reporting deadline is solely within
the discretion of the Administrator.
(g) If you are required to electronically
submit a report through CEDRI in the
EPA’s CDX and a force majeure event is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:31 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
about to occur, occurs, or has occurred
or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due, the owner
or operator may assert a claim of force
majeure for failure to timely comply
with the reporting requirement. For the
purposes of this section, a force majeure
event is defined as an event that will be
or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected
facility, its contractors, or any entity
controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the
requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period
prescribed. Examples of such events are
acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes,
earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power
outage). If you intend to assert a claim
of force majeure, you must submit
notification to the Administrator in
writing as soon as possible following the
date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the
event may cause or caused a delay in
reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of
the force majeure event and a rationale
for attributing the delay in reporting
beyond the regulatory deadline to the
force majeure event; describe the
measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and
identify a date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must
occur as soon as possible after the force
majeure event occurs. The decision to
accept the claim of force majeure and
allow an extension to the reporting
deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
■ 12. Section 63.3003 is removed and
reserved.
■ 13. Section 63.3004 is amended by
removing the definition for ‘‘Deviation’’
and adding definitions for ‘‘Deviation
after,’’ ‘‘Deviation before,’’ ‘‘Non-HAP
binder,’’ ‘‘Shutdown,’’ and ‘‘Startup’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 63.3004
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
*
*
*
*
*
Deviation after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register] means any
instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart, or an owner or
operator of such a source:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart,
including, but not limited to, any
emission limit, operating limit, or work
practice standard; or
(2) fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required
to obtain such a permit.
Deviation after [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register] means any
instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart, or an owner or
operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart,
including, but not limited to, any
emission limit, operating limit, or work
practice standard; or
(2) fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required
to obtain such a permit; or
(3) fails to meet any emission limit, or
operating limit, or work practice
standard in this subpart during startup,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted
by this subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
Non-HAP binder means a binder
formulation that does not contain any
hazardous air pollutants listed on the
material safety data sheets of the
compounds used in the binder
formulation.
*
*
*
*
*
Shutdown after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register] means the
cessation of operation of the drying and
curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for
any purpose. Shutdown ends when
fiberglass mat is no longer being dried
or cured in the oven and the oven no
longer contains any resin infused
binder.
Startup after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register] means the
setting in operation of the drying and
curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for
any purpose. Startup begins when resin
infused fiberglass mat enters the oven to
be dried and cured for the first time or
after a shutdown event.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Table 1 to Subpart HHHH of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
15011
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING AND RECORDKEEPING
As stated in § 63.2998(c), you must comply with the minimum requirements for monitoring and recordkeeping in the following table:
You must monitor these
parameters:
At this frequency:
1. Thermal oxidizer temperature a ......................
2. Other process or control device parameters
specified in your OMM plan.b
3. Urea-formaldehyde resin solids application
rate.d
Continuously ....................................................
As specified in your OMM plan .......................
15-minute and 3-hour block averages.
As specified in your OMM plan.
On each operating day, calculate the average
lb/h application rate for each product manufactured during that day.
For each lot of resin purchased .......................
The average lb/h value for each product manufactured during the day.
4. Resin free-formaldehyde content d .................
5. Loss-on-ignition c d ..........................................
6. UF-to-latex ratio in the binder c d ....................
7. Weight of the final mat product per square
(lb/roofing square).c d
8. Average nonwoven wet-formed fiberglass
mat production rate (roofing square/h).c d
And record for the monitored parameter:
Measured at least once per day, for each
product manufactured during that day.
For each batch of binder prepared the operating day.
Each product manufactured during the operating day.
For each product manufactured during the operating day.
The value for each lot used during the operating day.
The value for each product manufactured during the operating day.
The value for each batch of binder prepared
during the operating day.
The value for each product manufactured during the operating day.
The average value for each product manufactured during operating day.
a Required
if a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde emissions.
if process modifications or a control device other than a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde emissions.
parameters must be monitored and values recorded, but no operating limits apply.
d You are not required to monitor or record these parameters during periods when using a non-HAP binder. If you elect to not monitor these
parameters during these periods, you must record the dates and times that production of mat using the non-HAP binder began and ended.
b ‘‘Required
c These
15. Table 2 to Subpart HHHH of Part
63 is revised to read as follows:
■
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO
SUBPART HHHH
As stated in § 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
Citation
Requirement
Applies to subpart HHHH
§ 63.1(a)(1)–(4) ..........
§ 63.1(a)(5) ................
§ 63.1(a)(6)–(8) ..........
§ 63.1(a)(9) ................
§ 63.1(a)(10)–(14) ......
§ 63.1(b) .....................
§ 63.1(c)(1) .................
General Applicability ............................
..............................................................
Yes.
..............................................................
Yes.
Initial Applicability Determination ........
Applicability After Standard Established.
..............................................................
..............................................................
Yes.
..............................................................
Applicability of Permit Program ...........
Definitions ............................................
Units and Abbreviations ......................
Prohibited Activities .............................
..............................................................
Yes.
Circumvention/Severability ..................
Construction/Reconstruction ...............
Existing/Constructed/Reconstruction ...
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.
Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.
Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on State Review.
Compliance with Standards and Maintenance—Applicability.
New and Reconstructed Sources–
Dates.
..............................................................
Yes.
Existing Sources Dates .......................
Yes.
No ........................................................
[Reserved].
No ........................................................
[Reserved].
§ 63.1(c)(2) .................
§ 63.1(c)(3) .................
§ 63.1(c)(4)–(5) ..........
§ 63.1(d) .....................
§ 63.1(e) .....................
§ 63.2 .........................
§ 63.3 .........................
§ 63.4(a)(1)–(3) ..........
§ 63.4(a)(4) ................
§ 63.4(a)(5) ................
§ 63.4(b)–(c) ...............
§ 63.5(a) .....................
§ 63.5(b)(1) ................
§ 63.5(b)(2) ................
§ 63.5(b)(3)–(6) ..........
§ 63.5(c) .....................
§ 63.5(d) .....................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.5(e) .....................
§ 63.5(f) ......................
§ 63.6(a) .....................
§ 63.6(b)(1)–(5) ..........
§ 63.6(b)(6) ................
§ 63.6(b)(7) ................
§ 63.6(c)(1)–(2) ..........
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:56 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Explanation
Yes.
Yes.
Yes ......................................................
No ........................................................
Some plants may be area sources.
[Reserved].
No ........................................................
Yes.
Yes ......................................................
Yes.
Yes.
No ........................................................
[Reserved].
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ........................................................
Yes.
No ........................................................
Yes.
Additional definitions in § 63.3004.
[Reserved].
[Reserved].
[Reserved].
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ........................................................
[Reserved].
Yes. .....................................................
§ 63.2985 specifies dates.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
15012
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO
SUBPART HHHH—Continued
As stated in § 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
Citation
Requirement
Applies to subpart HHHH
§ 63.6(c)(3)–(4) ..........
§ 63.6(c)(5) .................
§ 63.6(d) .....................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) .............
..............................................................
Yes.
..............................................................
General Duty to Minimize Emissions ..
No ........................................................
[Reserved].
No ........................................................
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Yes ......................................................
[Reserved].
See § 63.2986(g) for general duty requirement.
.........................................................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ............
Requirement to Correct Malfunctions
ASAP.
.........................................................
§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ............
§ 63.6(e)(2) ................
§ 63.6(e)(3) ................
Operation and Maintenance Requirements.
..............................................................
SSM Plan Requirements .....................
..............................................................
§ 63.6(f)(1) .................
§ 63.6(f)(2) and (3) .....
§ 63.7(b) .....................
§ 63.7(c) .....................
§ 63.7(d) .....................
§ 63.7(e)(1) ................
SSM Exemption ...................................
Compliance with Non-Opacity Emission Standards.
Alternative Non-Opacity Emission
Standard.
Compliance with Opacity/Visible Emissions Standards.
Extension of Compliance ....................
..............................................................
..............................................................
Exemption from Compliance ...............
Performance Test Requirements—Applicability and Dates.
Notification of Performance Test .........
Quality Assurance Program/Test Plan
Testing Facilities ..................................
Performance Testing ...........................
§ 63.7(e)(2)–(4) ..........
Conduct of Tests .................................
§ 63.7(f) ......................
§ 63.7(g) .....................
§ 63.7(h) .....................
§ 63.8(a)(1)–(2) ..........
Alternative Test Method ......................
Data Analysis ......................................
Waiver of Tests ...................................
Monitoring
Requirements—Applicability.
..............................................................
..............................................................
Conduct of Monitoring .........................
General Duty to Minimize Emissions
and CMS Operation.
§ 63.6(g) .....................
§ 63.6(h) .....................
§ 63.6(i)(1)–(14) .........
§ 63.6(i)(15) ................
§ 63.6(i)(16) ................
§ 63.6(j) ......................
§ 63.7(a) .....................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 63.8(a)(3) ................
§ 63.8(a)(4) ................
§ 63.8(b) .....................
§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .............
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............
§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ............
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Continuous Monitoring System (CMS)
Operation and Maintenance.
Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for
CMS.
21:56 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
No ........................................................
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No.
Yes.
Explanation
§§ 63.2984 and 63.2987 specify additional requirements.
[Reserved].
Yes ......................................................
EPA retains approval authority.
No ........................................................
Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards.
Yes.
No ........................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Yes ......................................................
Yes ......................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ........................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Yes.
[Reserved].
See § 63.2992(c).
§ 63.2991–63.2994 specify additional
requirements.
EPA retains approval authority.
[Reserved].
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
15013
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO
SUBPART HHHH—Continued
As stated in § 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
Citation
Requirement
Applies to subpart HHHH
§ 63.8(c)(6)–(8) ..........
§ 63.8(d)(1) and (2) ....
§ 63.8(d)(3) ................
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
..............................................................
Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) Procedures.
..............................................................
Quality Control .....................................
Written Procedures for CMS ...............
§ 63.8(e) .....................
§ 63.8(f)(1)–(5) ...........
§ 63.8(f)(6) .................
CMS Performance Evaluation .............
Alternative Monitoring Method ............
Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test
Yes.
Yes.
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Yes.
Yes ......................................................
No ........................................................
§ 63.8(g)(1) ................
§ 63.8(g)(2) ................
Data Reduction ....................................
Data Reduction ....................................
Yes.
No ........................................................
§ 63.8(g)(3)–(5) ..........
§ 63.9(a) .....................
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.9(g)(1) ................
§ 63.9(g)(2)–(3) ..........
Data Reduction ....................................
Notification
Requirements—Applicability.
Initial Notifications ...............................
Request for Compliance Extension .....
New Source Notification for Special
Compliance Requirements.
Notification of Performance Test .........
Notification of Visible Emissions/Opacity Test.
Additional CMS Notifications ...............
..............................................................
Yes.
No ........................................................
§ 63.9(h)(1)–(3) ..........
Notification of Compliance Status .......
Yes ......................................................
§ 63.9(h)(4) ................
§ 63.9(h)(5)–(6) ..........
§ 63.9(i) ......................
§ 63.9(j) ......................
§ 63.10(a) ...................
..............................................................
..............................................................
Adjustment of Deadlines .....................
Change in Previous Information ..........
Recordkeeping/Reporting—Applicability.
General Recordkeeping Requirements
No ........................................................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.8(c)(2)–(4) ..........
§ 63.8(c)(5) .................
§ 63.9(b) .....................
§ 63.9(c) .....................
§ 63.9(d) .....................
§ 63.9(e) .....................
§ 63.9(f) ......................
§ 63.10(b)(1) ..............
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ...........
§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ..........
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Explanation
Maintenance Records .........................
Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions
During SSM.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) .........
§ 63.10(b)(2)(vii)–(xiv)
Recordkeeping for CMS Malfunctions
Other CMS Requirements ...................
21:56 Apr 05, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards.
See § 63.2994(a).
EPA retains approval authority.
Subpart HHHH does not require the
use of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS)
Subpart HHHH does not require the
use of CEMS or COMS.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ........................................................
Yes ......................................................
Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
Duration of Startups and Shutdowns.
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet a Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
Standard.
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ..........
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and
(v).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Yes.
No ........................................................
Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards.
Subpart HHHH does not require the
use of COMS or CEMS.
§ 63.3000(b) specifies additional requirements.
[Reserved].
§ 63.2998 includes additional requirements.
See § 63.2998(e) for recordkeeping
requirements for an affected source
that fails to meet an applicable
standard.
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Yes.
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Yes.
Yes.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
15014
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO
SUBPART HHHH—Continued
As stated in § 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
Citation
Requirement
Applies to subpart HHHH
§ 63.10(b)(3) ..............
Recordkeeping requirement for applicability determinations.
§ 63.10(c)(1) ...............
§ 63.10(c)(2)–(4) ........
§ 63.10(c)(5)–(8) ........
§ 63.10(c)(9) ...............
§ 63.10(c)(10)–(14) ....
§ 63.10(c)(15) .............
Additional CMS Recordkeeping ..........
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................
Use of SSM Plan .................................
§ 63.10(d)(1) ..............
General Reporting Requirements .......
Yes after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Yes.
No ........................................................
Yes.
No ........................................................
Yes.
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
Yes ......................................................
§ 63.10(d)(2) ..............
Performance Test Results ...................
Yes ......................................................
§ 63.10(d)(3) ..............
No ........................................................
§ 63.10(d)(5) ..............
Opacity or Visible Emissions Observations.
Progress Reports Under Extension of
Compliance.
SSM Reports .......................................
§ 63.10(e)(1) ..............
Additional CMS Reports—General .....
§ 63.10(e)(2) ..............
Reporting results of CMS performance
evaluations.
Excess Emission/CMS Performance
Reports.
COMS Data Reports ...........................
§ 63.10(d)(4) ..............
§ 63.10(e)(3) ..............
§ 63.10(e)(4) ..............
§ 63.10(f) ....................
§ 63.11 .......................
§ 63.12
§ 63.13
§ 63.14
§ 63.15
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver .......
Control Device Requirements—Applicability.
State Authority and Delegations .........
Addresses ............................................
Incorporation by Reference .................
Availability of Information/Confidentiality.
Explanation
[Reserved].
[Reserved].
§ 63.3000 includes additional requirements.
§ 63.3000 includes additional requirements.
Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards.
Yes.
Yes before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register].
No ........................................................
See § 63.3000(c) for malfunction reporting requirements.
Subpart HHHH
CEMS.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
require
Yes.
No ........................................................
Yes ......................................................
No ........................................................
Subpart HHHH does not specify opacity or visible emission standards.
EPA retains approval authority.
Facilities subject to subpart HHHH do
not use flares as control devices.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
21:56 Apr 05, 2018
not
Yes.
[FR Doc. 2018–06541 Filed 4–5–18; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
does
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\06APP2.SGM
06APP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14984-15014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06541]
[[Page 14983]]
Vol. 83
Friday,
No. 67
April 6, 2018
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14984]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309; FRL-9975-99-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT47
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production to address the
results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that the EPA
is required to conduct in accordance with section 112 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). We found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be
acceptable from this source category, determined that the current
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
and identified no new cost-effective controls under the technology
review to achieve further emissions reductions. Therefore, we are
proposing no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these
analyses. However, the EPA is proposing to revise provisions pertaining
to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM); add requirements for electronic submittal of performance test
results; revise certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements; and make other miscellaneous technical and editorial
changes. While the proposed amendments would not result in reductions
in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), if finalized, they
would result in improved compliance and implementation of the rule.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2018.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before May 7, 2018.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by April 11, 2018,
then we will hold a public hearing on April 23, 2018 at the location
described in the ADDRESSES section. The last day to pre-register in
advance to speak at the public hearing will be April 19, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. (See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for detail about how EPA treats submitted comments.)
Regulations.gov is our preferred method of receiving comments. However,
other submission methods are accepted. To ship or send mail via the
United States Postal Service, use the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0309, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. Use the following Docket Center address if you
are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier:
EPA Docket Center, EPA William Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. Delivery
verification signatures will be available only during regular business
hours.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held
at EPA Headquarters, EPA WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20004. If a public hearing is requested, then we
will provide details about the public hearing on our website at:
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wet-formed-fiberglass-mat-production-national-emission-standards. The EPA does not
intend to publish another document in the Federal Register announcing
any updates on the request for a public hearing. Please contact
Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or by email at [email protected] to
request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing,
or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for instructions on registering and attending
a public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mary Johnson, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(Mail Code D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5025; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected] or Christian Fellner, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (Mail Code D243-01), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-4003; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address:
[email protected].
For specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology,
contact Ted Palma, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (Mail Code
C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5470; fax number: (919) 541-0840;
and email address: [email protected].
For information about the applicability of the national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity,
contact Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code E-19J),
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number:
(312) 353-6266; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all
speakers who arrive and register. If a hearing is held at a U.S.
government facility, individuals planning to attend should be prepared
to show a current, valid state- or federal-approved picture
identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the
meeting room. An expired form of identification will not be permitted.
Please note that the Real ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005,
established new requirements for entering federal facilities. If your
driver's license is issued by a noncompliant state, you must present an
additional form of identification to enter a federal facility.
Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: Federal
employee badge, passports, enhanced driver's licenses, and military
identification cards. Additional information on the Real ID Act is
available at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-frequently-asked-questions. In
addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal
belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be
required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large
signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside
of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal
property for security reasons.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although
[[Page 14985]]
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
EPA WJC West Building, 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.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0309. The 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 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 email. This
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed in section
I.C of this preamble.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include
special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ARMA Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
BBDR biologically based dose response
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
kg/Mg kilograms per megagram
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
lb/ton pounds per ton
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QA quality assurance
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
[[Page 14986]]
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and the associated
regulated industrial source category that is the subject of this
proposal. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is
likely to affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be
directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local, and
tribal government entities would not be affected by this proposed
action. The Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category was
added to the list of categories of major sources of HAP published under
section 112(c) of the CAA in an action that concurrently promulgated
NESHAP for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category (67
FR 17824, April 11, 2002). As defined in that action, in wet-formed
fiberglass mat production, glass fibers are bonded with an organic
resin. The mat is formed as the resin is dried and cured in heated
ovens.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Wet-Formed Fiberglass 327212
Production. Mat Production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/wet-formed-fiberglass-mat-production-national-emission-standards. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309).
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov or email. 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 the EPA, mark the outside of the disk
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or
CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to
one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed
as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI 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 the EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS
Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards
for emissions of HAP from stationary sources. Generally, the first
stage involves establishing technology-based standards and the second
stage involves evaluating those standards that are based on maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether additional
standards are needed to further address any remaining risk associated
with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred to as the
``residual risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk review, the
CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA section 112
every 8 years to determine if there are ``developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies'' that may be appropriate to
incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to as
the ``technology review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a
single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and
technology review.'' The discussion that follows identifies the most
relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the
methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more
comprehensive discussion appears in the document, CAA Section 112 Risk
and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology, which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major
[[Page 14987]]
sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination
of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major sources, CAA
section 112(d) provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect
the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). These standards are commonly referred to as
MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum
control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' The EPA
must also consider control options that are more stringent than the
floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly referred to
as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as provided in CAA
section 112(h), EPA may set work practice standards where it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission standard. For
area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA discretion to set
standards based on generally available control technologies or
management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to
determine for source categories subject to MACT standards whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions 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 EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC
v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately [1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 million].'' 54
FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must
determine the emissions standards necessary to bring risks to an
acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the
approach, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an
ample margin of safety ``in consideration of all health information,
including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately [1-in-1 million], as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir.
2013). The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether to revise the
standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The NESHAP for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source
category were promulgated on April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17824), in an action
that also added the source category to the list of categories of major
sources of HAP published under section 112(c) of the CAA and to the
source category schedule for NESHAP. The NESHAP are codified at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH. Wet-formed fiberglass mat is used as a substrate
for multiple roofing products, as reinforcement for various plastic,
cement, and gypsum products, and in miscellaneous specialty products.
The fiberglass mat is made of glass fibers that have been bonded with a
formaldehyde-based resin. Methanol is also present in some, but not
all, resins used to produce wet-formed fiberglass mat. In a typical
wet-formed fiberglass mat production line, glass fibers are mixed with
water and emulsifiers in large mixing vats to form a slurry of fibers
and water. The glass fiber slurry is then pumped to a mat forming
machine, where it is dispensed in a uniform curtain over a moving
screen belt. The mat is then carried beneath a binder saturator, where
binder solution is uniformly applied onto the surface of the mat. This
resin-binder application process includes the screen passing over a
vacuum which draws away the excess binder solution for recycling. The
mat of fibers and binder then passes into drying and curing ovens that
use heated air to carry away excess moisture and harden (i.e., cure)
the binder. Upon exiting the ovens, the mat is cooled, trimmed, wound,
and packaged to product specifications. The primary HAP emitted during
production of wet-formed fiberglass mat are formaldehyde, which is
classified as a known, probable, or possible carcinogen, and methanol.
We are aware of seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities
that are subject to the NESHAP. Five of the affected facilities have
single mat lines and two of the affected facilities have two mat lines.
The affected source is each wet-formed fiberglass mat drying and
curing oven. The NESHAP regulates emissions of HAP through emission
standards for formaldehyde, which is also used as a surrogate for total
HAP emissions. Facilities subject to the NESHAP must meet either a mass
emission limit or percentage reduction requirement for each drying and
curing oven. The emission standards are the same for new and existing
drying and curing ovens. The emission limits for the exhaust from
[[Page 14988]]
new and existing drying and curing ovens are (1) a maximum formaldehyde
emission rate of 0.03 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) of wet-formed
fiberglass mat produced (0.05 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of wet-formed
fiberglass mat produced) or (2) a minimum of 96-percent destruction
efficiency of formaldehyde. Thermal oxidizers or similar controls
(e.g., regenerative thermal oxidizer, regenerative catalytic oxidizer)
are used by facilities subject to the NESHAP to control their drying
and curing oven exhausts.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The EPA used several means to collect the information necessary to
conduct the residual risk assessment and technology review for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category. To confirm whether
facilities identified as potentially subject to the NESHAP were in fact
subject to the standards, we requested air permits and/or performance
test data from various state and local agencies. After developing our
final list of affected facilities, the status of each facility was
confirmed in consultation with the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers
Association (ARMA) and ARMA-member companies. The EPA had discussions
with the four companies that own one or more of the affected facilities
regarding each facility's production process and emission sources,
available emissions test data and emissions estimates, measures used to
control emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. The
facility-specific information from state and local agencies and
companies with affected facilities provided support for this action's
risk and technology reviews.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
The EPA used multiple sources of information to support this
proposed action. Before developing the final list of affected
facilities described in section II.C of this preamble, the EPA's
Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database was used as a
tool to identify potentially affected facilities with wet-formed
fiberglass mat production operations that are subject to the NESHAP.
The ECHO database provides integrated compliance and enforcement
information for approximately 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide.
The 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database provided
facility-specific data and MACT category data that were used to
supplement the performance test data in developing the modeling file
for the risk review. The NEI is a database that contains information
about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their precursors, and
HAP. The database includes estimates of annual air pollutant emissions
from point, nonpoint, and mobile sources in the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The EPA collects this
information and releases an updated version of the NEI database every 3
years. The NEI includes information necessary for conducting risk
modeling, including annual HAP emissions estimates from individual
emission points at facilities and the related emissions release
parameters.
In conducting the technology review, we examined information in the
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/Best Available Control
Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse
(RBLC) to identify technologies in use and determine if there have been
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. The RBLC
is a database that contains case-specific information of air pollution
technologies that have been required to reduce the emissions of air
pollutants from stationary sources. Under the EPA's New Source Review
(NSR) program, if a facility is planning new construction or a
modification that will increase the air emissions by a large amount, an
NSR permit must be obtained. This central database promotes the sharing
of information among permitting agencies and aids in case-by-case
determinations for NSR permits. The EPA also reviewed other information
sources to determine if there have been developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category. We reviewed regulatory actions for emission
sources similar to mat drying and curing ovens and conducted a review
of literature published by industry organizations, technical journals,
and government organizations.
III. Analytical Procedures
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for adverse environmental effects. The scope of EPA's risk
analysis is consistent with EPA's response to comment on our policy
under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential
exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse
chronic noncancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs for
HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system.
``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess
[[Page 14989]]
available data. It also complies with the Congressional intent
behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any particular
measure of public health risk from the EPA's consideration with
respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and thereby implicitly
permits consideration of any and all measures of health risk which
the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are appropriate to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
determining what will `protect the public health'.''
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP
that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many factors that can
be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be
determined for each specific source category. This occurs mainly
because technological and economic factors (along with the health-
related factors) vary from source category to source category.'' Id. at
38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the various
risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with
emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category
under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions,
persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in
the vicinity of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The EPA's responses to this and all other key
recommendations of the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment
methodologies (which is available at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-
007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memorandum to this rulemaking
docket from David Guinnup titled EPA's Actions in Response to the
Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment
Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from
all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HI from all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Because of the contribution to total HAP
risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in
depth during this RTR review, such estimates of total HAP risks would
have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source
category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative
assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments
too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, in order to inform our decision of whether
it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the
technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated
costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts, and we
also consider the emission reductions. In addition, we consider the
appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting
existing sources. For this exercise, we consider any of the following
to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to
consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various
industries that were promulgated since the MACT standards being
reviewed in this action. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or
technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify
any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these
efforts
[[Page 14990]]
that could be applied to emission sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category, specifically drying and curing ovens,
as well as the costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications
associated with the use of these technologies. Additionally, during
discussions with affected facilities, we asked about developments in
practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, we reviewed
information from other sources, such as state and/or local permitting
agency databases and industry-supported databases.
C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source category?
The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for adverse environmental effects. The seven sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this action contains the
following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the
February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods
used to assess risks (as described in the seven primary steps below)
are consistent with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA's Science
Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 and described in their peer review report
issued in 2010; \4\ they are also consistent with the key
recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and
Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
Data for nine wet-formed fiberglass mat production lines at seven
facilities were used to create the RTR emissions dataset as described
in sections II.C and II.D of this preamble. The emission sources
included in the RTR emissions dataset include drying and curing ovens,
which are the primary HAP emission sources at wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities and currently regulated by the NESHAP. The RTR
emissions dataset also includes emissions from the binder application
vacuum exhaust which is the emission release point for the resin-binder
application process. As stated in section II.B of this preamble, the
primary HAP emitted are formaldehyde and methanol.
Actual emissions estimates for drying and curing oven exhaust and
binder application vacuum exhaust at the seven affected facilities were
based on stack test data, NEI data, and engineering estimates. For
drying and curing oven exhaust, actual formaldehyde emissions were
based on emissions data from the most recent stack test. For the
facilities using binders containing methanol in addition to
formaldehyde, actual methanol emissions from the drying and curing oven
exhaust were estimated by adjusting each drying and curing oven's
actual formaldehyde emissions estimate based on the ratio of methanol
to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for each oven. For
binder application vacuum exhaust, actual formaldehyde emissions and
actual methanol emissions at facilities using binders containing
methanol were based on stack test emissions data in the limited
instances where available. Where formaldehyde data were unavailable,
actual formaldehyde emissions were estimated using a factor based on
data from one affected facility that tested both the uncontrolled
emissions from the drying and curing oven and the emissions from the
binder application vacuum exhaust. Where methanol data were
unavailable, actual methanol emissions from the binder application
vacuum exhaust were estimated by adjusting the actual formaldehyde
emissions estimate for the binder application vacuum exhaust based on
the ratio of methanol to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014
NEI for the oven associated with each binder application process.
For each emission release point (i.e., drying and curing oven
exhaust and binder application vacuum exhaust), emissions release
characteristic data such as emission release height, diameter,
temperature, velocity, flow rate, and locational latitude/longitude
coordinates were identified. For drying and curing ovens, the emission
release point is an exhaust stack. For the resin-binder application
process, the emission release point is the location of the binder
application vacuum exhaust, which is most commonly routed to one or
more roof vents. With one exception, the binder application vacuum
exhaust release points were modeled as stacks. The one process that
exhausts to a louvered sidewall was modeled as a fugitive release.
Parameters for the emission release points were primarily obtained from
performance tests, the 2014 NEI database, air permits, and information
collected in consultation with each facility. Default parameter values
based on MACT source category 2014 NEI information were used for the
binder application vacuum exhaust when site-specific information was
not available.
The EPA conducted a quality assurance (QA) check of source
locations, emission release characteristics, and annual emissions
estimates. In addition, each company had the opportunity to review the
information regarding their sources and provide updated source data.
The revisions we received and incorporated into the modeling file
regarded emission release point details (e.g., number of emission
release points, release height and diameter, latitude/longitude
coordinates).
Additional details on the data and methods used to develop actual
emissions estimates for the risk modeling, including EPA's QA review,
are provided in the memorandum, Wet-Formed Fiberglass: Residual Risk
Modeling File Documentation (Modeling File Documentation Memo), which
is available in the docket for this action.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted under the MACT
standards is referred to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions level. We
discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the
final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and
in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428,
June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In
those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable
level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum
level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission
standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual
emissions, where such data are available, in both
[[Page 14991]]
steps of the risk analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP
approach. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.)
MACT-allowable emissions estimates were based on the level of
control required by the Wet-formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP.
For drying and curing ovens, 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH requires a
96-percent destruction efficiency for formaldehyde. The MACT-allowable
formaldehyde emissions for drying and curing oven exhaust were
calculated based on the actual formaldehyde emissions levels adjusted
to reflect 96 percent control, which is the minimum percent destruction
efficiency for formaldehyde allowed under the NESHAP. MACT-allowable
methanol emissions from drying and curing oven exhaust were estimated
by adjusting each drying and curing oven's MACT-allowable formaldehyde
emissions estimate based on the ratio of methanol to formaldehyde
emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for each oven. For binder
application vacuum exhaust, which has no control requirements under the
NESHAP, the MACT-allowable formaldehyde and methanol emissions were
assumed equal to the actual emissions estimates with the exception of
one facility where the binder application vacuum exhaust is combined
with the drying and curing oven exhaust. The Modeling File
Documentation Memo, available in the docket for this action, contains
additional information on the development of estimated MACT-allowable
emissions for the risk modeling.
3. How did we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risks?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3). The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (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 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model, AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one
of the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant
concentrations from industrial facilities.\5\ 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
(2016) of hourly surface and upper air observations from 824
meteorological stations, selected to provide coverage of the United
States and Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau
census block \6\ internal point locations and populations provides the
basis of human exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition,
for each census block, the census library includes the elevation and
controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion
calculations. A third library of pollutant-specific dose-response
values is used to estimate health risks. These dose-response values are
the latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP. They are available at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants and are discussed in
more detail later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\6\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Cancer
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used
the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP
emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the source
category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid
were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We
calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with
a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per
year, for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at
the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks were
calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the
ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper
bound estimate of an individual's probability of contracting cancer
over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the
pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we
generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using
California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new,
scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a
manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer
review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-
response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate.
In 2004, the EPA determined that the Chemical Industry Institute of
Toxicology (CIIT) cancer dose-response value for formaldehyde (5.5 x
10-9 per milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m\3\)) was based on better
science than the 1991 IRIS dose-response value (1.3 x 10-5 per mg/
m\3\), and we switched from using the IRIS value to the CIIT value in
risk assessments supporting regulatory actions. Based on subsequent
published research, however, the EPA changed its determination
regarding the CIIT model, and, in 2010, the EPA returned to using the
1991 IRIS value. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed its
review of the EPA's draft assessment in April of 2011 (https://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordid=13142), and the EPA has been working
on revising the formaldehyde assessment. The EPA will follow the NAS
Report recommendations and will present results obtained by
implementing the biologically based dose response (BBDR) model for
formaldehyde. The EPA will compare these estimates with those currently
presented in the External Review draft of the assessment and will
discuss their strengths and weaknesses. As recommended by the NAS
committee, appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty analyses will be an
integral component of implementing the BBDR model. The draft IRIS
assessment will be revised in response to the NAS peer review and
public comments and the final assessment will be posted on the IRIS
database. In the interim, we will present findings using the 1991 IRIS
value as a primary estimate and may also consider other information as
the science evolves. To estimate incremental individual lifetime cancer
risks associated with emissions from the facilities in the source
category, EPA summed the risks for each of the
[[Page 14992]]
carcinogenic HAP \7\ emitted by the modeled sources. Cancer incidence
and the distribution of individual cancer risks for the population
within 50 km of the sources were also estimated for the source category
by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with
both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044,
September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian dispersion models,
including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA classifies carcinogens as: Carcinogenic to humans,
likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential. These classifications also coincide with the
terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002) was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects
Other Than Cancer
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common TOSHI. The HQ is the
estimated exposure divided by the chronic noncancer dose-response
value, which is a value selected from one of several sources. The
preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is the EPA RfC (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary), 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.'' In cases where an RfC from
the EPA's IRIS database is not available or where the EPA determines
that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic
noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following
prioritized sources, which define their dose-response values similarly
to EPA: (1) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp);
(2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a
scientifically credible dose-response value that has been developed in
a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer
review process similar to that used by the EPA.
d. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. We use the peak hourly emission rate,\8\ worst-case
dispersion conditions, and, in accordance with our mandate under
section 112 of the CAA, the point of highest off-site exposure to
assess the potential risk to the maximally exposed individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop estimates
of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the average actual
annual emissions rates by a default factor (usually 10) to account
for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support
of the February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in
Appendix 5 of the report: Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission
Rates Relative to Long-term Emission Rates. Both are available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP
for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates
acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \9\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\10\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) 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.'' 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.'' Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the
airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams
per cubic meter) 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.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in Air
Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\10\ NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing
Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee/AEGL Committee ended in October 2011,
but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with
the National Academies to publish final AEGLs, (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14993]]
ERPGs are developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \11\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 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.'' Id. at 2. 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.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, hourly emissions data were used to
estimate maximum hourly emissions. In general, emissions used to assess
the potential health risks due to acute exposure were estimated using
the same approach used to develop actual emissions estimates described
in section III.C.1 of this preamble, except that emissions used to
estimate acute exposure were based on maximum hourly emission rates
reported during stack tests. For drying and curing oven exhaust,
formaldehyde emissions were based on maximum hourly emissions data,
considering all test runs from available stack tests. For the
facilities using binders containing methanol, methanol emissions from
the drying and curing oven exhaust were estimated by adjusting each
drying and curing oven's formaldehyde emissions estimate based on the
ratio of methanol to formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI
for each oven. For binder application vacuum exhaust, formaldehyde
emissions and methanol emissions at facilities using binders containing
methanol were based on maximum hourly emissions data from stack tests
in the limited instances where available. Where formaldehyde data were
unavailable, formaldehyde emissions were estimated using a factor based
on one facility's uncontrolled emissions from its drying and curing
oven and emissions from its binder application vacuum exhaust. Where
methanol data were unavailable, methanol emissions were estimated by
adjusting the formaldehyde emissions estimate for the binder
application vacuum exhaust based on the ratio of methanol to
formaldehyde emissions reported to the 2014 NEI for the oven associated
with each binder application vacuum exhaust.
A further discussion of the development of emissions used to
estimate acute exposure for the risk modeling can be found in the risk
document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production Source Category in Support of the February 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this action.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to
1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening
assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined
estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern.
4. How did we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determined
whether any sources in the source category emitted any HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), as
identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (See Volume
1, Appendix D, at https://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category, we
did not identify emissions of any PB-HAP. Because we did not identify
PB-HAP emissions, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was
conducted for this source category.
5. How did we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for adverse environmental effects as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic
matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead
compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, were included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable
[[Page 14994]]
effect levels, lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-
adverse-effect level. In cases where multiple effect levels were
available for a particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all
of the available effect levels to help us to determine whether
ecological risks exist and, if so, whether the risks could be
considered significant and widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category
in Support of the Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production source category emitted any of the environmental HAP. For
the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category, we did not
identify emissions of any of the seven environmental HAP included in
the screen. Because we did not identify environmental HAP emissions, no
further evaluation of environmental risk was conducted.
6. How did we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the
NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ``non-
category'' data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset
from that used for the source category assessments described in this
preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are
emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of
each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we
made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and
these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the
portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source
category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the
facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and
determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source
category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the Risk and
Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, available through the
docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How did we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the
Risk and Technology Review February 2018 Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action. If a multipathway site-
specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full
discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be
found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved QA/
quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary
depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are
incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete
the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other
factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally
are annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term
fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to
year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects
screening assessment were based on maximum hourly emission rates and
emission adjustment factors, which are intended to account for emission
fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For
[[Page 14995]]
most of these factors, there is neither an under nor overestimate when
looking at the maximum individual risks or the incidence, but the shape
of the distribution of risks may be affected. With respect to outdoor
exposures, actual exposures may not be as high if people spend time
indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants or larger particles.
For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when possible. For example, with
respect to census-block centroids, we analyze large blocks using aerial
imagery and adjust locations of the block centroids to better represent
the population in the blocks. We also add additional receptor locations
where the population of a block is not well represented by a single
location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the 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's 2005 Cancer Guidelines,
pages 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the
next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs 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).\12\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as
zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\13\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993 and 1994) which considers uncertainty,
variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to
derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against
appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. 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 dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response 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 dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. 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 the presence of humans
at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak
emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological
conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations.
These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these
assumptions conservative. We then include the additional assumption
that a person is located at this point during this same time period.
For this source category, these assumptions would tend to be worst-case
actual exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at
the point of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and
worst-case meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based
on actual emissions, show the cancer MIR posed by the seven facilities
is less than 1-in-1 million, with formaldehyde as the major contributor
to the risk. The total estimated cancer incidence from this source
category is 0.0003 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in
every 3,000 years. No people were estimated to have cancer risks above
1-in-1 million from HAP emitted from the seven facilities in this
source category. The maximum chronic noncancer HI value for the source
category could be up to 0.006 (respiratory) driven by emissions of
formaldehyde. No one is exposed to TOSHI levels above 1.
Risk results from the inhalation risk assessment using the MACT-
allowable emissions indicate that the cancer MIR could be as high as 1-
in-1 million with formaldehyde emissions driving the risks, and that
the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value could be as high as 0.009 at
the MACT-allowable
[[Page 14996]]
emissions level with formaldehyde emissions driving the TOSHI. The
total estimated cancer incidence from this source category considering
allowable emissions is expected to be about 0.0009 excess cancer cases
per year or 1 excess case in every 1,000 years. Based on allowable
emission rates, no people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-
in-1 million.
2. Acute Risk Results
Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP that has an
acute dose-response value (formaldehyde and methanol). Based on actual
emissions, the highest screening acute HQ value was 0.6 (based on the
acute REL for formaldehyde). Since none of the screening HQ were
greater than 1, further refinement of the estimates was not warranted.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
No PB-HAP were emitted from this source category; therefore, a
multipathway assessment was not warranted.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
We did not identify any PB-HAP or acid gas emissions from this
source category. We are unaware of any adverse environmental effect
caused by emissions of HAP that are emitted by the source category.
Therefore, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result
of HAP emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
The results of the facility-wide (both MACT and non-MACT sources)
assessment indicate that four of the seven facilities included in the
analysis have a facility-wide cancer MIR greater than 1-in-1 million.
The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 6-in-1 million, mainly driven
by formaldehyde emissions from non-MACT sources. The total estimated
cancer incidence from the seven facilities is 0.001 excess cancer cases
per year, or one excess case in every 1,000 years. Approximately 13,000
people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million from
exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources of the
seven facilities in this source category. The maximum facility-wide
TOSHI for the source category is estimated to be less than 1 (at a
respiratory HI of 0.5), mainly driven by emissions of acrylic acid and
formaldehyde from non-MACT sources.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production source category across different demographic groups
within the populations living near facilities.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, and
linguistically isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for two of the
11 demographic groups, African American and people living below the
poverty level, the percentage of the population living within 5 km of
facilities in the source category is greater than the corresponding
national percentage for the same demographic groups. When examining the
risk levels of those exposed to source category emissions from the wet-
formed fiberglass mat production facilities, we find that no one is
exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Wet-Formed Fiberglass
Mat Production, which is available in the docket for this action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of approximately
1-in-10 thousand.'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989).
In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and
allowable emissions from the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category. As discussed above, we consider our analysis of risk
from allowable emissions to be conservative and, as such, to represent
an upper bound estimate of risk from emissions allowed under the NESHAP
for the source category.
The inhalation cancer risk to the individual most exposed to
emissions from sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
source category is less than 1-in-1 million, based on actual emissions.
The estimated incidence of cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.0003
excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case in 3,000 years, based on actual
emissions. For allowable emissions, we estimate that the inhalation
cancer risk to the individual most exposed to emissions from sources in
this source category is 1-in-1 million. The estimated incidence of
cancer due to inhalation exposure is 0.0009 excess cancer cases per
year, or one case in every 1,000 years, based on allowable emissions.
The Agency estimates that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI from
inhalation exposure is 0.006 due to actual emissions and 0.009 due to
allowable emissions. The screening assessment of worst-case acute
inhalation impacts from worst-case 1-hour emissions indicates that no
HAP exceed an acute HQ of 1.
Since no PB-HAP are emitted by this source category, a multipathway
risk assessment was not warranted.
In determining whether risk is acceptable, the EPA considered all
available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as
described above. The results indicate that both the actual and
allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are
less than or equal to 1-in-1 million, well below the presumptive limit
of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and
allowable emissions. Finally, the evaluation of acute noncancer risks
was conservative and showed that acute risks are below a level of
concern. Further, since no PB-HAP are emitted, no multipathway risks
are expected as a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
Taking into account this information, the EPA proposes that the
risk remaining after implementation of the of the existing MACT
standards for the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category
is acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost
and feasibility of available control
[[Page 14997]]
technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and
costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied in
this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks)
due to emissions of HAP, considering all of the health risks and other
health information considered in the risk acceptability determination
described above. In this analysis, we considered the results of the
technology review, risk assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule
review to determine whether there are any cost-effective controls or
other measures that would reduce emissions further and would be
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health.
Our risk analysis indicated the risks from the source category are
low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any
risk reductions, from further available control options would result in
minimal health benefits. Moreover, as noted in our discussion of the
technology review in section IV.C of this preamble, no additional
measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions from affected
sources in the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production source category.
Thus, we are proposing that the 2002 Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production NESHAP requirements provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effects
We did not identify emissions of any of the seven environmental HAP
included in our environmental risk screening, and we are unaware of any
adverse environmental effects caused by HAP emitted by the Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production source category. Therefore, we do not expect
adverse environmental effects as a result of HAP emissions from this
source category and we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a
more stringent standard to prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental
effect.
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for control of formaldehyde emissions from drying
and curing ovens at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities. In
conducting the technology review, we reviewed various informational
sources regarding the emissions from drying and curing ovens. The
review included a search of the RBLC database and reviews of air
permits for wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities, regulatory
actions for emission sources similar to mat drying and curing ovens,
and a review of relevant literature. We reviewed these data sources for
information on practices, processes, and control technologies that were
not considered during the development of the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production NESHAP. We also looked for information on improvements in
practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since
development of the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NEHSAP.
After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did
not identify any developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies to reduce formaldehyde emissions from the drying and
curing ovens used at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities.
We considered the following four control technologies and processes in
our review: carbon absorbers, biofilters, thermal oxidizers, and low-
HAP or no-HAP binder formulations. Due to the characteristics of the
drying and curing oven exhaust, we concluded that neither carbon
adsorbers or biofilters are technically feasible control options.
Further, while advancements have been made with low and no-HAP binder
formulations, they are not broadly available for the various types of
wet-formed fiberglass produced. For example, some wet-formed fiberglass
products are used in roofing applications, and mats that are produced
with low or no-HAP binders tend to sag, shrink, or become distorted
when they come into contact with hot asphalt used in roofing
applications. Therefore, we concluded the use of low or no-HAP binder
formulations is not a technically feasible process change. We
considered improvements in thermal oxidizers given they were identified
as technically feasible for reducing HAP emission from drying and
curing ovens in the 2002 rulemaking and because all facilities
currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH use thermal oxidizers
to reduce formaldehyde emissions. We did not identify any improvements
in performance of thermal oxidizers at existing facilities that
consistently demonstrated greater reduction in formaldehyde emissions
than is currently required by the NESHAP. Furthermore, a more stringent
standard could have the perverse environmental impact of increasing HAP
emissions. As owner/operators move towards use of lower HAP binders,
HAP emissions are reduced. However, due to the relatively dilute HAP
emissions in the exhaust gases, it becomes more difficult to maintain
high percent reductions in emissions. A more stringent standard would
likely require the refurbishment or replacement of existing thermal
oxidizers and could slow the development and adoption of the lower HAP
binders. Finally, there are cost considerations that militate against
setting more stringent standards for formaldehyde under CAA section
112(d(6). For example, any new facility that becomes subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH would likely be a rebuilt line at an existing
location and would likely use the existing thermal oxidizer rather than
installing a new thermal oxidizer. A more stringent standard could
instead require the replacement of the existing thermal oxidizer,
resulting in a large capital expenditure for minor HAP reductions.
Based on the technology review, we determined that there are no
cost-effective developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this
source category. Therefore, we are not proposing revisions to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH under CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details
of our technology review can be found in the memorandum, Section
112(d)(6) Technology Review for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production,
which is available in the docket for this action. We solicit comment on
our proposed decision.
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, the EPA is
proposing additional revisions. We are proposing revisions to the SSM
provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent
with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d)
emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing various
other changes to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
and miscellaneous technical and editorial changes to the regulatory
text. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues are
discussed below.
1. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the
[[Page 14998]]
Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of
the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule
which appears at 40 CFR 63.2986(g)(1). Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, we are proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times.
We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH (the General Provisions Applicability Table) as is
explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
the source develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and
revise certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the
SSM exemption as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate standards for those periods.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Owners and
operators of all seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities
employ thermal oxidizer controls to limit emissions from drying and
curing ovens. Ovens along with their thermal oxidizer controls begin
operating and reach designated operational temperatures prior to
fiberglass mat first entering the oven and remain operating at those
temperatures at least until mat is no longer being dried and cured in
the oven. Because thermal oxidizer controls are employed during all
periods that the drying and curing oven is processing fiberglass mat,
there is no need to establish separate formaldehyde standards for
periods of startup and shutdown. We do, however, find it necessary to
propose establishing definitions of startup and shutdown for purposes
of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. The proposed definitions are needed to
clarify that it is not the setting in operation of, and cessation of
operation of, the drying and curing oven (i.e., affected source) that
accurately define startup and shutdown, but, rather, the setting in
operation of, and cessation of operation of, the drying and curing of
wet-formed fiberglass mat. The formaldehyde standards can only be met
during periods that fiberglass mat is being dried and cured in the
oven. Therefore, it is appropriate to define startup and shutdown on
such periods.
Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine.
Instead, they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably
preventable failures of emissions control, process or monitoring
equipment. (40 CFR 63.2) (Definition of malfunction). The EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section
112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the
Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under
CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar
source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section
112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same
manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during
routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the
source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section
112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to 'invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's
[[Page 14999]]
approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review,
the EPA established a work practice standard for unique types of
malfunction that result in releases from pressure relief devices or
emergency flaring events because the EPA had information to determine
that such work practices reflected the level of control that applies to
the best performers. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA
will consider whether circumstances warrant setting standards for a
particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage
commenters to provide any such information.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. 40 CFR 63.2986 General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i)
describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of the language
in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate in light of the
elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing instead to add
general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.2986(g) that reflects the
general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the reference to
periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language in 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails during
periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no
need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and shutdown,
and malfunction events in describing the general duty. Therefore, the
language the EPA is proposing for 40 CFR 63.2986(g) does not include
that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii)
imposes requirements that are not necessary with the elimination of the
SSM exemption or are redundant with the general duty requirement being
added at 40 CFR 63.2986.
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Generally, these paragraphs
require development of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is
proposing to remove the SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will
be subject to an emission standard during such events. The
applicability of a standard during such events will ensure that sources
have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the
SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) by changing
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The current language of 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity standards during periods of
SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires
that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with
Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to
apply at all times.
d. 40 CFR 63.2992 Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) by changing
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.7(e)(1) describes
performance testing requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a
performance testing requirement at 40 CFR 63.2992(e). The performance
testing requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General
Provisions performance testing provisions in several respects. The
regulatory text does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that
restated the SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and
shutdown periods from being considered ``representative'' for purposes
of performance testing. The proposed performance testing provisions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1),
performance tests conducted under this subpart should not be conducted
during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often
not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing
to add language that requires the owner or operator to record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Section 63.7(e)
requires that the owner or operator make available to the Administrator
such records ``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the
performance test'' available to the Administrator upon request, but
does not specifically require the information to be recorded. The
regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on
that requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii)
by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
[[Page 15000]]
``no.'' The cross-references to the general duty and SSM plan
requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other
requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control
practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a
quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) by changing
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The final sentence in 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which
is no longer applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40
CFR 63.2994(a)(2) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except
that the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required
under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).''
f. 40 CFR 63.2998 Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(i)
describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown.
These recording provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is
proposing that recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal
operations will apply to startup and shutdown. In the absence of
special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such as a
startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii)
describes the recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA
is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.2998(e). The
regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.2998(e) a
requirement that sources keep records that include a list of the
affected source or equipment and actions taken to minimize emissions,
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
any emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate
the emissions. Examples of such methods would include product-loss
calculations, mass balance calculations, measurements when available,
or engineering judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is
proposing to require that sources keep records of this information to
ensure that there is adequate information to allow the EPA to determine
the severity of any failure to meet a standard, and to provide data
that may document how the source met the general duty to minimize
emissions when the source has failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events
when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is
no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.2988(e).
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) by
changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' When applicable, the
provision requires sources to record actions taken during SSM events to
show that actions taken were consistent with their SSM plan. The
requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no longer
be required.
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) by changing
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When applicable, the provision allows an
owner or operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept
to satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in
40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. 40 CFR 63.3000 Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 2 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing
the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the
reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To
replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is
proposing to add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3000(c). The
replacement language differs from the General Provisions requirement in
that it eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning
such events in a compliance report already required under this rule on
a semiannual basis. We are proposing that the report must contain the
number, date, time, duration, and the cause of such events (including
unknown cause, if applicable), a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source met the general duty to minimize emissions during a
failure to meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross reference to 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii)
[[Page 15001]]
describes an immediate report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
when a source failed to meet an applicable standard, but did not follow
the SSM plan. We will no longer require owners and operators to report
when actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not
consistent with an SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
h. Definitions
We are proposing that definitions of ``Startup'' and ``Shutdown''
be added to 40 CFR 63.3004. The current rule relies on the 40 CFR part
63, subpart A, definitions of these terms which are based on the
setting in operation of, and cessation of operation of, the affected
source (i.e., drying and curing oven). As previously explained in this
section, the formaldehyde standards can only be met during periods that
fiberglass mat is being dried and cured in the oven. Because we are
proposing that standards in this rule apply at all times, we find it
appropriate to propose definitions of startup and shutdown based on
these periods to clarify that it is the setting in operation of, and
cessation of operation of, the drying and curing of wet-formed
fiberglass mat that define startup and shutdown for purposes of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH. The new definition of ``Startup'' being proposed
reads: ``Startup means the setting in operation of the drying and
curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Startup begins
when resin infused fiberglass mat enters the oven to be dried and cured
for the first time or after a shutdown event.'' The new definition of
``Shutdown'' being proposed reads: ``Shutdown means the cessation of
operation of the drying and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any
purpose. Shutdown ends when fiberglass mat is no longer being dried or
cured in the oven and the oven no longer contains any resin infused
binder.''
We are proposing that the definition of ``Deviation'' in 40 CFR
63.3004 be revised to remove language that differentiates between
normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events. The
current definition of ``Deviation'' is ``any instance in which an
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of
such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation
established by this subpart, including, but not limited to, any
emission limit, or operating limit, or work practice standard; (2)
fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a
permit; or (3) fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or
work practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.'' The revised definition of ``Deviation'' being proposed
which eliminates the third criteria reads: ``Deviation means any
instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an
owner or operator of such a source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement
or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited
to, any emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; or
(2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the
operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a
permit.''
2. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
The EPA proposes to revise the rule's monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements in three ways: (1) Performance test results
would be submitted electronically; (2) compliance reports would be
submitted semiannually when deviations from applicable standards occur;
and (3) parameter monitoring would no longer be required during periods
when a non-HAP binder is being used.
a. Electronic Reporting
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH does not currently require electronic
reporting. Through this action, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX)
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports addressed
in this proposed rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data
contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the
regulated community. Under current requirements, paper test reports are
often stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more
difficult to obtain and use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic
storage of such reports would make data more accessible for review,
analyses, and sharing. Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-
based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying
data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors,
and providing data quickly and accurately to affected facilities, air
agencies, the EPA, and the public.
In 2011, in response to Executive Order 13563, the EPA developed a
plan \15\ to periodically review its regulations to determine if they
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed in an effort to
make regulations more effective and less burdensome. The plan includes
replacing outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. In
keeping with this plan and the White House's Digital Government
Strategy,\16\ in 2013 the EPA issued an agency-wide policy specifying
that new regulations will require reports to be electronic to the
maximum extent possible.\17\ By proposing electronic submission of
performance test reports for 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH facilities,
the EPA is taking steps to implement this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EPA's Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011.
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-
OA-2011-0156-0154.
\16\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
\17\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA website that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE,
is easily accessible to everyone and provides a user-friendly interface
that any stakeholder can access. By making data readily available,
electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for
many purposes. One example is the development of emissions factors. An
emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the
quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity
associated with the release of that pollutant (e.g., kg of particulate
emitted per Mg of coal burned). Such factors facilitate the estimation
of emissions from various sources of air pollution and are an important
tool in developing emissions inventories, which in turn are the basis
for numerous efforts, including trends analysis, regional and local
scale air quality modeling, regulatory impact assessments, and human
exposure modeling. Emissions factors are also widely used in regulatory
applicability
[[Page 15002]]
determinations and in permitting decisions.
The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many
of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a
particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the
emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize
that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and
quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles
on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number
of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work
practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to
keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions
factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate
the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically.
By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in
this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use the
submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and
efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is
currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an
increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions
factors would provide more confidence that the factor is of higher
quality and representative of the whole industry sector.
Additionally, by making the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the
public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-required technology
and risk-based reviews. As a result of having performance test reports
and air emission data readily accessible, our ability to carry out
comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter
period of time. These data will provide useful information on control
efficiencies being achieved and maintained in practice within a source
category and across source categories for regulated sources and
pollutants. These reports can also be used to inform the technology-
review process by providing information on improvements to add-on
technology and new control technology.
Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) would have air emissions and
performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have to collect these
data from the EPA Regional offices or from delegated air agencies or
industry sources in cases where these reports are not submitted to the
EPA Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate fewer or less substantial
information collection requests (ICRs) may be needed in conjunction
with prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. We
expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to
respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain
less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack
test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost
savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these
required reviews more quickly, as OAQPS will not have to include the
ICR collection time in the process or spend time collecting reports
from the EPA Regional offices. While the regulated community may
benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from
the agency's ability to provide these required reviews more quickly,
resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.
Electronic reporting minimizes submission of unnecessary or
duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple
government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's
electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air
agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will
accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the
option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to
submit to the air agencies, and, thus, minimize the time spent
reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage
costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be
minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of
electronically submitted data and reports.
Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated
review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because
performance test data would be readily-available in standard electronic
format, air agencies would be able to review reports and data
electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the reports
and data manually. Having reports and associated data in electronic
format facilitates review through the use of software ``search''
options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in
spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the
reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's electronic
reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as
long as they have access to the internet). The ability to access and
review reports electronically assists air agencies in determining
compliance with applicable regulations more quickly and accurately,
potentially allowing a faster response to violations, which could
minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies and the
general public.
The proposed electronic reporting of test data is consistent with
electronic data trends (e.g., electronic banking and income tax
filing). Electronic reporting of environmental data is already common
practice in many media offices at the EPA. The changes being proposed
in this rulemaking are needed to continue the EPA's transition to
electronic reporting.
Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which
electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances,
the decision to accept your claim of needing additional time to report
is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should
occur as soon as possible.
In 40 CFR 63.3000, we address the situation where an extension may
be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which preclude
you from accessing the system and submitting required reports. If
either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time beginning 5 business
days prior to the date that the submission is due, and the
unavailability prevents you from submitting a report by the required
date, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider 5
business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate
timeframe because if the system is down prior to this time, you still
have 1 week to complete reporting once the system is back online.
However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down during the week a report is due,
we realize that this could greatly impact your ability to submit a
required report on time. We will notify you about known outages as far
in advance as possible by CHIEF Listserv notice, posting on the CEDRI
website, and posting on the CDX website so that you can plan
accordingly and still meet your reporting deadline. However, if a
planned or unplanned outage occurs and you believe that it will affect
or it has affected your ability to comply with an electronic reporting
requirement, we have provided a process to assert such a claim.
In 40 CFR 63.3000, we address the situation where an extension may
be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is defined as an event
that will be or has been caused by circumstances beyond the control of
the affected facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the
affected facility that
[[Page 15003]]
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule. Examples of such events are
acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or
safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. If such an event
occurs or is still occurring or if there are still lingering effects of
the event in the 5 business days prior to a submission deadline, we
have provided a process to assert a claim of force majeure.
We are providing these potential extensions to protect you from
noncompliance in cases where you cannot successfully submit a report by
the reporting deadline for reasons outside of your control as described
above. We are not providing an extension for other instances. You
should register for CEDRI far in advance of the initial compliance
date, in order to make sure that you can complete the identity proofing
process prior to the initial compliance date. Additionally, we
recommend you start developing reports early, in case any questions
arise during the reporting process.
b. Frequency of Compliance Reports
Section 63.3000(c) of the current rule requires owners and
operators of wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities subject to
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, to submit compliance reports on a
semiannual basis unless there are deviations from emission limits or
operating limits. In those instances, the current rule requires that
compliance reports be submitted on a quarterly basis. The EPA is
proposing to revise 40 CFR 63.3000(c) to require that compliance
reports be submitted on a semiannual basis in all instances. Reporting
on a semiannual basis will adequately provide a check on the operation
and maintenance of process, control, and monitoring equipment and
identify any problems with complying with rule requirements.
c. Parameter Monitoring and Recording During Use of Binder Containing
No HAP
Section 63.2984 of the current rule requires owners and operators
of wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHH to maintain the operating parameters established
during the most recent performance test. Sections 63.2996 and 63.2998
of the current rule require owners and operators to monitor and record
the parameters listed in Table 1 to subpart HHHH. The EPA is proposing
that during periods when the binder formulation being used to produce
mat does not contain any HAP (i.e., formaldehyde or any other HAP
listed under section 112(b) of the CAA), owners and operators would not
be required to monitor or record any of the parameters listed in Table
1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, including control device parameters.
For each of these periods, we propose that owners and operators would
be required to record the dates and times that production of mat using
a non-HAP binder began and ended. To clearly identify these periods
when the binder formulation being used to produce mat does not contain
any HAP, we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH,
sections 63.2984, 63.2996, and 63.2998 and table 1, and also proposing
that a definition of Non-HAP binder be added to 40 CFR 63.3004. The new
definition of ``Non-HAP binder'' being proposed reads: ``Non-HAP binder
means a binder formulation that does not contain any hazardous air
pollutants listed on the material safety data sheets of the compounds
used in the binder formulation.''
3. Technical and Editorial Changes
We are also proposing several clarifying revisions to the final
rule as described in Table 2 of this preamble.
Table 2--Miscellaneous Proposed Changes to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of proposed
Section of subpart HHHH change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 63.2984............................ Amend paragraph
(a)(4) to clarify
compliance with a different
operating limit means the
operating limit specified
in paragraph (a)(1).
Amend paragraph (e)
to allow use of a more
recent edition of the
currently referenced
``Industrial Ventilation: A
Manual of Recommended
Practice,'' American
Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists,
i.e., the appropriate
chapters of ``Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice for
Design'' (27th edition), or
an alternate as approved by
the Administrator.
Revise text
regarding incorporation by
reference (IBR) in
paragraph (e) by replacing
the reference to 40 CFR
63.3003 with, instead, 40
CFR 63.14.
40 CFR 63.2993............................ Amend paragraphs
(a) and (b) to update a
reference.
Re-designate
paragraph (c) as paragraph
(e) and amend the newly
designated paragraph to
clarify that EPA Method 320
(40 CFR part 63, appendix A-
2) is an acceptable method
for measuring the
concentration of
formaldehyde.
Add new paragraph
(c) to clarify that EPA
Methods 3 and 3A (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A) are
acceptable methods for
measuring oxygen and carbon
dioxide concentrations
needed to correct
formaldehyde concentration
measurements to a standard
basis.
Add new paragraph
(d) to clarify that EPA
Method 4 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A-3) is an
acceptable method for
measuring the moisture
content of the stack gas.
40 CFR 63.2999............................ Amend paragraph (b)
to update list of example
electronic medium on which
records may be kept.
Add paragraph (c)
to clarify that any records
that are submitted
electronically via the
EPA's CEDRI may be
maintained in electronic
format.
40 CFR 63.3003............................ Remove text and
reserve the section
consistent with revisions
to the IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources and affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before
April 6, 2018 must comply with all of the amendments no later than 180
days after the effective date of the final rule. (The final action is
not expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so
the effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10)). For existing sources, we are
proposing four changes that would impact ongoing compliance
requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH. As discussed elsewhere
in this preamble, we are proposing to add a requirement that
performance test results be electronically submitted, we are proposing
to change the frequency of
[[Page 15004]]
required submissions of compliance reports for facilities with
deviations from applicable standards from a quarterly basis to a
semiannual basis, we are proposing to change the requirements for SSM
by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard
during SSM periods, and we are proposing to no longer require parameter
monitoring during periods when a non-HAP binder is being used to
produce mat. Our experience with similar industries that are required
to convert reporting mechanisms to install necessary hardware and
software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new
electronic submission capabilities, and reliably employ electronic
reporting and to convert logistics of reporting processes to different
time-reporting parameters shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and, more typically, 180 days is generally necessary to
successfully accomplish these revisions. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; to evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; to adjust parameter
monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions such as those
proposed here for periods of non-HAP binder use; and to update their
operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan to reflect the revised
requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple different
compliance dates for individual requirements would create and the
additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From our
assessment of the timeframe needed for compliance with the entirety of
the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be
the most expeditious compliance period practicable and, thus, is
proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with all of
this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the
regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of
information from sources in this source category regarding specific
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in changes to the proposed compliance
date. Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction
after April 6, 2018 must comply with all requirements of the subpart,
including the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective
date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All
affected facilities would have to continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH until the applicable
compliance date of the amended rule.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The EPA estimates that there are seven wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities that are subject to the Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production NESHAP and would be affected by the proposed amendments. The
bases of our estimate of affected facilities are provided in the
memorandum, Wet-Formed Fiberglass: Residual Risk Modeling File
Documentation (Modeling File Documentation Memo), which is available in
the docket for this action. We are not currently aware of any planned
or potential new or reconstructed wet-formed fiberglass mat production
facilities.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The EPA estimates that annual HAP emissions from the seven wet-
formed fiberglass mat production facilities that are subject to the
NESHAP are approximately 23 tpy. Because we are not proposing revisions
to the emission limits, we do not anticipate any air quality impacts as
a result of the proposed amendments.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The seven wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities that
would be subject to the proposed amendments would incur minimal net
costs to meet revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements, some
estimated to have costs and some estimated to have cost savings.
Nationwide annual costs associated with the proposed requirements are
estimated to be $200 per year in each of the 3 years following
promulgation of amendments. The EPA believes that the seven wet-formed
fiberglass mat production facilities which are known to be subject to
the NESHAP can meet the proposed requirements without incurring
additional capital or operational costs. Therefore, the only costs
associated with the proposed amendments are related to recordkeeping
and reporting labor costs. For further information on the requirements
being proposed, see section IV of this preamble. For further
information on the costs and cost savings associated with the
requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, Cost Impacts of Wet-
Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review Proposal,
and the document, Supporting Statement for NESHAP for Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production, which are both available in the docket for
this action. We solicit comment on these estimated cost impacts.
D. What are the economic impacts?
As noted earlier, the nationwide annual costs associated with the
proposed requirements are estimated to be $200 per year in each of the
3 years following promulgation of the amendments. The present value of
the total cost over these 3 years is approximately $550 in 2016 dollars
under a 3-percent discount rate, and $510 in 2016 dollars under a 7-
percent discount rate. These costs are not expected to result in
business closures, significant price increases, or substantial profit
loss.
For further information on the economic impacts associated with the
requirements being proposed, see the memorandum, Proposal Economic
Impact Analysis for the Risk and Technology Review: Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category, which is available in the
docket for this action.
E. What are the benefits?
Although the EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as
a result of the proposed amendments, we believe that the action, if
finalized, would result in improvements to the rule. Specifically, the
proposed amendment requiring electronic submittal of performance test
results will increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with
current trends of data availability, will further assist in the
protection of public health and the environment, and will ultimately
result in less burden on the regulated community. In addition, the
proposed amendments reducing parameter monitoring and recording
requirements when non-HAP binder is being used to produce mat and
reducing frequency of compliance reports will reduce burden for
regulated facilities while continuing to protect public health and the
environment. See section IV.D.2 of this preamble for more information.
[[Page 15005]]
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
We specifically solicit comment on an additional issue under
consideration that would reduce regulatory burden for owner/operators
of certain drying and curing ovens. We are requesting comment on
exempting performance testing requirements for drying and curing ovens
that are subject to a federally enforceable permit requiring the use of
only non-HAP binders. 40 CFR 63.2991 currently requires formaldehyde
testing for all drying and curing ovens subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH, even if the facility only uses a non-HAP binder. Such an
exemption would reduce burden for owners and operators that have
switched to using only non-HAP binders without any increase in HAP
emissions. Owners and operators of drying and curing ovens that are
still permitted to use HAP containing binders would still be required
to conduct periodic performance testing even if they are not currently
using binders that contain HAP.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1964.08. You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
We are proposing changes to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, in the form
of eliminating the SSM plan and reporting requirements; requiring
electronic submittal of performance test reports; reducing the
frequency of compliance reports to a semiannual basis when there are
deviations from applicable standards; and reducing the parameter
monitoring and recording requirements during use of binder containing
no HAP. We also included review of the amended rule by affected
facilities in the updated ICR for this proposed rule. In addition, the
number of facilities subject to the standards changed. The number of
respondents was reduced from 14 to 7 based on consultation with
industry representatives and state/local agencies.
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents to the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are owners or operators of facilities that
produce wet-formed fiberglass mat subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHHH.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHH).
Estimated number of respondents: Seven.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include one-time review of rule
amendments, reports of periodic performance tests, and semiannual
compliance reports.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements
in the NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to
be 1,470 hours (per year). Of these, 3 hours (per year) is the
incremental burden to comply with the proposed rule amendments. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for responding facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP, averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be
$95,500 (per year), including $0 annualized capital or operation and
maintenance costs. Of the total, $200 (per year) is the incremental
cost to comply with the proposed amendments to the rule.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to
[[Page 15006]]
the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You
may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs via email to [email protected],
Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB
must receive comments no later than May 7, 2018. The EPA will respond
to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no
small entities affected in this regulated industry. See the document,
Proposal Economic Impact Analysis for the Reconsideration of the Risk
and Technology Review: Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source
Category, available in the docket for this action.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. None of the seven wet-formed fiberglass mat
production facilities that have been identified as being affected by
this proposed action are owned or operated by tribal governments or
located within tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III.A and C and sections IV.A and B of this preamble, and
further documented in the risk report, Residual Risk Assessment for the
Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Source Category in Support of the
February 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in
the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards (VCS). The EPA proposes to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3,
3A, 4, 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. While the EPA
identified 11 VCS as being potentially applicable as alternatives to
EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, the Agency does not
propose to use them. Use of these VCS would be impractical because of
their lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and/or other
important technical and policy considerations. Results of the search
are documented in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results
for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wet-
formed Fiberglass Mat Production, which is available in the docket for
this action. Methods 316, 318, and 320 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
are used to determine the formaldehyde concentrations before and after
the control device (e.g., thermal oxidizer). Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, and 4
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A are used the determine the gas flow rate
which is used with the concentration of formaldehyde to calculate the
mass emission rate. Additional information can be found at https://www.epa.gov/emc/emc-promulgated-test-methods.
Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd
Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ``Local Exhaust Hoods'' and Chapter 5,
``Exhaust System Design Procedure,'' and Industrial Ventilation: A
Manual of Recommended Practice for Design, 27th Edition, 2010, are
compilations of research data and information on design, maintenance,
and evaluation of industrial exhaust ventilation systems. They include
suggestions for appropriate hood design considerations and aspects for
fan design. The Manuals are used by engineers and industrial hygienists
as guidance for design and evaluation of industrial ventilation
systems. Additional information can be found at https://www.acgih.org.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A of
this preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Wet-Formed
Fiberglass Mat Production, available in the docket for this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 19, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising the last sentence of paragraph
(a) and paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) to read as follows:
[[Page 15007]]
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
(a) * * * For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
(b) * * *
(2) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice, 23rd
Edition, 1998, Chapter 3, ``Local Exhaust Hoods'' and Chapter 5,
``Exhaust System Design Procedure.'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.1503, 63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to
Subpart RRR, Appendix A to Subpart RRR, and 63.2984(e).
(3) Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for
Design, 27th Edition, 2010. IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.1503,
63.1506(c), 63.1512(e), Table 2 to Subpart RRR, Table 3 to Subpart RRR,
Appendix A to Subpart RRR, and 63.2984(e).
* * * * *
Subpart HHHH--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production
0
3. Section 63.2984 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (4), (b),
and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2984 What operating limits must I meet?
(a) * * *
(1) You must operate the thermal oxidizer so that the average
operating temperature in any 3-hour block period does not fall below
the temperature established during your performance test and specified
in your OMM plan, except during periods when using a non-HAP binder.
* * * * *
(4) If you use an add-on control device other than a thermal
oxidizer or wish to monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a
different operating limit than the limit specified in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section, you must obtain approval for the alternative
monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f). You must include the approved
alternative monitoring and operating limits in the OMM plan specified
in Sec. 63.2987.
(b) When during a period of normal operation, you detect that an
operating parameter deviates from the limit or range established in
paragraph (a) of this section, you must initiate corrective actions
within 1 hour according to the provisions of your OMM plan. The
corrective actions must be completed in an expeditious manner as
specified in the OMM plan.
* * * * *
(e) If you use a thermal oxidizer or other control device to
achieve the emission limits in Sec. 63.2983, you must capture and
convey the formaldehyde emissions from each drying and curing oven
according to the procedures in chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial
Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice'' (23rd Edition) or the
appropriate chapters of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of
Recommended Practice for Design'' (27th edition) (both incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14). In addition, you may use an alternate as
approved by the Administrator.
0
4. Section 63.2985 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2985 When do I have to comply with these standards?
* * * * *
(b) Drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after May
26, 2000 and before April 9, 2018 must be in compliance with this
subpart at startup or by April 11, 2002, whichever is later.
* * * * *
(d) Drying and curing ovens constructed or reconstructed after
April 6, 2018 must be in compliance with this subpart at startup or by
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], whichever
is later.
0
5. Section 63.2986 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2986 How do I comply with the standards?
* * * * *
(g) You must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1)
through (3) of this section.
(1) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], you must be in compliance with the emission limits
in Sec. 63.2983 and the operating limits in Sec. 63.2984 at all
times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must be in compliance with the emission limits in Sec.
63.2983 and the operating limits in Sec. 63.2984 at all times.
(2) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], you must always operate and maintain any affected
source, including air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1). After [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], at
all times, you must operate and maintain any affected source, including
associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize
emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance
with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.
(3) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], you must develop a written startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). The
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan must address the startup,
shutdown, and corrective actions taken for malfunctioning process and
air pollution control equipment. A startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan is not required after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
0
6. Section 63.2992 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.2992 How do I conduct a performance test?
* * * * *
(b) You must conduct the performance test according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(a) through (d), (e)(2) through (4), and (f)
through (h).
* * * * *
(e) Performance tests must be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance
of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you must
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.2993 is amended by:
[[Page 15008]]
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) as paragraphs (e) through
(g);
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (e).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2993 What test methods must I use in conducting performance
tests?
(a) Use EPA Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1) for selecting
the sampling port location and the number of sampling ports.
(b) Use EPA Method 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-1) for measuring
the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(c) Use EPA Method 3 or 3A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2) for
measuring oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations needed to correct
formaldehyde concentration measurements to a standard basis.
(d) Use EPA Method 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) for measuring
the moisture content of the stack gas.
(e) Use EPA Method 316, 318, or 320 (40 CFR part 63, appendix A)
for measuring the concentration of formaldehyde.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 63.2994 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2994 How do I verify the performance of monitoring
equipment?
(a) Before conducting the performance test, you must take the steps
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Install and calibrate all process equipment, control devices,
and monitoring equipment.
(2) Develop and implement a continuous monitoring system (CMS)
quality control program that includes written procedures for CMS
according to Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2). You must keep these written
procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the
affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to
be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator.
If the performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous
(i.e., superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on
record to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan.
The program of corrective action should be included in the plan
required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
(3) Conduct a performance evaluation of the CMS according to Sec.
63.8(e), which specifies the general requirements and requirements for
notifications, the site-specific performance evaluation plan, conduct
of the performance evaluation, and reporting of performance evaluation
results.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.2996 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2996 What must I monitor?
(a) You must monitor the parameters listed in table 1 of this
subpart and any other parameters specified in your OMM plan. The
parameters must be monitored, at a minimum, at the corresponding
frequencies listed in table 1 of this subpart, except as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) During periods when using a non-HAP binder, you are not
required to monitor the parameters in table 1 of this subpart.
0
10. Section 63.2998 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraphs (a) and (c), and
paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (f);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (h)
0
d. Adding new paragraph (g).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2998 What records must I maintain?
You must maintain records according to the procedures of Sec.
63.10. You must maintain the records listed in paragraphs (a) through
(h) of this section.
(a) All records required by Sec. 63.10, where applicable. Table 2
of this subpart presents the applicable requirements of the general
provisions.
* * * * *
(c) During periods when the binder formulation being applied
contains HAP, records of values of monitored parameters listed in Table
1 of this subpart to show continuous compliance with each operating
limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart. During periods when using
non-HAP binder, and that you elect not to monitor the parameters in
table 1 of this subpart, you are required to record the dates and times
that production of mat using non-HAP binder began and ended.
* * * * *
(e) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], if an operating parameter deviation occurs, you must
record:
* * * * *
(f) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], keep all records specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii)
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(g) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], in the event that an affected source fails to meet
an applicable standard, including deviations from an emission limit in
Sec. 63.2983 or an operating limit in Sec. 63.2984, you must record
the number of failures and, for each failure, you must:
(1) Record the date, time, and duration of the failure;
(2) Describe the cause of the failure;
(3) Record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment,
an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over
any emission limit and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions; and
(4) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.2986(g)(2), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation and/or the
operating parameter to the limit or to within the range specified in
the OMM plan, along with dates and times at which corrective actions
were initiated and completed.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.2999 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2999 In what form and for how long must I maintain records?
* * * * *
(b) Your records must be readily available and in a form so they
can be easily inspected and reviewed. You can keep the records on paper
or an alternative medium, such as microfilm, computer, computer disks,
compact disk, digital versatile disk, flash drive, other commonly used
electronic storage medium, magnetic tape, or on microfiche.
(c) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) may be maintained in electronic format.
This ability to maintain electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
0
11. Section 63.3000 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory
text, (1), (4), (5), (d), and (e) and adding paragraphs (c)(6), (f),
and (g) to read as follows:
[[Page 15009]]
Sec. 63.3000 What notifications and reports must I submit?
* * * * *
(c) Semiannual compliance reports. You must submit semiannual
compliance reports according to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1)
through (6) of this section.
(1) Dates for submitting reports. Unless the Administrator has
agreed to a different schedule for submitting reports under Sec.
63.10(a), you must deliver or postmark each semiannual compliance
report no later than 30 days following the end of each semiannual
reporting period. The first semiannual reporting period begins on the
compliance date for your affected source and ends on June 30 or
December 31, whichever date immediately follows your compliance date.
Each subsequent semiannual reporting period for which you must submit a
semiannual compliance report begins on July 1 or January 1 and ends 6
calendar months later. Before [DATE 1 DAY AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], as required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3), you
must begin submitting quarterly compliance reports if you deviate from
the emission limits in Sec. 63.2983 or the operating limits in Sec.
63.2984. After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], quarterly compliance reports are not required.
* * * * *
(4) No deviations. If there were no instances where an affected
source failed to meet an applicable standard, including no deviations
from the emission limit in Sec. 63.2983 or the operating limits in
Sec. 63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must include a
statement to that effect. If there were no periods during which the
continuous parameter monitoring systems were out-of-control as
specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), the semiannual compliance report must
include a statement to that effect.
(5) Deviations. Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], if there was an instance where an
affected source failed to meet an applicable standard, including a
deviation from the emission limit in Sec. 63.2983 or an operating
limit in Sec. 63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must record
the number of failures and contain the information in paragraphs
(c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section:
(i) The date, time, and duration of each failure.
(ii) The date and time that each continuous parameter monitoring
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level
checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous parameter
monitoring system was out-of-control, including the information in
Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) A list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(v) The date and time that corrective actions were taken, a
description of the cause of the failure, and a description of the
corrective actions taken.
(vi) A summary of the total duration of each failure during the
semiannual reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the
total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period.
(vii) A breakdown of the total duration of the failures during the
semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(viii) A brief description of the process units.
(ix) A brief description of the continuous parameter monitoring
system.
(6) Deviations. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register], if there was an instance where an
affected source failed to meet an applicable standard, including a
deviation from the emission limit in Sec. 63.2983 or an operating
limit in Sec. 63.2984, the semiannual compliance report must record
the number of failures and contain the information in paragraphs
(c)(5)(i) through (ix) of this section:
(i) The date, time, and duration of each failure.
(ii) The date and time that each continuous parameter monitoring
system was inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level
checks.
(iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous parameter
monitoring system was out-of-control, including the information in
Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(iv) A list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of
the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(v) The date and time that corrective actions were taken, a
description of the cause of the failure, and a description of the
corrective actions taken.
(vi) A summary of the total duration of each failure during the
semiannual reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the
total source operating time during that semiannual reporting period.
(vii) A breakdown of the total duration of the failures during the
semiannual reporting period into those that were due to control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(viii) A brief description of the process units.
(ix) A brief description of the continuous parameter monitoring
system.
(d) Performance test results. You must submit results of each
performance test (as defined in Sec. 63.2) required by this subpart no
later than 60 days after completing the test as specified in Sec.
63.10(d)(2). You must include the values measured during the
performance test for the parameters listed in Table 1 of this subpart
and the operating limits or ranges to be included in your OMM plan. For
the thermal oxidizer temperature, you must include 15-minute averages
and the average for the three 1-hour test runs. Beginning no later than
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], you must submit the results following the procedures
specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the
results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI. (CEDRI can be
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language
(XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13, unless
the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternate reporting method.
(3) If you claim that some of the performance test information
being submitted under paragraph (d)(1) is confidential business
information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated through
the use of the EPA's
[[Page 15010]]
ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on the EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be
CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive or other commonly used electronic
storage medium to the EPA. The electronic medium must be clearly marked
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group
Leader, Measurement Policy Group, Mail Drop C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(e) Startup, shutdown, malfunction reports. Before [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], if you have a
startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting
period, you must submit the reports specified Sec. 63.10(d)(5).
(f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
the CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of
either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due,
you will be or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting
a required report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. You must submit notification to the Administrator in
writing as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or
through due diligence should have known, that the event may cause or
caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a
written description identifying the date, time and length of the
outage; a rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage; describe the measures
taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a
date by which you propose to report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date you
reported. In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved. The
decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(g) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
12. Section 63.3003 is removed and reserved.
0
13. Section 63.3004 is amended by removing the definition for
``Deviation'' and adding definitions for ``Deviation after,''
``Deviation before,'' ``Non-HAP binder,'' ``Shutdown,'' and ``Startup''
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3004 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register] means any instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
Deviation after [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register] means any instance in which an affected source
subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice standard; or
(2) fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.
* * * * *
Non-HAP binder means a binder formulation that does not contain any
hazardous air pollutants listed on the material safety data sheets of
the compounds used in the binder formulation.
* * * * *
Shutdown after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register] means the cessation of operation of the drying
and curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Shutdown ends
when fiberglass mat is no longer being dried or cured in the oven and
the oven no longer contains any resin infused binder.
Startup after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register] means the setting in operation of the drying and
curing of wet-formed fiberglass mat for any purpose. Startup begins
when resin infused fiberglass mat enters the oven to be dried and cured
for the first time or after a shutdown event.
* * * * *
0
14. Table 1 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 15011]]
Table 1 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63--Minimum Requirements for Monitoring
and Recordkeeping
As stated in Sec. 63.2998(c), you must comply with the minimum
requirements for monitoring and recordkeeping in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must monitor these And record for the
parameters: At this frequency: monitored parameter:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer Continuously........ 15-minute and 3-hour
temperature \a\. block averages.
2. Other process or control As specified in your As specified in your
device parameters specified OMM plan. OMM plan.
in your OMM plan.\b\
3. Urea-formaldehyde resin On each operating The average lb/h
solids application rate.\d\ day, calculate the value for each
average lb/h product
application rate manufactured during
for each product the day.
manufactured during
that day.
4. Resin free-formaldehyde For each lot of The value for each
content \d\. resin purchased. lot used during the
operating day.
5. Loss-on-ignition c d..... Measured at least The value for each
once per day, for product
each product manufactured during
manufactured during the operating day.
that day.
6. UF-to-latex ratio in the For each batch of The value for each
binder c d. binder prepared the batch of binder
operating day. prepared during the
operating day.
7. Weight of the final mat Each product The value for each
product per square (lb/ manufactured during product
roofing square).c d the operating day. manufactured during
the operating day.
8. Average nonwoven wet- For each product The average value
formed fiberglass mat manufactured during for each product
production rate (roofing the operating day. manufactured during
square/h).c d operating day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Required if a thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde
emissions.
\b\ ``Required if process modifications or a control device other than a
thermal oxidizer is used to control formaldehyde emissions.
\c\ These parameters must be monitored and values recorded, but no
operating limits apply.
\d\ You are not required to monitor or record these parameters during
periods when using a non-HAP binder. If you elect to not monitor these
parameters during these periods, you must record the dates and times
that production of mat using the non-HAP binder began and ended.
0
15. Table 2 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart HHHH of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart
HHHH
As stated in Sec. 63.3001, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart HHHH Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4).............. General Applicability... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.1(a)(5).................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(8).............. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.1(a)(9).................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14)............ Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.1(b)..................... Initial Applicability Yes.
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).................. Applicability After Yes.
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).................. ........................ Yes..................... Some plants may be area
sources.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3).................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5).............. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.1(d)..................... ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(e)..................... Applicability of Permit Yes. .......................
Program.
Sec. 63.2........................ Definitions............. Yes..................... Additional definitions
in Sec. 63.3004.
Sec. 63.3........................ Units and Abbreviations. Yes.
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(3).............. Prohibited Activities... Yes.
Sec. 63.4(a)(4).................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.4(a)(5).................. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................. Circumvention/ Yes.
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a)..................... Construction/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1).................. Existing/Constructed/ Yes.
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2).................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(6).............. ........................ Yes.
Sec. 63.5(c)..................... ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d)..................... Application for Approval Yes.
of Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)..................... Approval of Construction/ Yes. .......................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)..................... Approval of Construction/ Yes. .......................
Reconstruction Based on
State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)..................... Compliance with Yes. .......................
Standards and
Maintenance--Applicabil
ity.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5).............. New and Reconstructed Yes. .......................
Sources-Dates.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).................. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).............. Existing Sources Dates.. Yes..................... Sec. 63.2985
specifies dates.
[[Page 15012]]
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).............. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).................. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.6(d)..................... ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)............... General Duty to Minimize Yes before [DATE 181 See Sec. 63.2986(g)
Emissions. DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION for general duty
OF FINAL RULE IN THE requirement.
Federal Register].
........................ No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii).............. Requirement to Correct Yes before [DATE 181
Malfunctions ASAP. DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
........................ No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............. Operation and Yes..................... Sec. Sec. 63.2984
Maintenance and 63.2987 specify
Requirements. additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2).................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................. SSM Plan Requirements... Yes before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
........................ No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................. SSM Exemption........... No. .......................
Sec. 63.6(f)(2) and (3).......... Compliance with Non- Yes. .......................
Opacity Emission
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(g)..................... Alternative Non-Opacity Yes..................... EPA retains approval
Emission Standard. authority.
Sec. 63.6(h)..................... Compliance with Opacity/ No...................... Subpart HHHH does not
Visible Emissions specify opacity or
Standards. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)............. Extension of Compliance. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)................. ........................ Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.6(j)..................... Exemption from Yes. .......................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.7(a)..................... Performance Test Yes. .......................
Requirements--Applicabi
lity and Dates.
Sec. 63.7(b)..................... Notification of Yes. .......................
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.7(c)..................... Quality Assurance Yes. .......................
Program/Test Plan.
Sec. 63.7(d)..................... Testing Facilities...... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................. Performance Testing..... Yes before [DATE 181 See Sec. 63.2992(c).
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(4).............. Conduct of Tests........ Yes..................... Sec. 63.2991-63.2994
specify additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.7(f)..................... Alternative Test Method. Yes..................... EPA retains approval
authority.
Sec. 63.7(g)..................... Data Analysis........... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.7(h)..................... Waiver of Tests......... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2).............. Monitoring Requirements-- Yes. .......................
Applicability.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................. ........................ Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.8(b)..................... Conduct of Monitoring... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............... General Duty to Minimize Yes before [DATE 181
Emissions and CMS DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
Operation. OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).............. Continuous Monitoring Yes. .......................
System (CMS) Operation
and Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............. Requirement to Develop Yes before [DATE 181
SSM Plan for CMS. DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
[[Page 15013]]
No after [DATE 180 DAYS .......................
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(4).............. ........................ Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................. Continuous Opacity No...................... Subpart HHHH does not
Monitoring System specify opacity or
(COMS) Procedures. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8).............. ........................ Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2).......... Quality Control......... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.8(d)(3).................. Written Procedures for Yes before [DATE 181 See Sec. 63.2994(a).
CMS. DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.8(e)..................... CMS Performance Yes. .......................
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).............. Alternative Monitoring Yes..................... EPA retains approval
Method. authority.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................. Alternative to Relative No...................... Subpart HHHH does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems
(CEMS)
Sec. 63.8(g)(1).................. Data Reduction.......... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.8(g)(2).................. Data Reduction.......... No...................... Subpart HHHH does not
require the use of
CEMS or COMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)(3)-(5).............. Data Reduction.......... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.9(a)..................... Notification Yes. .......................
Requirements--Applicabi
lity.
Sec. 63.9(b)..................... Initial Notifications... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.9(c)..................... Request for Compliance Yes. .......................
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)..................... New Source Notification Yes. .......................
for Special Compliance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e)..................... Notification of Yes. .......................
Performance Test.
Sec. 63.9(f)..................... Notification of Visible No...................... Subpart HHHH does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1).................. Additional CMS Yes. .......................
Notifications.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)-(3).............. ........................ No...................... Subpart HHHH does not
require the use of
COMS or CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3).............. Notification of Yes..................... Sec. 63.3000(b)
Compliance Status. specifies additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4).................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(6).............. ........................ Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.9(i)..................... Adjustment of Deadlines. Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.9(j)..................... Change in Previous Yes. .......................
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a).................... Recordkeeping/Reporting-- Yes. .......................
Applicability.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................. General Recordkeeping Yes..................... Sec. 63.2998 includes
Requirements. additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i).............. Recordkeeping of Yes before [DATE 181
Occurrence and Duration DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
of Startups and OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Shutdowns. Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS .......................
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)............. Recordkeeping of Yes before [DATE 181 See Sec. 63.2998(e)
Failures to Meet a DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION for recordkeeping
Standard. OF FINAL RULE IN THE requirements for an
Federal Register]. affected source that
fails to meet an
applicable standard.
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)............ Maintenance Records..... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v)..... Actions Taken to Yes before [DATE 181
Minimize Emissions DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
During SSM. OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS .......................
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)............. Recordkeeping for CMS Yes. .......................
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(xiv)...... Other CMS Requirements.. Yes. .......................
[[Page 15014]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................. Recordkeeping Yes after [DATE 180 DAYS .......................
requirement for AFTER PUBLICATION OF
applicability FINAL RULE IN THE
determinations. Federal Register].
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)................. Additional CMS Yes. .......................
Recordkeeping.
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(4)............. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.10(c)(5)-(8)............. ........................ Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)................. ........................ No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)........... ........................ Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)................ Use of SSM Plan......... Yes before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................. General Reporting Yes..................... Sec. 63.3000 includes
Requirements. additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................. Performance Test Results Yes..................... Sec. 63.3000 includes
additional
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................. Opacity or Visible No...................... Subpart HHHH does not
Emissions Observations. specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................. Progress Reports Under Yes. .......................
Extension of Compliance.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................. SSM Reports............. Yes before [DATE 181 See Sec. 63.3000(c)
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION for malfunction
OF FINAL RULE IN THE reporting
Federal Register]. requirements.
No after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register].
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)................. Additional CMS Reports-- No...................... Subpart HHHH does not
General. require CEMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)................. Reporting results of CMS Yes. .......................
performance evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................. Excess Emission/CMS Yes. .......................
Performance Reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................. COMS Data Reports....... No...................... Subpart HHHH does not
specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(f).................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes..................... EPA retains approval
Waiver. authority.
Sec. 63.11....................... Control Device No...................... Facilities subject to
Requirements--Applicabi subpart HHHH do not
lity. use flares as control
devices.
Sec. 63.12....................... State Authority and Yes. .......................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13....................... Addresses............... Yes. .......................
Sec. 63.14....................... Incorporation by Yes. .......................
Reference.
Sec. 63.15....................... Availability of Yes. .......................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-06541 Filed 4-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P