Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Veterans Affairs Department

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AO91

EPA ID: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0008; FRL-8724-5]

NOTICE: Part III

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group I Polymers and Resins (Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Hypalon\TM\ Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production); Marine Vessel Loading Operations; Mineral Wool Production; Pharmaceuticals Production; and Printing and Publishing Industry

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 24, 2008.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by October 20, 2008, a public hearing will be held on October 27, 2008.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This proposed action requests public comment on the residual risk and technology reviews for nine industrial source categories regulated by five national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The five national emission standards and nine source categories include: National Emissions Standards for Group I Polymers and Resins (Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production, Hypalon^TM Production, Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production, Polybutadiene Rubber Production, and Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production); National Emission Standards for Marine Vessel Loading Operations; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Mineral Wool Production; National Emission Standards for Pharmaceuticals Production; and National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing Industry. The underlying national emission standards that are under review in this action limit and control hazardous air pollutants.

We are proposing that no revisions to the five national emission standards regulating these nine source categories are required at this time under section 112(f)(2) or 112(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Regulated Entities. The nine regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this proposal are listed in Table 2 to this preamble. Table 2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the proposed action for the source categories listed. These standards, and any changes considered in this rulemaking, would be directly applicable to sources as a Federal program. Thus, Federal, State, local, and tribal government entities are not affected by this proposed action. The regulated categories affected by this action include:
Table 2NESHAP for Nine Industrial Source Categories NAICS \1\ MACT \2\ Category code code Epichlorohydrin Elastomers Production............. 325212 1311 Hypalon \TM\ Production........................... 325212 1315 Nitrile Butadiene Rubber Production............... 325212 1321 Polybutadiene Rubber Production................... 325212 1325 Styrene Butadiene Rubber and Latex Production..... 325212 1339 Marine Vessel Loading............................. 4883 0603 Mineral Wool Production........................... 327993 0409 Pharmaceuticals Production........................ 3254 1201 Printing and Publishing Industry.................. 32311 0714 \1\ North American Industry Classification System.

\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

To determine whether your facility would be affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any of these NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this preamble in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Submitting Comments/CBI. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA HQOAR20080008. If commenting on changes to the residual risk and technology reviews (RTR) database, please submit your comments in the format described in sections III and IV of this preamble. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Instead, send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C40402), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPAHQOAR20080008. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CDROM that you mail to Mr. Morales, mark the outside of the disk or CDROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CDROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CDROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CDROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice.

If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

As discussed in more detail in sections III and IV of this preamble, additional information is available on the RTR Phase II Web page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and detailed emissions and other data that were used as inputs to the risk assessments.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on November 10, 2008 and will be held at EPA's campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E14301), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 5414516.

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

B. Overview of RTR

C. Overview of the Five NESHAP

D. How did we estimate risk posed by the nine source categories? [[Page 60434]]

E. What are the results of the risk assessment?

F. What are our proposed decisions on acceptability and ample margin of safety?

G. What are the results of the technology review? II. Proposed Action

A. What is the rationale for our proposed action under CAA section 112(f)?

B. What is the rationale for our proposed action under CAA section 112(d)(6)?
III. Request for Comments
IV. How do I submit suggested data corrections?

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations
I. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a twostage regulatory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary sources. In the first stage, after EPA has identified categories of sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA, section 112(d) of the CAA calls for us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more per year of a single HAP or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technologybased standards must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and nonair quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.

The MACT ``floor'' is the minimum control level allowed for MACT standards promulgated under section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT standards, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

EPA is then required to review these technologybased standards and to revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In this proposed rule, we are publishing the results of our 8year technology review for the nine industrial source categories listed in Table 3, which we have collectively termed ``Group 2A.''

The second stage in standardsetting focuses on reducing any remaining ``residual'' risk according to CAA section 112(f). This provision requires, first, that EPA prepare a Report to Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating risk posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, the means and costs of controlling them, actual health effects to persons in proximity of emitting sources, and recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. EPA prepared and submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA453/R99001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in response to the report, thereby triggering EPA's obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and address residual risk.

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for source categories subject to certain CAA section 112(d) standards whether the emissions limitations provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified as a known, probable, or possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category or subcategory to less than 1in1 million,'' EPA must promulgate residual risk standards for the source category (or subcategory) as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In doing so, EPA may adopt standards equal to existing MACT standards (NRDC v. EPA, No. 071053, slip op. at 11, D.C. Cir., decided June 6, 2008). EPA must also adopt more stringent standards, if necessary, to prevent an adverse environmental effect,\1\ but must consider cost, energy, safety, and other relevant factors in doing so. Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of a twostep process for developing standards to address any residual risk and our interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke ByProduct Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). \1\ ``Adverse environmental effect'' is defined in CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect, which may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life, or natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of environmental qualities over broad areas.

The first step in this process is the determination of acceptable risk. The second step provides for an ample margin of safety to protect public health, which is the level at which the standards are set (unless a more stringent standard is required to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect).

The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level,'' and ``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA. However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) directs us to use the interpretation set out in the Benzene NESHAP. See also, A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 (Senate debate on Conference Report). We notified Congress in the Residual Risk Report to Congress that we intended to use the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations (EPA453/R99001, p. ES11).

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective: * * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of safety, we strive to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than approximately 1in1 million; and (2) limiting to no higher than approximately 1in10 thousand [i.e., 100in1 million] the estimated risk that a person
[[Page 60435]]
living near a facility would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years.

The Agency also stated that, ``The EPA also considers incidence (the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious health effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an important measure of the health risk to the exposed population. Incidence measures the extent of health risk to the exposed population as a whole, by providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or other serious health effects in the exposed population.'' The Agency went on to conclude that ``estimated incidence would be weighed along with other health risk information in judging acceptability.'' As explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA does not define ``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but considers rather broad objectives to be weighed with a series of other health measures and factors (EPA453/R99001, p. ES11). The determination of what represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a judgment of ``what risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' (Residual Risk Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not riskfree.

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``EPA will generally presume that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no higher than approximately 1 in 10 thousand, that risk level is considered acceptable.'' 54 FR at 38045. We discussed the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as being ``the estimated risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years.'' Id. We explained that this measure of risk ``is an estimate of the upperbound of risk based on conservative assumptions, such as continuous exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 years.'' Id. We acknowledge that maximum individual lifetime cancer risk ``does not necessarily reflect the true risk, but displays a conservative risk level which is an upperbound that is unlikely to be exceeded.'' Id.

Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that ``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Id. Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100in1 million (1in10 thousand) provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of maximum individual lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a rigid line for making that determination.

The Agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following: ``In establishing a presumption for MIR [maximum individual cancer risk], rather than rigid line for acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh it with a series of other health measures and factors. These include the overall incidence of cancer or other serious health effects within the exposed population, the numbers of persons exposed within each individual lifetime risk range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50 kilometer (km) exposure radius around facilities, the science policy assumptions and estimation uncertainties associated with the risk measures, weight of the scientific evidence for human health effects, other quantified or unquantified health effects, effects due to colocation of facilities, and coemission of pollutants.'' Id.

In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime cancer risk alone.

As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``[e]ven though the risks judged ``acceptable'' by EPA in the first step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, determining an ``ample margin of safety,'' again includes consideration of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even further. In the second step, EPA strives to provide protection to the greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no higher than approximately 1 in 1 million. In the ample margin decision, the Agency again considers all of the health risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant factors. Considering all of these factors, the Agency will establish the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health, as required by section 112.'' 54 FR at 38046.

B. Overview of RTR

We have begun to conduct the RTR for 96 MACT standards covering 174 sources categories. In an effort to streamline the RTR process and focus our resources on source categories with the greatest potential for risk to human health and the environment, we combined source categories to create several groups, e.g., RTR Group 2A (which is the subject of this proposed rule), and decided the order in which we would propose each source category group. In deciding how to group source categories, we considered factors such as the promulgation date of the NESHAP, our preliminary analysis of the level of risk, completeness of available emissions data, complexity of the risk assessment, and whether we anticipated promulgating additional regulations pursuant to the RTR.

In general, we are addressing source categories with the earliest NESHAP promulgation dates first because they have the earliest RTR due dates and because the 2002 National Emission Inventory (NEI) contains emissions data which reflect implementation of the NESHAP. Additionally, we are addressing lower risk source categories first because they typically require less effort to complete the necessary analysis than higher risk source categories. We expect that the higher risk source categories will require more time to evaluate because we will likely need to perform more refined risk assessments, and because they may have more complex issues to address, such as the emissions of persistent and bioaccumulative HAP. Moreover, we believe our reviews of the higher risk source categories will benefit from an understanding of the public's concerns about our RTR approaches (through the comments we receive on the earlier proposals).

For the nine source categories in today's proposal for RTR Group 2A, we have concluded that emissions levels remaining after compliance with the existing MACT standards: (1) Pose no unacceptable maximum individual cancer risks (i.e., because the MIR is less than 100in1 million the risk is acceptable); (2) pose no significant chronic noncancer health effects (i.e., maximum individual target organ specific hazard index (HI) values are all less than or equal to 1); (3) are unlikely to result in acute adverse health effects from peak short term excursions; and (4) are unlikely to result in any adverse environmental effect. Thus, we are proposing that the existing standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects.

Future RTR actions for other source categories may require changes to existing MACT standards to achieve the protection of public health with an ample margin of safety and/or to
[[Page 60436]]
prevent adverse environmental effects. Future actions may also require additional emission reductions pursuant to the technology review. We plan to conduct RTR assessments for 12 source categories (RTR Groups 2B and 2C, which were included in an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in March 2007) and propose our findings.\2\ In addition, we plan to publish at least three more advanced notices of proposed rulemaking. We may also publish some RTR for individual MACT standards because of special circumstances such as court ordered deadlines. (See, for example, the proposed RTR for Petroleum Refineries, 72 FR 50716, 09/04/2007.)
\2\ RTR Group 2B: Oil and Natural Gas Production; Natural Gas Transmission; and Aerospace Operations. RTR Group 2C: Primary Aluminum; Polymers and Resins IV (seven source categories); and Ship Building.

C. Overview of the Five NESHAP

The nine industrial source categories and five NESHAP that are the subject of this proposal are listed in Table 3 to this preamble. NESHAP limit and control HAP that are known or suspected to cause cancer or that may cause other serious human health or environmental effects. The NESHAP for these nine source categories generally require
implementation of emissions reduction technologies such as combustion devices, recovery devices, scrubbers, and fabric filters for point sources and work practice and equipment standards for fugitive sources.

Table 3List of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Industrial Source Categories Affected by Today's Proposal Source categories
Title of NESHAP affected by this Promulgated rule Compliance NESHAP as referred proposal reference date to in this preamble

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For questions about this proposed action, contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E14301), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 5414516; fax number: (919) 6853219; and email address: kissell.mary@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the modeling methodology, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Sector Based Assessment Group (C53902), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 5415499; fax number: (919) 5410840; and email address: manning.elaine@epa.gov. For information about the applicability of these five national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in Table 1 to this preamble.
[[Page 60433]]
Table 1List of EPA Contacts for Group I Polymers and Resins, Marine Vessel Loading, Mineral Wool, Pharmaceuticals, and Printing and Publishing NESHAP for: OECA contact \1\ OAQPS contact \2\ Polymers and Resins Production, Group I........... Scott Throwe, (202) 5647013, David Markwordt, (919) 541 throwe.scott@epa.gov. 0837, markwordt.david@epa.gov. Marine Vessel Loading Operations.................. Maria Malave, (202) 5647027, David Markwordt, (919) 541 malave.maria@epa.gov. 0837, markwordt.david@epa.gov. Mineral Wool Production........................... Scott Throwe, (202) 5647013, Jeff Telander, (919) 541 throwe.scott@epa.gov. 5427, telander.jeff@epa.gov. Pharmaceuticals Production........................ Marcia Mia, (202) 5647042, Randy McDonald, (919) 541 mia.marcia@epa.gov. 5402, mcdonald.randy@epa.gov. Printing and Publishing Industry.................. Len Lazarus, (202) 5646369, David Salman, (919) 5410859, lazarus.leonard@epa.gov. salman.dave@epa.gov. \1\ OECA stands for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. \2\ OAQPS stands for EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.