[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22642-22685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09583]
[[Page 22641]]
Vol. 84
Friday,
No. 96
May 17, 2019
Part III
Envionmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Boat
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Residual
Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 96 / Friday, May 17, 2019 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 22642]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449; FRL-9992-76-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT12
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Boat
Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites 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 (NESHAP) for Boat Manufacturing and the NESHAP for
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production. The proposed amendments
address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR)
conducted as required under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for these source
categories. The EPA is proposing to find the risks due to emissions of
air toxics from these source categories under the current standards to
be acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health. We are proposing no revisions to the
numerical emission limits or other aspects of the rules based on these
risk analyses or technology reviews. Additionally, the EPA is proposing
to amend provisions addressing emissions during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) and to amend provisions regarding
electronic reporting of certain notifications, performance test
results, and semiannual reports.
DATES:
Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2019.
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 June 17, 2019.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before May 22, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/boat-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/reinforced-plastic-composites-production-national-emission for the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES:
Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
NESHAP, 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 the EPA treats submitted comments. Regulations.gov is our
preferred method of receiving comments. However, the following other
submission methods are also accepted:
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
NESHAP in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP.
Mail: 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-2016-0447 for the
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: Use the following Docket Center
address if you are using express mail, commercial delivery, hand
delivery, or courier: EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. Delivery
verification signatures will be available only during regular business
hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division
(D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991;
and email address: [email protected]. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address:
[email protected]. For information about the applicability of the
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA WJC South Building (Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and
email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Nancy Perry at (919) 541-5628 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.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP. All documents in the docket are listed in
Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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-
2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
[[Page 22643]]
OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP.
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 below.
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 allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, 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
digital storage media 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.
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
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media 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 directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media 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-2016-0447 for the
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP.
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
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BMC bulk molding compound
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEDRI compliance and emissions data reporting interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT electronic reporting tool
GACT generally available control technologies
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
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDI 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
MMA methyl methacrylate
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI national emissions inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
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
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best Available Control
Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (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
SMC sheet molding compound
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
[micro]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
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?
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 and Decision Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
[[Page 22644]]
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses for
the Boat Manufacturing source category?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect for the
Boat Manufacturing source category?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review for the Boat Manufacturing source category?
D. What other actions are we proposing for the Boat
Manufacturing source category?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing for the Boat
Manufacturing source category?
F. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses for
the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category?
G. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect for the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category?
H. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
source category?
I. What other actions are we proposing for the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source category?
J. What compliance dates are we proposing for the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source category?
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?
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)
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 associated regulated
industrial source categories that are 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.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS code \1\ Regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boat Manufacturing.......... 336612.............. Boat manufacturing
facilities that
perform fiberglass
production
operations or
aluminum coating
operations.
Reinforced Plastic 326113, 326121, Reinforced plastic
Composites Production. 326122, 326130, composites
326140, 326191, production
327110, 327991, facilities that
332321, 332420, manufacture
333132, 333415, intermediate, and/
333611, 333924, or final products
334310, 335311, using styrene
335313, 335932, containing
336111, 336211, thermoset resins
336213, 336214, and gel coats.
336320, 336413,
336510, 337110,
337125, 337127,
337215, 339920,
339991.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/boat-manufacturing-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air for the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP, and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/reinforced-plastic-composites-production-national-emission
for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. 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-2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing
NESHAP or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP).
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 hazardous air pollutants (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 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.''
[[Page 22645]]
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 titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology
Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology 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 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)(2) 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), the 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). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine 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 (D.C. 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.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk 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 to protect public health ``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 often 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?
1. What is the Boat Manufacturing source category and how does the
current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP was promulgated on August 22, 2001
(66 FR 44218), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV. As
promulgated, the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP applies to fiberglass and
aluminum boat manufacturing operations located at facilities considered
to be major sources of HAP emissions. The HAP emissions from these boat
manufacturing operations and processes are fugitive emissions. Fugitive
emissions result from HAP evaporating from the resins, gel coats,
solvents, adhesives, and surface coatings used in manufacturing
processes. The following is a brief description of these processes and
operations found at boat manufacturing facilities: Fiberglass boat
manufacturing operations; fabric and carpet adhesive operations; and
aluminum boat surface coating operations.
Fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. Fiberglass boat
manufacturing involves using glass fiber reinforcements laid in a mold
and saturating the fiberglass with resin. The resin hardens to form a
rigid plastic part reinforced with fiberglass. Manufacturing processes
are generally considered either ``open molding'' or ``closed molding.''
In open molding, the outer parts of the boat are built by first
spraying a mold with a layer of gel coat, which is a pigmented
polyester resin that hardens and becomes the smooth outside surface of
the part. The inside of the hardened gel coat layer is coated
[[Page 22646]]
with chopped glass fibers and polyester or vinylester resin. Additional
layers of fiberglass cloth or chopped glass fibers saturated with resin
are added until the part is the final thickness. The same basic process
is used to build or repair molds with tooling gel coat and tooling
resin.
Closed molding processes include resin infusion molding and resin
transfer molding. These processes are typically used to produce smaller
boat parts and involve packing a mold cavity with fiberglass
reinforcement and infusing the fiber with resin either under pressure,
where the resin is ``pushed'' into the mold cavity, or under vacuum,
where the air of the mold cavity is removed and replaced by resin. In
either process, the mold is sealed, to effectively transfer the resin
into the mold cavity and to control the saturation of the fiber
reinforcement.
The resins that are used in fiberglass boat manufacturing contain
styrene as a solvent and a cross-linking agent. Gel coats contain
styrene and methyl methacrylate (MMA) which provides resistance to
degradation of the gel coat by ultraviolet light. Styrene and MMA are
HAP, and, in an open mold process, a fraction evaporates during resin
and gel coat application and curing. Resins and gel coats containing
styrene and MMA are also used to make the molds used in the
manufacturing process. Mixing is done to resins or gel coats to mix the
resins and gel coats with promoters, fillers, or other additives before
being applied to the mold. Some HAP from the resins and gel coats are
emitted during the mixing process. Resin and gel coat application
equipment requires solvent cleaning to remove uncured resin or gel coat
when not in use. The resin or gel coat can catalyze in the hoses or gun
if not flushed with a solvent after each use.
For some types of boats, the void spaces between the walls of the
boat are filled with a foam to provide additional buoyancy to the boat,
once constructed. The foam is formed by pouring a two-part foam product
into the void space. The two-part product consists of resin, where the
HAP is predominantly styrene and 4,4'-diphenylmethane diisocyanate
(MDI), another HAP in the process. The MDI component of the foam is a
reactant that reacts with the resin, when combined, to form the
hardened polyurethane foam.
Fabric and carpet adhesive operations. The interiors of many types
of fiberglass boats and aluminum boats are covered with carpeting or
fabric to improve the appearance, provide traction, or deaden sound.
The material is bonded to the interior with contact adhesives. The
adhesives can include HAP such as methylene chloride, toluene, xylenes,
and methyl chloroform.
Aluminum boat surface coatings. Aluminum boat hull topsides and
decks are painted with coatings applied with spray guns. These coatings
may be high-gloss polyurethane coatings or low-gloss single-part
coatings. These surface coatings often contain HAP solvents, such as
toluene, xylenes, and isocyanates. The HAP-containing solvents are also
used to clean surfaces before finishing (wipe-down solvents) and for
cleaning paint and coating spray guns.
The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP regulates organic HAP from sources
that manufacture non-commercial and non-military aluminum boats or all
types of fiberglass boats. Coating operations on vessels used for
commercial and military purposes are covered by the Shipbuilding and
Repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II). The Boat Manufacturing
NESHAP applies to the following operations: All open molding
operations, including pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, production
resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat, and all closed molding
resin operations. The NESHAP regulates HAP emissions by setting a HAP
content limit for the resins and gel coats used at each regulated open
molding resin and gel coat operation. For each regulated open molding
resin operation, the NESHAP establishes separate HAP content limits for
atomized and non-atomized resin application methods. For closed molding
operations, no limits apply to the resin application operation if it
meets the specific definition of closed molding provided in the NESHAP.
If a molding operation does not meet the definition of closed molding
that is provided in the NESHAP, then it must comply with the applicable
emission limits for open molding. Other operations are subject to
either work practice requirements or HAP content limits, including the
following:
All resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning;
All resin and gel coat mixing operations; and
All carpet and fabric adhesive operations.
Resin and gel coat mixing containers with a capacity of 208 liters
(55 gallons) or more must be covered with tightly fitted lids. Routine
resin and gel coat equipment cleaning operations must use solvents
containing no more than 5-percent organic HAP, but solvents used to
remove cured resin or gel coat from equipment are exempt from the HAP
content limits. However, the containers used to hold the exempt solvent
and to clean equipment being used with cured resin and gel coat must be
covered, and there is an annual limit on the amount of exempt solvent
that can be used. Lastly, the NESHAP includes HAP limits for carpet and
fabric adhesives operations, limiting use to those adhesives that
contain no more than 5-percent organic HAP by weight.
The Boat Manufacturing NESHAP applies to aluminum recreational boat
manufacturing facilities performing the following operations:
All aluminum recreational boat surface coating and
associated spray gun cleaning and wipe-down solvent operations; and
All carpet and fabric adhesive operations.
The NESHAP includes the following requirements for aluminum
recreational boat manufacturing:
Aluminum wipe-down solvents are limited to no more than
0.33 kilograms of organic HAP per liter of total coating solids applied
(2.75 pounds per gallon) from aluminum primers, clear coats, and top
coats combined (no limit applies when cleaning surfaces are receiving
decals or adhesive graphics).
Aluminum recreational boat surface coatings (including
thinners, activators, primers, topcoats, and clear coats) are limited
to no more than 1.22 kilograms of organic HAP per liter of total
coating solids applied (10.18 pounds per gallon) from aluminum primers,
clear coats, and top coats combined.
Combined aluminum surface coatings and aluminum wipe-down
solvents are limited to no more than 1.55 kilograms of organic HAP per
liter of total coating solids applied (12.9 pounds per gallon) from
aluminum primers, clear coats, and top coats combined.
In addition, aluminum recreational boat manufacturing facilities
must meet work practice standards to ensure that spray guns are cleaned
and the cleaning solvent is stored in an enclosed device, and that the
enclosure remains closed when not in use.
The applicability of Boat Manufacturing NESHAP requirements is
described in greater detail in the 2001 rule (66 FR 44218) and 40 CFR
part 63, subpart VVVV.
2. What is the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category
and how does the current NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP was originally
promulgated on April 21, 2003 (68 FR 19375) and was amended on August
25, 2005 (70 FR 50118). The requirements
[[Page 22647]]
are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. The Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category includes the manufacturing of
reinforced and non-reinforced plastic composite products and the
production of plastic molding compounds used in the production of
plastic composite products. As with boat manufacturing, reinforced
plastic composite products are manufactured using resins containing
styrene. Some processes use gel coats containing styrene and MMA.
Operations also include mixing, tooling, and equipment cleaning. Many
of the reinforced plastic composites products are manufactured using an
open molding process similar to the boat manufacturing industry. As
with boat manufacturing, the air emissions resulting from an open mold
manufacturing process are fugitive in nature. Additionally, however,
the reinforced plastic composites production processes can include
pultrusion, sheet molding compound (SMC) and bulk molding compound
(BMC) manufacturing, filament winding, casting, and other processes.
The following paragraphs provide a brief description of some of the
various processes utilized in the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production source category.
Open Mold Process. The use of open molds is similar to the boat
manufacturing operations, where the mold is sprayed with a layer of gel
coat, or chopped glass fibers and polyester or vinylester resin.
Additional layers of fiberglass and resin are added until the
manufactured part is the final thickness. In addition, woven roving or
mats can also be used instead of chopped fiber, in which case a spray
gun would apply resin to saturate the fiberglass mat. Once the material
has been applied to the mold, brushes or rollers are used to remove any
entrapped air and to assure that the laminate is thoroughly ``wet.''
Pultrusion. Pultrusion is a continuous manufacturing process that
produces parts with constant cross-sectional shapes. In a pultrusion
operation, the composite is pulled through an extrusion-type die by a
gripper/puller system. Reinforcing fibers are pulled through a resin
bath where all materials are thoroughly impregnated with liquid resin.
The wet fibrous laminate is formed to the desired geometric shape in a
pre-forming section and pulled into the heated steel die. As an
alternative to using a resin bath, resin can be injected into the pre-
forming section (resin injection) or directly into the forming die (die
injection). In the die, the resin cure is initiated by elevated
temperatures. The laminate solidifies in the exact shape of the die
cavity as it is being continuously pulled by the pultrusion machine.
The cured product can then be cut to desired lengths.
Compression Molding. Compression molding operations involve
compressing the composite material under hydraulic pressure in matched
metal dies and holding the configured, condensed material in the
desired shape until the resin system has cured. The composite materials
used in the compression molding process include SMC and BMC. SMC
manufacturing includes an integrated composite material which contains
all reinforcement, resin, fillers, chemical thickeners, catalyst, mold
release agents, and other ingredients in an easily handled sheet. BMC
manufacturing includes preparing a putty-like molding compound, which
contains resins, catalysts, fillers, and reinforcements in a ``ready-
to-mold'' form. The production output in compression molding is
relatively high because the molding compounds cure rapidly in the
heated mold. The materials generally yield a good finish without
application of gel coat. Both surfaces of the molded product will be as
smooth as the mold surface.
Filament Winding. Filament winding is a composite production
process for manufacturing products that are surfaces of revolution. In
this process, fibers are impregnated with resin in a resin bath and
wrapped around a rotating mold surface following a machine controlled
geometric pattern. The product is then cured in an oven or at room
temperature. All types of reinforcing fibers can be utilized in
filament winding, but continuous glass fiber is most commonly used due
to its high specific strength and relative low cost. Different winding
patterns can be applied alone or in combination to achieve the desired
strength and shape characteristics.
Polymer Casting. In the polymer casting process, polymers, fillers,
and additives are combined by pouring or dispensing these materials
into open or partially open molds and allowing the materials to cure.
Fiberglass reinforcement is generally not used in cast polymer
products. In the polymer casting process, the resin matrix is catalyzed
and cast onto the mold which is usually vibrated to allow air bubbles
to escape. Following vibration, the product enters an exothermic stage
in which the matrix's chemical reaction generates heat that causes the
product to cure. In some cases, an oven is used to accelerate cure.
Centrifugal Casting. In centrifugal casting, resin and fiber
reinforcements (if needed) are deposited against the inside surface of
a rotating mold. A resin applicator which is often located in the
center of the rotating mold supplies the resin to the inside of the
cast. Centrifugal force holds the material in place while the part is
cured. The outside surface of the part, which is cured against the
inside surface of the mold, represents the finished surface. The
interior surface of the centrifugally cast part can be improved by
adding an additional coat of pure resin.
The Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP applies to
owners/operators of reinforced plastic composites production facilities
located at major sources of HAP emissions. Applicable production is
limited to operations in which reinforced and/or nonreinforced plastic
composites or plastic molding compounds are manufactured using
thermoset resins and/or gel coats that contain styrene to produce
plastic composites. Applicable operations also include cleaning,
mixing, HAP-containing materials storage, and repair operations
associated with the production of plastic composites. The Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production NESHAP does not apply to those facilities
who only repair reinforced plastic composites products. These repairs
include the non-routine manufacturing of individual components or parts
intended to repair a larger item. Additionally, the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA. Lastly, the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP is limited to those
facilities that use greater than 1.2 tpy of thermoset resins and gel
coats (combined) that contain styrene. Facilities are required to
incorporate pollution-prevention techniques in their production
processes. These techniques include the following:
Using raw materials containing low amounts of air toxics;
Non-atomized resin application; and
Covering open resin baths and tanks.
In general, the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP
requirements apply to three groups of operations, which include the
following:
Sources required to reduce HAP emissions by 95 percent;
Sources required to comply with work practice standards;
and
Sources required to comply with emission limits.
[[Page 22648]]
The applicability of these requirements is described in greater detail
in the 2003 rule (68 FR 19375), and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
For the residual risk assessment, the EPA sent out an information
collection request (ICR) to nine parent companies subject to the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP, requesting information regarding the boat
manufacturing process and the associated air emissions. The information
requested included description of HAP-emitting processes, information
on the HAP-containing materials used, estimates of emissions, and
descriptions of control technologies, if present. After receiving
information, as requested, from the boat manufacturing facilities
surveyed, the EPA compiled the data with the intent to use the
information as a reference to develop the risk assessment modeling
file. The ICR information provided supplemental information regarding
processes, the sources of HAP emissions, material usages, and stack
information. No ICR was sent to sources in the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category.
For both the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP RTR and the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production NESHAP RTR, the EPA used data from the
2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). 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 data
necessary for conducting risk modeling, including annual HAP emissions
estimates from individual emission points at facilities and the related
emissions release parameters. The EPA used NEI emissions and supporting
data as the primary data to develop the model input files for the
residual risk assessments for the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source categories. Additional information
on the development of the modeling file for each source category can be
found in Appendix 1 to the Residual Risk Assessment for the Boat
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447)
and Appendix 1 to the Residual Risk Assessment for the reinforced
Plastic Composites Production Source Category in Support of the 2018
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0449).
For both the risk modeling and technology review portion of these
RTRs, the EPA visited one boat manufacturing facility and six
reinforced plastic composites production facilities. During the visits,
the EPA discussed process operations, compliance with the existing
NESHAP, description of the emission points, process controls,
unregulated emissions, and other aspects of facility operations. We
used the information provided by the facilities to understand the
various operations, and in our evaluation of existing controls and new
developments in practices, processes, and control technologies for both
source categories. The site visit reports are included as attachments
to the memorandum, Technology Review for Boat Manufacturing and
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category, in the docket
for each source category (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 for the
Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for
the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP).
For both the risk modeling and technology review, the EPA also
gathered data from facility construction and operating permits
regarding emission points, air pollution control devices, and process
operations. We collected permits and supporting documentation from
state permitting authorities through state-maintained online databases.
The facility permits were also used to confirm that the facilities were
major sources of HAP and were subject to the NESHAP that are the
subject of these risk assessments. In certain cases, we contacted
facility owners or operators to confirm and clarify the sources of
emissions that were reported in the NEI.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
For the technology review portion of these RTRs, we collected
information from the Reasonably Available Control Technology, Best
Available Control Technology, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
Clearinghouse (RBLC). This is a database that contains case-specific
information on 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
above certain defined thresholds, an NSR permit must be obtained. The
RBLC promotes the sharing of information among permitting agencies and
aids in case-by-case determinations for NSR permits. We examined
information contained in the RBLC to determine what technologies are
currently used for these source categories to reduce air emissions.
Additional information about these data collection activities for
the technology reviews is contained in the technology review memorandum
titled Technology Review for Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production Source Category (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP).
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
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
[[Page 22649]]
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 risk within the exposed populations, cancer
incidence, and an evaluation of the potential for an adverse
environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's risk analysis is
consistent with the EPA's response to comments 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 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 risk. 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 an 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 the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source categories under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the categories.
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 risk, 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 an 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\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review (RTR)
Panel are provided in their report, which is available at: https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review 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, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. 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
[[Page 22650]]
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
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections
II.C and II.D of this preamble for information on the specific data
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see sections
IV.B and IV.G).
The EPA conducts 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 risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for the Boat Manufacturing
NESHAP rulemaking contains the following document which provides more
information on the risk assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk
Assessment for Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the
2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The docket for the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP rulemaking contains the
following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production Source Category in Support of the 2018
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess
risk (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent
with those described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of
the EPA's SAB in 2009; \4\ and described in the SAB review report
issued in 2010. They are also consistent with the key recommendations
contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA. 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, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The actual emissions and the emission release characteristics for
each facility in each of the two source categories were obtained from
the 2014 NEI. In addition, the EPA provided draft actual emissions data
and stack parameters to facilities in the two source categories for
review and confirmation. In some cases, facilities were contacted to
confirm emissions that appeared to be outliers, that were otherwise
inconsistent with our understanding of the industry, or that were
associated with high risk values in our initial risk screening
analyses. Where appropriate, emission values and release
characteristics were corrected, based on revised stack parameter
information provided by the facilities. These revisions were documented
and are included in the docket for each source category. Additional
information on the development of the modeling file for each source
category, including the development of the actual emissions and
emissions release characteristics, can be found in Appendix 1 to the
Residual Risk Assessment for Boat Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule document
and Appendix 1 to the Residual Risk Assessment for Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule document, located in the docket for
each source category (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 for the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP).
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 allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
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 RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects 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 steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
The MACT for each of the two source categories includes HAP limits
for materials (i.e., resin and gel coats) used during open molding
operations. A majority of the facilities in both source categories use
compliant materials to demonstrate compliance. The EPA's actual
emissions estimates were based on the category information reported in
the 2014 NEI. Since the majority of facilities use compliant materials,
it is reasonable to assume that the actual emissions and the allowable
emissions are equal. This is because the allowable limits of the MACT
represent the HAP content of the materials being used. Further, this
compliance approach is referenced in, and, therefore, required by
facility permits. However, to supplement this information, and to
estimate a more conservative allowable emissions multiplier, the EPA
gathered current and historical publicly available category-specific
data from the U.S. Census Bureau over a 5-year period
[[Page 22651]]
(2010 to 2014). Based an analysis of the source categories, and the
utilization information indicated by the U.S. Census Bureau data for
both source categories, the EPA calculated allowable emissions by
developing a multiplier applied to the current actual emission rates.
The multiplier is based on historical data and utilization rates for
each category for the years 2010 to 2014. The multiplier developed for
both source categories is the ratio of the peak utilization rate to the
average utilization rate for the years 2005 to 2014. Details regarding
the development of the allowable multiplier are presented in the
memorandum, Emissions Data for the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production, located in the docket for each source category
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP
and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP).
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\5\ 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 kilometer (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\6\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 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 \7\
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
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\7\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. 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.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk 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 incremental risk 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 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. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
In March 2018, the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) revised the weight of evidence classification of styrene to
Group 2A--``probably carcinogenic to humans.'' Presently, the EPA's
IRIS database and other reputable peer-reviewed sources of cancer dose-
response values are not available to assess cancer risks for this
pollutant.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications-volumes/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \9\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results
[[Page 22652]]
for all of the census blocks, and then dividing this result by a 70-
year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
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 risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 target organ or target organ
system to obtain a 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, 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'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS 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 the 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. The pollutant-specific dose-
response values used to estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. 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,\10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 factor to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for Boat
Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule document and the Residual Risk
Assessment for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source
Category in Support of the 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.'' \11\ 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.\12\ 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 parts per million (ppm) or milligrams per
cubic meter (mg/m\3\)) of a substance above which it is predicted that
the general population, including susceptible individuals, could
experience notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic
nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are
transient and reversible upon cessation of exposure.'' The document
also notes that ``Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent
exposure levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but
transient and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or
certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
\12\ National Academy of Sciences, 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 for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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
[[Page 22653]]
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 the Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production source categories, the hourly emission rates of the various
HAP will not have high variability during the manufacturing processes
and, therefore, are expected to remain constant over the time the
process is operating. This is because the application of resins and gel
coats, adhesives, foam, and other regulated sources of HAP in the
source categories are most efficient when applied at a constant
pressure, with maximum coverage, with the most efficient spray patterns
and number of passes made by the operator. Based on this information,
the default acute emission factor of 10 times the annual hourly
emission rate is not reasonable for the Boat Manufacturing and
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories. However,
many facilities do not operate three shifts a day. Therefore, a days
worth of emissions may occur over a time period of as little as 8
hours. With this understanding of the processes, we, therefore, assumed
the maximum rate of emissions would occur in this 8-hour period each
day. Based on this information, an acute emission factor of 3 was
calculated to be applied to actual annual hourly emission rates,
derived from the ratio of an 8-hour shift in a 24-hour day. A further
discussion of why this factor was chosen can be found in the
memorandum, Emissions Data for the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production, available in the dockets for this rulemaking
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP
and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP).
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which 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 exposures of concern. These
refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual Risk Assessment
for Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule document and the Residual Risk
Assessment for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category
in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule
document, which are available in the docket for each of the respective
source categories.
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts 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 determine
whether any sources in the source categories emit any HAP known to be
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 Boat Manufacturing source category, we identified PB-HAP
emissions of arsenic, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and cadmium, and
for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category, we
identified PB-HAP emissions of arsenic, POM, cadmium, and mercury, so
we proceeded to the next step of the evaluation. In this step, we
determine whether the facility-specific emission rates of the emitted
PB-HAP are large enough to create the potential for significant human
health risk through ingestion exposure under reasonable worst-case
conditions. To facilitate this step, we use previously developed
screening threshold emission rates for several PB-HAP that are based on
a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario developed for use
in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate,
Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. The PB-HAP with
screening threshold emission rates are arsenic compounds, cadmium
compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, mercury compounds,
and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and bioaccumulation
potential, the pollutants above represent a conservative list for
inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See Volume
1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201308/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf). In the assessments for the Boat
Manufacturing source category, and for the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category, we compare the facility-specific
emission rates of these PB-HAP to the screening threshold emission
rates for each PB-HAP to assess the potential for significant human
health risks via the ingestion pathway. We call this application of the
TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening assessment. The ratio of a
facility's actual emission rate to the Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rate is a ``screening value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening
assessment.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a United
States Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies
within 50 km of each facility. We also examine the differences between
local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the
Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each
facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local
meteorology and USGS waterbody data. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a
facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates and data
are available, we may conduct a Tier 3 screening assessment. If PB-HAP
emission rates do not exceed a Tier 2 screening value of 1, we consider
those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks below a level of concern.
[[Page 22654]]
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport. If the Tier 3 screening assessment
indicates that risks above levels of concern cannot be ruled out, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds reported by both source categories, rather than
developing a screening threshold emission rate, we compare maximum
estimated chronic inhalation exposure concentrations to the level of
the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\14\
Values below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are
considered to have a low potential for multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see the Residual Risk Assessment for Boat Manufacturing Source Category
in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule
document and the Residual Risk Assessment for Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule document, which are available in the
respective dockets for the source categories in this action.
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect 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, POM, 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, are 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 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 Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the
2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule document and the Residual
Risk Assessment for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source
Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule document, which are available in the docket for the source
categories in this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Boat Manufacturing or
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source categories emitted any
of the environmental HAP. For the Boat Manufacturing source category,
we identified emissions of arsenic, POM, cadmium, and HCl. For the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category, we identified
emissions of arsenic, POM, cadmium, mercury, and HCl. Because one or
more of the environmental HAP evaluated above are emitted by at least
one facility in the source categories, we proceeded to the second step
of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment.
TRIM.FaTE model simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1
screening threshold emission rates. The screening threshold emission
rates represent the emission rate in tpy that results in media
concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological
benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the
reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to the Tier 1
screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each assessment
endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes''
the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further
under the screening
[[Page 22655]]
approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 1 screening
threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to account for local meteorology
and the actual location of lakes in the vicinity of facilities that did
not pass the Tier 1 screening assessment. For soils, we evaluate the
average soil concentration for all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius
for each facility and PB-HAP. For the water, sediment, and fish tissue
concentrations, the highest value for each facility for each pollutant
is used. If emission concentrations from a facility do not exceed the
Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the
screening assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If
emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold
emission rate, we evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for Boat Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule document
and the Residual Risk Assessment for Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule document, which are available in the docket for
the source categories in this action.
6. How do 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 the source categories in this action, we conducted the facility-
wide assessment using datasets compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source
category records of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and
updated as described in section II.C of this preamble: What data
collection activities were conducted to support this action? Once a
quality assured source category dataset was available, it was placed
back with the remaining records from the NEI for that facility. The
facility-wide file was then used to analyze risks due to the inhalation
of HAP that are emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing
within 50 km of each facility, consistent with the methods used for the
source category analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk
analyses, the modeled source category risks were compared to the
facility-wide risks to determine the portion of the 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 Boat Manufacturing Source
Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule document and the Residual Risk Assessment for Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule document, available through the docket
for the source categories in 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 do 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 datasets, 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
Boat Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule document and the Residual Risk
Assessment for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category
in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule
document, which are available in the source category dockets for this
action.
[[Page 22656]]
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions datasets involved
quality assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions
values will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to
which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions
made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in emission
estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates considered in the
analysis for each source category generally are annual totals for 2014,
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
an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual hourly
emission rates, 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 most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk 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 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
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'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 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.\15\
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). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\16\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose 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,\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\16\ 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.
\17\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 22657]]
could be considered significant and widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by these source categories
are lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants
cannot be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could
result in quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to
alleviate this potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity
with a HAP for which a dose-response value is available, we use that
value as a surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value
is available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable
risk, we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS
assessment for that substance. We additionally note that, generally
speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental exposures and
hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have been
performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP
not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively
and considered in the risk characterization that informs the risk
management decisions, including consideration of HAP reductions
achieved by various control options.
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.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
[[Page 22658]]
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses for the
Boat Manufacturing source category?
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the
inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation
cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current
actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the Boat Manufacturing
source category was estimated to be 0.2-in-1 million and 0.3-in-1
million, respectively, from HAP being emitted from the open molding
(resin/gelcoat) manufacturing process. The total estimated cancer
incidence from the Boat Manufacturing source category based on actual
emission levels is 0.00001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in
every 100,000 years. The total estimated cancer incidence from boat
manufacturing industry emission sources based on allowable emission
levels is 0.00002 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every
50,000 years. Emissions of nickel compounds, ethyl benzene, and
tetrachloroethene contributed 95 percent to this cancer incidence.
Based upon actual or allowable emissions, no people were exposed to
cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million.
Table 2--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Boat Manufacturing Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer MIR (in-1 million) Population
----------------------------------------------- Cancer Population with risk of
incidence with risk of 1- 10-in-1 Max chronic noncancer HI
Based on actual Based on allowable (cases per in-1 million million or (actuals and allowables)
emissions emissions year) or greater greater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category................ 0.2 (nickel compounds, 0.3 (nickel 0.00001 0 0 HI <1
ethyl benzene, compounds, ethyl
tetrachloroethene). benzene,
tetrachloroethene).
Whole Facility................. 0.4 (naphthalene)..... ..................... 0.00004 0 0 HI = 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI values for the source category,
based on actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be less than
1, with cobalt compounds driving the TOSHI value from open contact
molding (resin spray layup and spray gel coat application) processes.
2. Acute Risk Results
Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum acute
noncancer HQ value for the source category was equal to 1 from styrene
emissions (based on the acute (1-hr) REL for styrene). As noted above
in section III.C.3.c, the highest HQ assumes that the primary source of
the styrene emissions from open molding (resin/gelcoat) operations was
modeled with an hourly emissions multiplier of 3 times the annual
emissions rate. Acute HQs are not calculated for allowable or whole
facility emissions.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicated one
facility reporting PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual
emissions) for the source category, with no exceedences of the
screening values for the carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic and POM
compounds) or the noncarcinogenic PB-HAP (cadmium). The remaining PB-
HAP, mercury and dioxins/furans, were not emitted by any facility in
the source category.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead, we compared modeled hourly lead concentrations to the
secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\). The highest hourly lead
concentration, 0.054 [micro]g/m\3\, is below the NAAQS for lead,
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to
lead.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Boat Manufacturing
source category for the following five pollutants: Cadmium, arsenic,
lead, POM, and HCl. For the three remaining pollutants (dioxin/furans,
mercury, and HF) an environmental risk screening assessment was not
performed because these pollutants are not emitted by the Boat
Manufacturing source category.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), we did not find any exceedances of the
ecological benchmarks evaluated. For lead, we did not find any
exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl, the average modeled
concentration around
[[Page 22659]]
each facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data
points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark.
In addition, each individually modeled concentration of HCl (i.e., each
off-site data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological
benchmarks for all facilities. Based on the results of the
environmental risk screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of PB-HAP emissions from this source
category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate none
of the 93 facilities have a facility-wide cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million; refer to Table 2. The maximum facility-wide
cancer risk is 0.4-in-1 million, mainly driven by naphthalene emissions
from fiberglass resin product (atomized spray of gel coat) processes.
The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is
0.00004 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 25,000
years, with no people estimated to have cancer risks greater than or
equal to 1-in-1 million from exposure to whole facility emissions.
The maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to
be equal to 1, mainly driven by emissions of styrene from open contact
molding (resin spray layup and spray gel coat application) processes.
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 Boat Manufacturing
source category across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 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, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of the demographic analysis indicate that, for 7 of the 11
demographic groups, Hispanic or Latino, minority, people living below
the poverty level, linguistically isolated people, adults without a
high school diploma, adults 65 years of age or older, and African
Americans, the percentage of the population that resides 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 emissions from boat manufacturing
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 Boat Manufacturing
Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect for the Boat
Manufacturing source category?
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).
For the Boat Manufacturing source category, the risk analysis
indicates that the cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be
up to 0.2-in-1 million due to actual emissions and up to 0.3-in-1
million based on allowable emissions. These risks are considerably less
than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper limit of
acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer incidence
(0.00001 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.00002 cases per year
for allowable emissions). We did not identify potential for adverse
chronic noncancer health effects. The acute noncancer risks based on
actual emissions are low at an HQ of 1 for styrene. Therefore, we find
there is little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts
from actual emissions. In addition, the risk assessment indicates no
significant potential for multipathway health effects.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section
III.C.7 of this preamble, we propose that the risks from the Boat
Manufacturing source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost
and feasibility of available control 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 Boat Manufacturing
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. As noted in section
VI.A of this preamble, no additional control measures were identified
for reducing HAP emissions from the Boat Manufacturing source category.
Thus, we are proposing that the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP provides and
ample margin of safety to protect health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
As described in section III.A, and in section IV.A.4 of this
preamble, we conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for
the Boat Manufacturing source category for the following five
pollutants: Cadmium, arsenic, lead, POM, and HCl. For the three
remaining pollutants (dioxin/furans, mercury, and HF), an environmental
risk screening assessment was not performed because these pollutants
are not emitted by the Boat Manufacturing source category.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), we did not find any exceedances of the
ecological benchmarks evaluated. For lead, we did not find any
exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl, the average modeled
concentration around each facility (i.e., the average concentration of
all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any
ecological benchmark. In addition, each individually modeled
[[Page 22660]]
concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling
domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
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 for the Boat Manufacturing source category?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on the identification and evaluation of developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since
the MACT standards were promulgated. In conducting the technology
review, we reviewed various informational sources regarding the
emissions from the Boat Manufacturing source category. The review
included a search of the RBLC database, reviews of air permits for boat
manufacturing facilities, 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 Boat Manufacturing NESHAP. We also looked for
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the development of the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP.
After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did
not identify any new developments in processes or control technologies
used at boat manufacturing facilities. We also considered improvements
in thermal oxidizers as HAP controls, given they were identified as
potential add-on controls in the July 14, 2000, proposed rule (65 FR
43851). We did not identify any improvements in performance of thermal
oxidizers, and we continue to believe that a thermal oxidizer is not a
cost-effective add-on control option for this source category, due to
the direct costs associated with high energy requirements for dilute
HAP streams or the costs associated with operating a capture and
control system (for concentrated HAP streams).
Based on the technology review, we have determined that there are
no cost-effective developments in processes or control technologies
that warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category.
We identified and seek comment on a general practice utilized by many
boat manufacturing facilities that has potential to reduce the amount
of HAP emissions emitted in open molding resin and gel coat application
operations. Specifically, we reviewed the practice that some facilities
in the boat manufacturing industry have implemented which includes
training their spray gun operators to deliver a controlled spray when
applying resin and/or gel coat during open molding production. Industry
representatives indicated that controlling the amount of overspray from
resins and/or gel coat application during open molding operations could
potentially reduce HAP emissions by 40 to 50 percent. From a practical
standpoint, controlling overspray reduces the amount of resin or gel
coat that is wasted and not applied to the product being manufactured;
the EPA seeks comment to determine whether this practice is widely used
by industry, whether significant HAP reductions are achieved industry-
wide, or whether HAP reductions can be achieved in the manufacturing of
large and small boats or large and small boat parts.
The EPA will review the information provided in public responses to
determine whether the rule should be amended to include a controlled-
spray training program as a work practice standard. Additional
information of our technology review can be found in the memorandum,
Technology Review for Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production Source Category, which is available in the docket
for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447).
D. What other actions are we proposing for the Boat Manufacturing
source category?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP. We are
proposing revisions to the SSM provisions of the rule in order to
ensure that it is 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 to revise the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP to
include electronic reporting provisions. Our analyses and proposed
changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM Requirements
a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the 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 SSM exemptions in this rule,
including any reference to requirements included in 40 CFR part 63,
part A (General Provisions). 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 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV,
as is explained in more detail below. For example, we are proposing to
eliminate the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that
each 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. 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
[[Page 22661]]
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 approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the 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).
b. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 8 to
40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV) 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.
We are proposing to revise Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV,
to indicate that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) does not apply to 40
CFR part 63, subpart VVVV. The cross-references to the general duty and
SSM plan
[[Page 22662]]
requirements in those subparagraphs of the General Provisions 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 Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV,
to indicate that 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) does not apply to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVV. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the
General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable.
We are proposing to revise the Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVV, 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 Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV,
to indicate 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii), 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv), and 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(v) do not apply. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing
to amend the requirements of 40 CFR 63.5767(d) to indicate that if a
facility has an add-on control device, they must keep records of any
failures to meet the applicable standards, including the date, time,
and duration of the failure. The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR
63.5767(d) a requirement that sources keep records that include a list
of the affected add-on control device 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. 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.
The provision of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv), when applicable, 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 63.5767(d).
The provision of 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v), when applicable, 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 Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV,
to indicate that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) does not 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.
We are proposing to revise the Table 8 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVV, 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 63.5764. 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 with add-on control devices 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) 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.
c. Definitions
We are proposing that definitions of ``Startup'' and ``Shutdown''
be added to 40 CFR 63.5779. 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 add-on control
devices. 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 add-on control devices that
define startup and shutdown for purposes of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVV.
We are proposing that the definition of ``Deviation'' in 40 CFR
63.5779 be revised to remove language that differentiates between
normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP submit
[[Page 22663]]
electronic copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h),
performance test reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX), using the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data
submission process is provided in the memorandum, ``Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules,'' available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447. The proposed
rule requires that performance test results collected using test
methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)
as listed on the ERT website \20\ at the time of the test be submitted
in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that other
performance test results be submitted in portable document format using
the attachment module of the ERT. For semiannual reports, the proposed
rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate spreadsheet
template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of the
proposed template for these reports is included in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447). The EPA specifically
requests comment on the content, layout, and overall design of the
template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5764. 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
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in
40 CFR 63.5764. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war
or terrorism, equipment failure, or safety hazards beyond the control
of the facility.
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 and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and
[[Page 22664]]
the EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
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 the affected facilities, air agencies, the
EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with
the EPA's plan \21\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in
keeping with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \22\ developed in response to
the White House's Digital Government Strategy.\23\ For more information
on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\22\ 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.
\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, we are amending the rule to include 40 CFR 63.5765
describing the provisions for electronic reporting. In addition, 40 CFR
63.5770 has been amended to indicate that records may be stored as
electronic documents.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing for the Boat Manufacturing
source category?
The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before May 17, 2019 must comply
with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and compliance reports,
no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule, or
upon startup, whichever is later. Affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after May 17, 2019 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed,
with the exception of the proposed electronic format for submitting
notifications and compliance reports, 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 VVVV, until the applicable compliance date of
the amended 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 two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
VVVV. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are also proposing
to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. 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 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; 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 all affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before May 17, 2019
be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised requirements
within 180 days of the regulation's effective date.
We solicit comment on the proposed compliance periods, 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 dates.
F. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses for the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category?
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 3 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the
inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation
cancer risk assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current
actual and allowable emissions, the MIR posed by the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category was estimated to be 4-in-1
million for both model runs, from volatile organic compound HAP being
emitted from pultrusion processes. The total estimated cancer incidence
from reinforced plastic composites production emission sources based on
actual and allowable emission levels is 0.001 excess cancer cases per
year, or one case in every 1,000 years. Emissions of acrylonitrile,
naphthalene, ethyl benzene, and benzo(ghi)perylene contributed 91
percent to this cancer incidence. Based upon actual emissions, 1,500
people were exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million; for allowable emissions, approximately 2,100 people were
estimated to be exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million.
[[Page 22665]]
Table 3--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer MIR (in-1 million) Population
----------------------------------------------- Cancer Population with risk of
incidence with risk of 1- 10-in-1 Max chronic noncancer HI
Based on actual Based on allowable (cases per in-1 million million or (actuals and allowables)
emissions emissions year) or greater greater
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category................ 4 (formaldehyde, ethyl 4 (formaldehyde, 0.001 1,500 0 HI = 1
benzene). ethyl benzene).
Whole Facility................. 20 (cadmium,7-12- ..................... 0.001 4,500 800 HI = 1
dimethylbenz
[a]anthracene,
nickel, formaldehyde.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI values for the source category,
based on actual emissions, were estimated to be 1, with cobalt
compounds driving the TOSHI value from the application of gel-coat and
resins.
2. Acute Risk Results
Worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for which there
is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The maximum off-
site acute noncancer HQ value for the source category was equal to 3
from styrene emissions (based on the acute (1-hour) REL). The acute
risks were based on actual emissions utilizing an hourly emissions
multiplier of 3 times the annual emissions rate. Acute HQs are not
calculated for allowable or whole facility emissions.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that
PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from the
source category did not exceed the screening values for the
carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic compounds) or the noncarcinogenic PB-HAP
(cadmium and mercury) that were emitted by 100 facilities of the 448
facilities in the source category. The only carcinogenic PB-HAP to
exceed the Tier 1 screening value of 1 was POM compounds from two
facilities with a maximum Tier 1 cancer screening value of 6. No
additional multipathway screening was conducted for this source
category.
An exceedance of a screening value in any of the tiers cannot be
equated with a risk value or a HQ (or HI). Rather, it represents a
high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard may be. For example,
facility emissions exceeding the screening value by a factor of 2 for a
non-carcinogen can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that
the HQ would be lower than 2. Similarly, facility emissions exceeding
the screening value by a factor of 20 for a carcinogen means that we
are confident that the risk is lower than 20-in-1 million. Our
confidence comes from the health-protective assumptions that are in the
screens: We choose inputs from the upper end of the range of possible
values for the influential parameters used in the screens; and we
assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion behavior that
would lead to a high total exposure.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead, we compared modeled hourly lead concentrations to the
secondary NAAQS for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\). The highest hourly lead
concentration, 0.013 [micro]g/m\3\, is below the NAAQS for lead,
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to
lead.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
As described in section III.A of this preamble, we conducted an
environmental risk screening assessment for the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category for the following six pollutants:
Cadmium, mercury, arsenic, lead, POM, and HCl. For the remaining two
pollutants (dioxin/furans and HF), an environmental risk screening
assessment was not performed because these pollutants are not emitted
by the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), we did not find any exceedances of the
ecological benchmarks evaluated. For lead, we did not estimate any
exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl, the average modeled
concentration around each facility (i.e., the average concentration of
all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any
ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual modeled
concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling
domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities. Based
on the results of the environmental risk screening analysis, we do not
expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions
from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that
eleven of the 448 facilities have a facility-wide cancer risk greater
than or equal to 1-in-1 million, and 1 facility has a facility-wide
cancer risk greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million; refer to Table 4.
The maximum facility-wide cancer risk is 20-in-1 million, mainly driven
by cadmium compounds emissions from in-process fuel use of natural gas.
The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility is
0.001 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 1,000 years,
with 4,500 people estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million from exposure to whole facility emissions and 800
people estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 10-in-1
million.
The maximum facility-wide chronic non-cancer TOSHI is estimated to
be equal to 1, mainly driven by cobalt emissions from the application
of gel-coats and resins.
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 risk 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 risk from the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category across different demographic
groups
[[Page 22666]]
within the populations living near facilities.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 4--Reinforced Plastic Composites Production Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with cancer
risk at or above 1-in-1 Population with chronic
Nationwide million due to HI above 1 due to
Reinforced Plastic Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production Composites Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population..................... 317,746,049 1,564 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................ 62 62 0
All Other Races...................... 38 38 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................ 62 62 0
African American..................... 12 26 0
Native American...................... 0.8 0 0
Hispanic or Latino................... 18 7 0
Other and Multiracial................ 7 5 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic............................. 18 7 0
Non-Hispanic......................... 82 93 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................. 14 42 0
Above Poverty Level.................. 86 58 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School 14 16 0
Diploma.............................
Over 25 and with a High School 86 84 0
Diploma.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source
category expose approximately 1,600 people to a cancer risk at or above
1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than
1. The percentages of the at-risk population for 3 of the 11
demographic groups, people living below the poverty level, adults
without a high school diploma, and African Americans, that reside
within 50 km of facilities in the source category are greater than the
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups.
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 Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production Source Category, available in the docket for this
action.
G. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect for the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source category?
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).
For the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source category,
the risk analysis indicates that the cancer risks to the individual
most exposed could be up to 4-in-1 million due to actual emissions and
up to 4-in-1 million based on allowable emissions. These risks are
considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the presumptive upper
limit of acceptable risk. The risk analysis also shows very low cancer
incidence (0.001 cases per year for actual emissions and 0.001 cases
per year for allowable emissions), and we did not identify potential
for adverse chronic noncancer health effects. The results of the acute
screening analysis estimate a maximum acute noncancer HQ of 3 based on
the acute REL for styrene. To better characterize the potential health
risks associated with estimated worst-case acute exposures to HAP, we
examine a wider range of available acute health metrics than we do for
our chronic risk assessments. This is in acknowledgement that there are
generally more data gaps and uncertainties in acute reference values
[[Page 22667]]
than there are in chronic reference values. By definition, the acute
REL represents a health-protective level of exposure, with effects not
anticipated below those levels, even for repeated exposures; however,
the level of exposure that would cause health effects is not
specifically known. As the exposure concentration increases above the
acute REL, the potential for effects increases. Therefore, when an REL
is exceeded and an AEGL-1 or ERPG-1 level is available (i.e., levels at
which mild, reversible effects are anticipated in the general public
for a single exposure), we typically use them as an additional
comparative measure, as they provide an upperbound for exposure levels
above which exposed individuals could experience effects.
Based on the AEGL-1 for styrene, the HQ is less than 1 (0.7), below
the level at which mild, reversible effects would be anticipated. In
addition, the acute screening assessment includes the conservative
(health protective) assumptions that every process releases its peak
hourly emissions at the same hour, that the worst-case dispersion
conditions occur at that same hour, and that an individual is present
at the location of maximum concentration for that hour. Together, these
factors lead us to conclude that significant acute effects are not
anticipated due to emissions from this category. In addition, the risk
assessment indicates no significant potential for multipathway health
effects.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, we propose to find that the risks from the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluated the cost
and feasibility of available control 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 Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production 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. As noted in section IV.I of this preamble, no additional
control measures were identified for reducing HAP emissions from
sources in the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category. Thus, we are proposing that the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect health.
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
As described in sections III.A and IV.F.4, of this preamble, we
conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source category for the following six
pollutants: Cadmium, mercury, arsenic, lead, POM, and HCl. For arsenic,
an environmental risk screening assessment was not performed because
this pollutant is not emitted by the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production source category.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), we did not find any exceedances of the
ecological benchmarks evaluated. For lead, we did not estimate any
exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl, the average modeled
concentration around each facility (i.e., the average concentration of
all off-site data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed any
ecological benchmark. In addition, each individual modeled
concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data point in the modeling
domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for all facilities.
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.
H. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on the identification and evaluation of developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies that have occurred since
the MACT standards were promulgated. In conducting the technology
review, we reviewed various informational sources regarding the
emissions from the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category. The review included a search of the RBLC database, reviews of
air permits for reinforced plastic composites production facilities,
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 Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP. We also looked for information on
improvements in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since development of the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP.
After reviewing information from the aforementioned sources, we did
not identify any new developments in processes or control technologies
used at reinforced plastic composites production facilities. We
considered improvements in thermal oxidizers as HAP controls, given
they were identified as potential add-on controls in the August 2,
2001, proposed rule (66 FR 40333). We did not identify any improvements
in performance of thermal oxidizers, and we continue to believe that a
thermal oxidizer is not a cost effective add-on control option for
existing sources in this source category, due to the direct costs
associated with high energy requirements for dilute HAP streams or the
costs associated with operating a capture and control system. As with
the Boat Manufacturing source category, we evaluated a controlled-spray
training program as a practice that has potential to reduce the amount
of HAP emitted in open molding resin and gel coat application
operations. Specifically, we observed some facilities in the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source category implementing a practice
where the amount of overspray, during resin or gel coat application,
was being weighed to determine the application efficiency. Further
discussions with facility representatives and with the trade
association indicated that facilities train their spray gun operators
to deliver a controlled spray when applying resin and/or gel coat
during open molding production, and that the practice of weighing the
amount of overspray is an indicator of the effectiveness of their
training program. As with the Boat Manufacturing source category, the
EPA is seeking comment to determine the amount of HAP reductions that
could be achieved, and whether HAP reductions can be applicable to all
open mold production operations by all facilities in the source
category. The EPA seeks
[[Page 22668]]
comment to determine whether this practice is widely used by industry,
whether significant HAP reductions are achieved industry-wide, or
whether HAP reductions can be achieved in the manufacturing of large
and small parts.
Based on the technology review, we determined that there are no
cost-effective developments in processes or control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. We
will review any information provided in public responses to determine
whether the rule should be amended to include a controlled-spray
training program as standard cost-effective means to reduce HAP
emissions. Additional details of our technology review can be found in
the memorandum, Technology Review for Boat Manufacturing and Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production Source Category, which is available in
the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449).
I. What other actions are we proposing for the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category?
In addition to the proposed actions described above, we are
proposing additional revisions to the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP. We are proposing revisions to the SSM provisions 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 to revise the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP to include electronic reporting
provisions. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these issues
are discussed below.
1. SSM Requirements
a. Proposed Elimination of the SSM Exemption
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP which appears at 40 CFR
63.5835(b). As discussed at greater length in section IV.D.a and
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 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW (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 each 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 in
section IV.I.1 of this preamble, has not proposed alternate standards
for those periods.
b. Proposed Revisions to the General Provisions Applicability Table
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 15
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW) to indicate that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)
does not apply to the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP.
We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.5835(b) 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
63.5835(b) does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, to indicate that 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) does not apply.
We are proposing to revise the Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3
to a ``no.'' As previously stated, these paragraphs require development
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. As noted, since the EPA is proposing to remove
the SSM exemptions, 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.
We are proposing to revise the Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, 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.
We are proposing to revise Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, to indicate that 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) does not apply. Section
63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing requirements. The EPA is
instead proposing to revise performance testing requirement at 40 CFR
63.5850(d). 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.
We are proposing to revise Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, to indicate that 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii) do not apply to
40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. 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
[[Page 22669]]
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 Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, to indicate 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) does not apply.
We are proposing to revise the Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, 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 Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) through (v) by changing the
``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Sections 63.10(b)(2)(ii) through (v)
describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. The EPA is proposing to add such requirements to 40 CFR
63.5915(a). 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.'' In this rule amendment the EPA is proposing to add
to 40 CFR 63.5915(a) 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. 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 Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, to indicate that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) does not apply. When
applicable, the provision allowed 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.
We are proposing to revise the Table 15 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW, 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 63.5910(h). 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 the semiannual
compliance report. 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. 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.
c. Proposed Revisions to Definitions
We are proposing that the definition of ``Deviation'' in 40 CFR
63.5900(e) be revised to remove language that differentiates between
normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events.
2. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP submit
electronic copies of initial notifications required in 40 CFR 63.9(b),
notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h),
performance test reports, and semiannual reports through the EPA's CDX,
using CEDRI. A description of the electronic data submission process is
provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449. The proposed rule requires that performance test
results collected using test methods that are supported by the EPA's
ERT as listed on the ERT website \25\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
using the attachment module of the ERT. For semiannual reports, the
proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate
spreadsheet template to submit information to CEDRI. A draft version of
the proposed template for these reports is included in the docket for
this rulemaking (Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449). The EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the template.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has identified two broad circumstances in which electronic
reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances, the
decision to accept the claim of needing additional time to report is
within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should occur
as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these potential extensions to
protect owners and operators from noncompliance in cases where they
cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting deadline for
reasons outside of their control. The situation where an extension may
be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI which precludes
an owner or operator from accessing the system and submitting required
reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5910. 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 prevents an owner or
operator from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically as required by this rule is addressed in 40 CFR 63.5910.
Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism,
equipment failure, or safety hazards beyond the control of the
facility.
[[Page 22670]]
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 and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. 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 the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \26\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
agency-wide policy \27\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\28\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\27\ 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.
\28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, we are amending the rule to include 40 CFR 63.5912
describing the provisions for electronic reporting. In addition, 40 CFR
63.5920 has been amended to indicate that records may be stored as
electronic documents.
3. Correction to Table 4, Work Practice Standards.
In this action, we are adding text to Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart WWWW to clarify that mixers that route emissions to a capture
and control device system that is at least 95- percent efficient
overall are not required to have covers. In the 2003 NESHAP rulemaking,
we determined that MACT for existing sources was pollution prevention
measures (for mixing and BMC manufacturing operations) and that MACT
for new sources was 95-percent control. We also considered whether the
new source MACT floor for mixing operations should be incorporation of
the pollution prevention measures (in this case covering the mixers)
combined with 95-percent control. We determined that the best
controlled facilities which route emissions to a 95-percent efficient
control device do not also incorporate the best pollution prevention
techniques. Therefore, we concluded that combining the pollution
prevention requirements with the 95-percent control requirements would
result in an overall control level that exceeds the levels at the best
controlled facilities. (66 FR 40332, August 2, 2001). However, the text
in table 4 of the regulation did not directly address whether mixers
that capture and control emissions by 95 percent overall need to have
covers. We have added text in line 6 of table 4 to clarify that covers
are not required for mixers that fully capture and route emissions to a
control device with at least 95-percent efficiency.
J. What compliance dates are we proposing for the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production source category?
The EPA is proposing that affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before May 17, 2019 must comply
with all of the amendments, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and compliance reports,
no later than 180 days after the effective date of the final rule.
Affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after May
17, 2019 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including
the amendments being proposed, with the exception of the proposed
electronic format for submitting notifications and compliance reports,
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 WWWW, until
the applicable compliance date of the amended 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 two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
WWWW. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
compliance reports be submitted electronically. We are also proposing
to change the requirements for SSM by removing the exemption from the
requirements to meet the standard during SSM periods and by removing
the requirement to develop and implement an SSM plan. 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 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; 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 all affected sources
that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before May 17, 2019
be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised requirements
within 180 days of the regulation's effective date.
We solicit comment on the proposed compliance periods, 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 dates.
[[Page 22671]]
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The EPA estimates that there are 93 boat manufacturing facilities
that are subject to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP affected by the
proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV, and 448 reinforced
plastic composites production facilities subject to the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production NESHAP, affected by the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW. The bases of our estimates
of affected facilities are provided in the memorandum, Emissions Data
for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Boat Manufacturing and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Reinforced Plastic Composites Production, which is
available in the respective dockets for this action. We are not
currently aware of any planned or potential new or reconstructed
manufacturing facilities in either of the source categories.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
All major sources in the two source categories would be required to
comply with the relevant emission standards at all times without the
SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the specific emissions
reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption. However,
eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to reduce emissions by
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM
periods.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The one-time cost associated with reviewing the revised rules and
becoming familiar with the electronic reporting requirements is
estimated to be $446,448 (2016$); the one-time cost is composed of
$75,629 for the Boat Manufacturing source category (93 facilities), and
$370,819 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category (448 facilities). The total cost per facility in the Boat
Manufacturing source category is estimated to be $399 per facility to
review the final rule requirements and $414 per facility to become
familiar with the electronic reporting requirements. The total cost per
facility in the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production source
category is estimated to be $414 per facility to review the final rule
requirements and $414 per facility to become familiar with the
electronic reporting requirements. All other costs associated with
notifications, reporting, and recordkeeping are believed to be
unchanged because the facilities in each source category are currently
required to comply with notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements, and will continue to be required to comply with those
requirements. The number of personnel-hours required to develop the
materials in support of reports required by the NESHAP remain
unchanged.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to a proposed rule.
The cost per facility for all of the facilities in both source
categories to review the proposed rule requirements and to become
familiar with the electronic reporting requirements are less than 1
percent of annual sales revenues. These costs are not expected to
result in a significant market impact, regardless of whether they are
passed on to the purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
In addition, the EPA prepared a small business screening assessment
to determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. As
result of our small business screening, we have identified 73 out of
the 93 facilities in the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP as small entities,
while 309 out of the 448 facilities in the Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production NESHAP are small entities. For both industries,
the costs associated with becoming familiar with the proposed rule
requirements and to become familiar with the electronic reporting
requirements are less than 1 percent of their annual sales revenues.
Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities from these proposed amendments.
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA does not anticipate reductions in HAP emissions as a result
of the proposed amendments to the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP or the
Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP. Because these proposed
amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by
Executive Order 12866, and because no emission reductions were
estimated, we did not estimate any health benefits from reducing
emissions.
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.
During site visits to various reinforced plastic composites
production facilities, the EPA noted that a common practice observed at
multiple facilities was the weighing of overspray collected from the
floor as an indicator of spray efficiency. Overspray in this context
would refer to the resin or gel coat that has left the spray gun, but
was not applied to the product being manufactured. The EPA is also
aware of a controlled-spray certification program offered by the
American Composites Manufacturers Association (ACMA). After discussing
the training program in greater detail with ACMA, and general
controlled-spray training with the National Marine Manufacturers
Association (NMMA), we are soliciting comment to collect information
regarding the potential cost and benefit of revising the Boat
Manufacturing NESHAP and/or the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP to include controlled-spray training as a work
practice standard. The work practice standard would apply to operations
where styrene-containing resins and gel coats are sprayed onto an open
mold. Refer to the memorandum with the subject, Controlled Spray
Program: Request for Comments, in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449
for the Reinforced Plastic Composites Production NESHAP). The
referenced document includes background information related to
controlling overspray during open molding operations, description of
the type of information we are currently seeking, and proposed work
practice language for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP and the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Manufacturing NESHAP.
[[Page 22672]]
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/ttn/atw/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-2016-0447 for the Boat Manufacturing NESHAP
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0449 for the Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production NESHAP (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/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.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, as discussed for each
source category covered by this proposal in sections VIII.C.1 and 2.
1. Boat Manufacturing
The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1966.06. 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 VVVV, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and
reporting requirements; including reporting requirements for deviations
in the semiannual report; and including the requirement for electronic
submittal of reports. In addition, the number of facilities subject to
the standards changed. The number of respondents was reduced from 441
to 93 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 boat
manufacturing facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart VVVV).
Estimated number of respondents: 93 facilities.
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 7,914 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency over
the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be 2,318
hours (per year) for the Agency. 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
$816,500 (rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. The total average annual Agency
cost over the first 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated
to be $107,700.
2. Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
The ICR document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1976.06. 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 WWWW, in the form of eliminating the SSM plan and
reporting requirements; including reporting requirements for deviations
in the semiannual report; and including the requirement for electronic
submittal of reports. In addition, the number of facilities subject to
the standards changed. The number of respondents was reduced from 584
to 448 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 reinforced
plastic composites production facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart WWWW.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart WWWW).
Estimated number of respondents: 448 facilities.
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 38,125 hours (per year). The average annual burden to the Agency
over the 3 years after the amendments are final is estimated to be
2,318 hours (per year) for the Agency. 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,
[[Page 22673]]
averaged over the 3 years of this ICR, is estimated to be $3,933,400
(rounded, per year). There are no estimated capital and O&M costs. The
total average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the
amendments are final is estimated to be $107,700.
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 the EPA using the dockets
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 June 17, 2019. 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 the boat manufacturing and/
or reinforced plastic composites production industries as a whole, and
therefore, will not impose any requirements on small entities included
in each source category.
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. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
the Boat Manufacturing or Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
source categories, and would not be affected by this action. 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 IV.A and B of this preamble.
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)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
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 sections IV.A,
IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble. As discussed in sections IV.A,
IV.B, IV.F, and IV.G of this preamble, we performed a demographic
analysis for each source category, which is an assessment of risks to
individual demographic groups, of the population close to the
facilities (within 50 km and within 5 km). In our analysis, we
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer risks and noncancer
hazards from the Boat Manufacturing source category and the Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production source category across different social,
demographic, and economic groups within the populations living near
operations identified as having the highest risks.
Results of the demographic analysis performed for the Boat
Manufacturing source category indicate that, for seven of the 11
demographic groups, Hispanic or Latino, minority, people living below
the poverty level, linguistically isolated people, adults without a
high school diploma, adults 65 years of age or older, and African
Americans that reside 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
emissions from boat manufacturing 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 results of the Reinforced Plastic Composite Production source
category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source
category expose approximately 1,600 people to a cancer risk at or above
1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than
1. The percentages of the at-risk population for three of the 11
demographic groups; people living below the poverty level, adults
without a high school diploma, and African Americans that reside within
50 km of facilities in the source category is greater than the
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 18, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 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 VVVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing
Sec. 63.5764 [Amended]
0
2. Section 63.5764 is amended by removing paragraph (e).
[[Page 22674]]
0
3. Section 63.5765 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5765 How do I submit my reports?
(a) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) 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. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(2) 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.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous
monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation as defined in Sec.
63.2, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information. If you claim some of the
information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(c) You must submit to the Administrator semiannual compliance
reports of the information required in Sec. 63.5764(c) and (d) .
Beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent reports following the
procedure specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph, beginning on [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit
all subsequent reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the
appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date
report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website.
The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim
some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is
confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be
generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
(e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) 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 has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
[[Page 22675]]
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The 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.
(6) 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.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majuere, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if 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 five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. 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).
(2) 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 has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The 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.
(4) 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.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
0
4. Section 63.5767 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5767 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(d) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must keep
the records of any failures to meet the applicable standards, including
the date, time, and duration of the failure; a list of the affected
add-on control device 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; control device performance tests; and continuous monitoring
system performance evaluations.
0
5. Section 63.5770 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5770 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
* * * * *
(e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's 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
6. Section 63.5779 is amended by removing the definition for
``Deviation'' and adding in alphabetical order definitions for
``Deviation after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register],'' ``Deviation before [DATE 181 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],''
``Shutdown,'' and ``Startup'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5779 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
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 before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
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.
* * * * *
Shutdown after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] means the cessation of operation of
the add-on control devices.
Startup after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register] means the setting in operation of the
add-on control devices.
0
7. Table 8 to Subpart VVVV of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart VVVV of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
(40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart VVVV
As specified in Sec. 63.5773, you must comply with the applicable
requirements of the General Provisions according to the following
table:
[[Page 22676]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Requirement Applies to subpart VVVV Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a).......................... General Applicability 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..................... Area sources are not
regulated by subpart
VVVV.
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 Yes.....................
Permit Program.
Sec. 63.2............................. Definitions.......... Yes..................... Additional
definitions are
found in Sec.
63.5779.
Sec. 63.3............................. Units and Yes.....................
Abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4(a).......................... Prohibited Activities Yes.....................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)...................... Circumvention/ Yes.....................
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a).......................... Construction/ Yes.....................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b).......................... Requirements for Yes.....................
Existing, Newly
Constructed, and
Reconstructed
Sources.
Sec. 63.5(c).......................... ..................... No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d).......................... Application for Yes.....................
Approval of
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e).......................... Approval of Yes.....................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f).......................... Approval of Yes.....................
Construction/
Reconstruction Based
on prior State
Review.
Sec. 63.6(a).......................... Compliance with Yes.....................
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements--Applic
ability.
Sec. 63.6(b).......................... Compliance Dates for Yes..................... Sec. 63.695
New and specifies compliance
Reconstructed dates, including the
Sources. compliance date for
new area sources
that become major
sources after the
effective date of
the rule.
Sec. 63.6(c).......................... Compliance Dates for Yes..................... Sec. 63.5695
Existing Sources. specifies compliance
dates, including the
compliance date for
existing area
sources that become
major sources after
the effective date
of the rule.
Sec. 63.6(d).......................... ..................... No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)................... Operation and No...................... Operating
Maintenance requirements for
Requirements. open molding
operations with add-
on controls are
specified in Sec.
63.5725.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)....................... Startup, Shut Down, No...................... Only sources with add-
and Malfunction on controls must
Plans. complete startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction plans.
Sec. 63.6(f).......................... Compliance with Yes.....................
Nonopacity Emission
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(g).......................... Use of an Alternative Yes.....................
Nonopacity Emission
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h).......................... Compliance with No...................... Subpart VVVV does not
Opacity/Visible specify opacity or
Emissions Standards. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i).......................... Extension of Yes.....................
Compliance with
Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.6(j).......................... Exemption from Yes.....................
Compliance with
Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)....................... Performance Test Yes.....................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)....................... Dates for performance No...................... Sec. 63.5716
tests. specifies
performance test
dates.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)....................... Performance testing Yes.....................
at other times.
Sec. 63.7(b)-(h)...................... Other performance Yes.....................
testing requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)................... Monitoring Yes..................... All of Sec. 63.8
Requirements--Applic applies only to
ability. sources with add-on
controls. Additional
monitoring
requirements for
sources with add-on
controls are found
in Sec. 63.5725.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)....................... ..................... No...................... [Reserved].
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)....................... ..................... No...................... Subpart VVVV does not
refer directly or
indirectly to Sec.
63.11.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)....................... Conduct of Monitoring Yes.....................
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)................... Multiple Effluents Yes..................... Applies to sources
and Multiple that use a CMS on
Continuous the control device
Monitoring Systems stack.
(CMS).
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii).......... Continuous Monitoring No...................... References to
System Operation and startup, shutdown,
Maintenance. malfunction are not
applicable.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(4)................... Continuous Monitoring Yes..................... Except those
System Operation and provisions in Sec.
Maintenance. 63.8(c)(1)(i) and
(iii) as noted
above.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)....................... Continuous Opacity No...................... Subpart VVVV does not
Monitoring Systems have opacity or
(COMS). visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8)................... Continuous Monitoring Yes.....................
System Calibration
Checks and Out-of-
Control Periods.
[[Page 22677]]
Sec. 63.8(d).......................... Quality Control Yes..................... Except those
Program. provisions of Sec.
63.8(d)(3) regarding
a startup, shutdown,
malfunction plan as
noted below.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)....................... Quality Control No...................... No requirement for a
Program. startup, shutdown,
malfunction plan.
Sec. 63.8(e).......................... CMS Performance Yes.....................
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)................... Use of an Alternative Yes.....................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)....................... Alternative to Yes..................... Applies only to
Relative Accuracy sources that use
Test. continuous emission
monitoring systems
(CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(g).......................... Data Reduction....... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.9(a).......................... Notification Yes.....................
Requirements--Applic
ability.
Sec. 63.9(b).......................... Initial Notifications Yes.....................
Sec. 63.9(c).......................... Request for Yes.....................
Compliance Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d).......................... Notification That a Yes.....................
New Source Is
Subject to Special
Compliance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e).......................... Notification of Yes..................... Applies only to
Performance Test. sources with add-on
controls.
Sec. 63.9(f).......................... Notification of No...................... Subpart VVVV does not
Visible Emissions/ have opacity or
Opacity Test. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)....................... Additional CMS Yes..................... Applies only to
Notifications--Date sources with add-on
of CMS Performance controls.
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)....................... Use of COMS Data..... No...................... Subpart VVVV does not
require the use of
COMS.
Sec. 63.9(g)(3)....................... Alternative to Yes..................... Applies only to
Relative Accuracy sources with CEMS.
Testing.
Sec. 63.9(h).......................... Notification of Yes.....................
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(i).......................... Adjustment of Yes.....................
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j).......................... Change in Previous Yes.....................
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)......................... Recordkeeping/ Yes.....................
Reporting--Applicabi
lity.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)...................... General Recordkeeping Yes..................... Sec. Sec. 63.567
Requirements. and 63.5770 specify
additional
recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i), (iii), (vi)-(xiv) General Recordkeeping Yes.....................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii), (iv), (v)....... Recordkeeping No......................
Relevant to Startup,
Shutdown, and
Malfunction Periods.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)...................... Recordkeeping Yes..................... Sec. 63.5686
Requirements for specifies
Applicability applicability
Determinations. determinations for
non-major sources.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(14)................. Additional Yes..................... Applies only to
Recordkeeping for sources with add-on
Sources with CMS. controls.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)..................... Additional No...................... No requirement for a
Recordkeeping for startup, shutdown,
Sources with CMS. malfunction plan.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)...................... General Reporting Yes..................... Sec. 63.5764
Requirements. specifies additional
reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)...................... Performance Test Yes..................... Sec. 63.5764
Results. specifies additional
requirements for
reporting
performance test
results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)...................... Opacity or Visible No...................... Subpart VVVV does not
Emissions specify opacity or
Observations. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)...................... Progress Reports for Yes.....................
Sources with
Compliance
Extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)...................... Startup, Shutdown, No...................... Applies only to
and Malfunction sources with add-on
Reports. controls.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)...................... Additional CMS Yes..................... Applies only to
Reports--General. sources with add-on
controls.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)...................... Reporting Results of Yes..................... Applies only to
CMS Performance sources with add-on
Evaluations. controls.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)...................... Excess Emissions/CMS Yes..................... Applies only to
Performance Reports. sources with add-on
controls.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)...................... COMS Data Reports.... No...................... Subpart VVVV does not
specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(f)......................... Recordkeeping/ Yes.....................
Reporting Waiver.
Sec. 63.11............................ Control Device No...................... Facilities subject to
Requirements--Applic subpart VVVV do not
ability. use flares as
control devices.
Sec. 63.12............................ State Authority and Yes..................... Sec. 63.5776 lists
Delegations. those sections of
subpart A that are
not delegated.
Sec. 63.13............................ Addresses............ Yes.....................
Sec. 63.14............................ Incorporation by Yes.....................
Reference.
Sec. 63.15............................ Availability of Yes.....................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart WWWW--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production
0
8. Section 63.5835 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and removing
paragraph (d). The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 63.5835 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
* * * * *
(b) You must be in compliance with all organic HAP emissions limits
in this subpart that you meet using add-on controls at all times.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.5900 is amended by revising paragraph (c), and removing
[[Page 22678]]
paragraphs (d) and (e). The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 63.5900 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
standards?
* * * * *
(c) You must meet the organic HAP emissions limits and work
practice standards that apply to you at all times.
0
10. Section 63.5910 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(4), and revising paragraph (d) introductory text, and paragraphs
(e), and (h). The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.5910 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(d) For each deviation from an organic HAP emissions limitation
(i.e., emissions limit and operating limit) and for each deviation from
the requirements for work practice standards that occurs at an affected
source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP
emissions limitations or work practice standards in this subpart, the
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (3) of this section and in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this
section.
* * * * *
(e) For each deviation from an organic HAP emissions limitation
(i.e., emissions limit and operating limit) occurring at an affected
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the organic HAP
emissions limitation in this subpart, you must include the information
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section and in paragraphs
(e)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out of control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
* * * * *
(h) Submit compliance reports based on the requirements in table 14
to this subpart, and not based on the requirements in Sec. 63.999.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.5912 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.5912 How do I submit my reports?
(a) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) 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. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website.
(2) 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.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous
monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation as defined in Sec.
63.2, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(c) You must submit to the Administrator semiannual compliance
reports containing the information specified in Sec. 63.5910(c)
through (f). Beginning on [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], submit all subsequent reports
following the procedure specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph, beginning on [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
[[Page 22679]]
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit
all subsequent reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the
appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date
report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website.
The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim
some of the information required to be submitted via CEDRI is
confidential business information (CBI), submit a complete report,
including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. The report must be
generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office,
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
(e) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) 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 has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The 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.
(6) 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.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(f) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majuere, you must meet the requirements outlined in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) You may submit a claim if 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 five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. 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).
(2) 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 has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The 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.
(4) 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.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
Sec. 63.5915 [Amended]
0
12. Section 63.5915 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(2).
0
13. Section 63.5920 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.5920 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
* * * * *
(e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's 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
14. Section 63.5935 is amended by adding the definitions of ``Deviation
after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register],'' and ``Deviation before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],'' to read as
follows.
Sec. 63.5935 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
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 before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE
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:
[[Page 22680]]
(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.
* * * * *
0
15. Table 4 of Subpart WWWW of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
As specified in Sec. 63.5805, you must meet the work practice
standards in the following table that apply to you:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. a new or existing closed molding uncover, unwrap or expose only
operation using compression/injection one charge per mold cycle per
molding. compression/injection molding
machine. For machines with
multiple molds, one charge
means sufficient material to
fill all molds for one cycle.
For machines with robotic
loaders, no more than one
charge may be exposed prior to
the loader. For machines fed
by hoppers, sufficient
material may be uncovered to
fill the hopper. Hoppers must
be closed when not adding
materials. Materials may be
uncovered to feed to slitting
machines. Materials must be
recovered after slitting.
2. a new or existing cleaning operation not use cleaning solvents that
contain HAP, except that
styrene may be used as a
cleaner in closed systems, and
organic HAP containing
cleaners may be used to clean
cured resin from application
equipment. Application
equipment includes any
equipment that directly
contacts resin.
3. a new or existing materials HAP- keep containers that store HAP-
containing materials storage operation. containing materials closed or
covered except during the
addition or removal of
materials. Bulk HAP-containing
materials storage tanks may be
vented as necessary for
safety.
4. an existing or new SMC manufacturing close or cover the resin
operation. delivery system to the doctor
box on each SMC manufacturing
machine. The doctor box itself
may be open.
5. an existing or new SMC manufacturing use a nylon containing film to
operation. enclose SMC.
6. all mixing or BMC manufacturing use mixer covers with no
operations \1\. visible gaps present in the
mixer covers, except that gaps
of up to 1 inch are
permissible around mixer
shafts and any required
instrumentation. use mixer
covers with no visible gaps
present in the mixer covers,
except that gaps of up to 1
inch are permissible around
mixer shafts and any required
instrumentation. Mixers where
the emissions are fully
captured and routed to a 95
percent efficient control
device are exempt from this
requirement.
7. all mixing or BMC manufacturing close any mixer vents when
operations \1\. actual mixing is occurring,
except that venting is allowed
during addition of materials,
or as necessary prior to
adding materials or opening
the cover for safety. Vents
routed to a 95 percent
efficient control device are
exempt from this requirement.
8. all mixing or BMC manufacturing keep the mixer covers closed
operations \1\. while actual mixing is
occurring except when adding
materials or changing covers
to the mixing vessels.
9. a new or existing pultrusion i. not allow vents from the
operation manufacturing parts that building ventilation system,
meet the following criteria: 1,000 or or local or portable fans to
more reinforcements or the glass blow directly on or across the
equivalent of 1,000 ends of 113 yield wet-out area(s),
roving or more; and have a cross ii. not permit point suction of
sectional area of 60 square inches or ambient air in the wet-out
more that is not subject to the 95 area(s) unless that air is
percent organic HAP emission reduction directed to a control device,
requirement. iii. use devices such as
deflectors, baffles, and
curtains when practical to
reduce air flow velocity
across the wet-out area(s),
iv. direct any compressed air
exhausts away from resin and
wet-out area(s),
v. convey resin collected from
drip-off pans or other devices
to reservoirs, tanks, or sumps
via covered troughs, pipes, or
other covered conveyance that
shields the resin from the
ambient air,
vi. cover all reservoirs,
tanks, sumps, or HAP-
containing materials storage
vessels except when they are
being charged or filled, and
vii. cover or shield from
ambient air resin delivery
systems to the wet-out area(s)
from reservoirs, tanks, or
sumps where practical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Containers of 5 gallons or less may be open when active mixing is
taking place, or during periods when they are in process (i.e., they
are actively being used to apply resin). For polymer casting mixing
operations, containers with a surface area of 500 square inches or
less may be open while active mixing is taking place.
0
16. Table 14 of Subpart WWWW of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 14 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
As required in Sec. 63.5910(a), (b), (g), and (h), you must submit
reports on the schedule shown in the following table:
[[Page 22681]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit
You must submit a(n) contain . . . the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report.......... a. A statement that Semiannually
there were no according to
deviations during the
that reporting period requirements in
if there were no Sec.
deviations from any 63.5910(b).
emission limitations
(emission limit,
operating limit,
opacity limit, and
visible emission
limit) that apply to
you and there were no
deviations from the
requirements for work
practice standards in
Table 4 to this
subpart that apply to
you. If there were no
periods during which
the CMS, including
CEMS, and operating
parameter monitoring
systems, was out of
control as specified
in Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
the report must also
contain a statement
that there were no
periods during which
the CMS was out of
control during the
reporting period.
b. The information in Semiannually
Sec. 63.5910(d) if according to
you have a deviation the
from any emission requirements in
limitation (emission Sec.
limit, operating 63.5910(b).
limit, or work
practice standard)
during the reporting
period. If there were
periods during which
the CMS, including
CEMS, and operating
parameter monitoring
systems, was out of
control, as specified
in Sec. 63.8(c)(7),
the report must
contain the
information in Sec.
63.5910(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
17. Table 15 of Subpart WWWW of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 15 to Subpart WWWW of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions (Subpart A) to Subpart WWWW of Part 63
As specified in Sec. 63.5925, the parts of the General Provisions
which apply to you are shown in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to the
The general provisions reference . . . That addresses . . . And applies to subpart following additional
WWWW of part 63 . . . information . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)....................... General applicability Yes..................... Additional terms
of the general defined in subpart
provisions. WWWW of part 63,
when overlap between
subparts A and WWWW
of part 63 of this
part, subpart WWWW
of part 63 takes
precedence.
Sec. 63.1(a)(2) through (4)........... General applicability Yes.....................
of the general
provisions.
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)....................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)....................... General applicability Yes.....................
of the general
provisions.
Sec. 63.1(a)(7) through (9)........... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.1(a)(10) through (14)......... General applicability Yes.....................
of the general
provisions.
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)....................... Initial applicability Yes..................... Subpart WWWW of part
determination. 63 clarifies the
applicability in
Sec. Sec. 63.5780
and 63.5785.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)....................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.1(b)(3)....................... Record of the Yes.....................
applicability
determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)....................... Applicability of this Yes..................... Subpart WWWW of part
part after a 63 clarifies the
relevant standard applicability of
has been set under each paragraph of
this part. subpart A to sources
subject to subpart
WWWW of part 63.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)....................... Title V operating Yes..................... All major affected
permit requirement. sources are required
to obtain a title V
operating permit.
Area sources are not
subject to subpart
WWWW of part 63.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3) and (4)............... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)....................... Notification Yes.....................
requirements for an
area source that
increases HAP
emissions to major
source levels.
Sec. 63.1(d).......................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.1(e).......................... Applicability of Yes.....................
permit program
before a relevant
standard has been
set under this part.
Sec. 63.2............................. Definitions.......... Yes..................... Subpart WWWW of part
63 defines terms in
Sec. 63.5935. When
overlap between
subparts A and WWWW
of part 63 occurs,
you must comply with
the subpart WWWW of
part 63 definitions,
which take
precedence over the
subpart A
definitions.
Sec. 63.3............................. Units and Yes..................... Other units and
abbreviations. abbreviations used
in subpart WWWW of
part 63 are defined
in subpart WWWW of
part 63.
Sec. 63.4............................. Prohibited activities Yes..................... Sec. 63.4(a)(3)
and circumvention. through (5) is
reserved and does
not apply.
Sec. 63.5(a)(1) and (2)............... Applicability of Yes..................... Existing facilities
construction and do not become
reconstruction. reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of part
63.
[[Page 22682]]
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)....................... Relevant standards Yes..................... Existing facilities
for new sources upon do not become
construction. reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of part
63.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)....................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)....................... New construction/ Yes..................... Existing facilities
reconstruction. do not become
reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of part
63.
Sec. 63.5(b)(4)....................... Construction/ Yes..................... Existing facilities
reconstruction do not become
notification. reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of part
63.
Sec. 63.5(b)(5)....................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.5(b)(6)....................... Equipment addition or Yes..................... Existing facilities
process change. do not become
reconstructed under
subpart WWWW of part
63.
Sec. 63.5(c).......................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.5(d)(1)....................... General application Yes..................... Existing facilities
for approval of do not become
construction or reconstructed under
reconstruction. subpart WWWW of part
63.
Sec. 63.5(d)(2)....................... Application for Yes.....................
approval of
construction.
Sec. 63.5(d)(3)....................... Application for No......................
approval of
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(d)(4)....................... Additional Yes.....................
information.
Sec. 63.5(e)(1) through (5)........... Approval of Yes.....................
construction or
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)(1) and (2)............... Approval of Yes.....................
construction or
reconstruction based
on prior State
preconstruction
review.
Sec. 63.6(a)(1)....................... Applicability of Yes.....................
compliance with
standards and
maintenance
requirements.
Sec. 63.6(a)(2)....................... Applicability of area Yes.....................
sources that
increase HAP
emissions to become
major sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1) through (5)........... Compliance dates for Yes..................... Subpart WWWW of part
new and 63 clarifies
reconstructed compliance dates in
sources. Sec. 63.5800.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)....................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)....................... Compliance dates for Yes..................... New operations at an
new operations or existing facility
equipment that cause are not subject to
an area source to new source
become a major standards.
source.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1) and (2)............... Compliance dates for Yes..................... Subpart WWWW of part
existing sources. 63 clarifies
compliance dates in
Sec. 63.5800.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3) and (4)............... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)....................... Compliance dates for Yes..................... Subpart WWWW of part
existing area 63 clarifies
sources that become compliance dates in
major. Sec. 63.5800.
Sec. 63.6(d).......................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)....................... Operation & Yes..................... Except portions of
maintenance Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)
requirements. and (ii) specific to
conditions during
startup, shutdown,
or malfunction.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)....................... Startup, shutdown, No......................
and malfunction plan
and recordkeeping.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)....................... Compliance except No...................... Subpart WWWW of part
during periods of 63 requires
startup, shutdown, compliance at all
and malfunction. times.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2) and (3)............... Methods for Yes.....................
determining
compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1) through (3)........... Alternative standard. Yes.....................
Sec. 63.6(h).......................... Opacity and visible No...................... Subpart WWWW of part
emission Standards. 63 does not contain
opacity or visible
emission standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1) through (14).......... Compliance extensions Yes.....................
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)...................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)...................... Compliance extensions Yes.....................
Sec. 63.6(j).......................... Presidential Yes.....................
compliance exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)....................... Applicability of Yes.....................
performance testing
requirements.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)....................... Performance test No...................... Subpart WWWW of part
dates. 63 initial
compliance
requirements are in
Sec. 63.5840.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)....................... CAA Section 114 Yes.....................
authority.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)....................... Notification of Yes.....................
performance test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)....................... Notification Yes.....................
rescheduled
performance test.
Sec. 63.7(c).......................... Quality assurance Yes..................... Except that the test
program, including plan must be
test plan. submitted with the
notification of the
performance test.
Sec. 63.7(d).......................... Performance testing Yes.....................
facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e).......................... Conditions for Yes..................... Performance test
conducting requirements are
performance tests. contained in Sec.
63.5850. Additional
requirements for
conducting
performance tests
for continuous
lamination/casting
are included in Sec.
63.5870.
Conditions specific
to operations during
periods of startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction in Sec.
63.7(e)(1) do not
apply.
Sec. 63.7(f).......................... Use of alternative Yes.....................
test method.
Sec. 63.7(g).......................... Performance test data Yes.....................
analysis,
recordkeeping, and
reporting.
Sec. 63.7(h).......................... Waiver of performance Yes.....................
tests.
[[Page 22683]]
Sec. 63.8(a)(1) and (2)............... Applicability of Yes.....................
monitoring
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)....................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)....................... Monitoring Yes.....................
requirements when
using flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)....................... Conduct of monitoring Yes.....................
exceptions.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2) and (3)............... Multiple effluents Yes.....................
and multiple
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)....................... Compliance with CMS Yes..................... This section applies
operation and if you elect to use
maintenance a CMS to demonstrate
requirements. continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Except references to
SSM plans in Sec.
63.8(c)(1)(i) and
Sec.
63.8(c)(1)(iii).
Sec. 63.8(c)(2) and (3)............... Monitoring system Yes..................... This section applies
installation. if you elect to use
a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)....................... CMS requirements..... Yes..................... This section applies
if you elect to use
a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)....................... Continuous Opacity No...................... Subpart WWWW of part
Monitoring System 63 does not contain
(COMS) minimum opacity standards.
procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6) through (8)........... CMS calibration and Yes..................... This section applies
periods CMS is out if you elect to use
of control. a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2)................... CMS quality control Yes..................... This section applies
program, including if you elect to use
test plan and all a CMS to demonstrate
previous versions. continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)....................... CMS quality control Yes..................... Except references to
program, including SSM plans in Sec.
test plan and all 63.8(d)(3).
previous versions.
Sec. 63.8(e)(1)....................... Performance Yes..................... This section applies
evaluation of CMS. if you elect to use
a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.8(e)(2)....................... Notification of Yes..................... This section applies
performance if you elect to use
evaluation. a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.8(e)(3) and (4)............... CMS requirements/ Yes..................... This section applies
alternatives. if you elect to use
a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.8(e)(5)(i).................... Reporting performance Yes..................... This section applies
evaluation results. if you elect to use
a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.8(e)(5)(ii)................... Results of COMS No...................... Subpart WWWW of part
performance 63 does not contain
evaluation. opacity standards.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1) through (3)........... Use of an alternative Yes.....................
monitoring method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(4)....................... Request to use an Yes.....................
alternative
monitoring method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(5)....................... Approval of request Yes.....................
to use an
alternative
monitoring method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)....................... Request for Yes..................... This section applies
alternative to if you elect to use
relative accuracy a CMS to demonstrate
test and associated continuous
records. compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1) through (5)........... Data reduction....... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.9(a)(1) through (4)........... Notification Yes.....................
requirements and
general information.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)....................... Initial notification Yes.....................
applicability.
Sec. 63.9(b)(2)....................... Notification for Yes.....................
affected source with
initial startup
before effective
date of standard.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)....................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(i).................... Notification for a Yes.....................
new or reconstructed
major affected
source with initial
startup after
effective date for
which an application
for approval of
construction or
reconstruction is
required.
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(ii) through (iv)...... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.9(b)(4)(v).................... Notification for a Yes..................... Existing facilities
new or reconstructed do not become
major affected reconstructed under
source with initial subpart WWWW of part
startup after 63.
effective date for
which an application
for approval of
construction or
reconstruction is
required.
[[Page 22684]]
Sec. 63.9(b)(5)....................... Notification that you Yes..................... Existing facilities
are subject to this do not become
subpart for new or reconstructed under
reconstructed subpart WWWW of part
affected source with 63.
initial startup
after effective date
and for which an
application for
approval of
construction or
reconstruction is
not required.
Sec. 63.9(c).......................... Request for Yes.....................
compliance extension.
Sec. 63.9(d).......................... Notification of Yes.....................
special compliance
requirements for new
source.
Sec. 63.9(e).......................... Notification of Yes.....................
performance test.
Sec. 63.9(f).......................... Notification of No...................... Subpart WWWW of part
opacity and visible 63 does not contain
emissions opacity or visible
observations. emission standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)....................... Additional Yes..................... This section applies
notification if you elect to use
requirements for a CMS to demonstrate
sources using CMS. continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)....................... Notification of No...................... Subpart WWWW of part
compliance with 63 does not contain
opacity emission opacity emission
standard. standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(3)....................... Notification that Yes..................... This section applies
criterion to if you elect to use
continue use of a CMS to demonstrate
alternative to continuous
relative accuracy compliance with an
testing has been emission limit.
exceeded.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1) through (3)........... Notification of Yes.....................
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4)....................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.9(h)(5) and (6)............... Notification of Yes.....................
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(i).......................... Adjustment of Yes.....................
submittal deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j).......................... Change in information Yes.....................
provided.
Sec. 63.10(a)......................... Applicability of Yes.....................
recordkeeping and
reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)...................... Records retention.... Yes.....................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i) through (v)....... Records related to No......................
startup, shutdown,
and malfunction.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi)..... CMS records, data on Yes.....................
performance tests,
CMS performance
evaluations,
measurements
necessary to
determine conditions
of performance
tests, and
performance
evaluations.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)................. Record of waiver of Yes.....................
recordkeeping and
reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)................ Record for Yes.....................
alternative to the
relative accuracy
test.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)................. Records supporting Yes.....................
initial notification
and notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)...................... Records for Yes.....................
applicability
determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)...................... CMS records.......... Yes..................... This section applies
if you elect to use
a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.10(c)(2) through (4).......... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.10(c)(5) through (8).......... CMS records.......... Yes..................... This section applies
if you elect to use
a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)...................... Reserved............. No......................
Sec. 63.10(c)(10) through (14)........ CMS records.......... Yes..................... This section applies
if you elect to use
a CMS to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)..................... CMS records.......... No......................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)...................... General reporting Yes.....................
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)...................... Report of performance Yes.....................
test results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)...................... Reporting results of No...................... Subpart WWWW of part
opacity or visible 63 does not contain
emission opacity or visible
observations. emission standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)...................... Progress reports as Yes.....................
part of extension of
compliance.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)...................... Startup, shutdown, No......................
and malfunction
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) through (3).......... Additional reporting Yes..................... This section applies
requirements for CMS. if you have an add-
on control device
and elect to use a
CEM to demonstrate
continuous
compliance with an
emission limit.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)...................... Reporting COMS data.. No...................... Subpart WWWW of part
63 does not contain
opacity standards.
Sec. 63.10(f)......................... Waiver for Yes.....................
recordkeeping or
reporting.
Sec. 63.11............................ Control device Yes..................... Only applies if you
requirements. elect to use a flare
as a control device.
Sec. 63.12............................ State authority and Yes.....................
delegations.
Sec. 63.13............................ Addresses of State Yes.....................
air pollution
control agencies and
EPA Regional Offices.
Sec. 63.14............................ Incorporations by Yes.....................
reference.
[[Page 22685]]
Sec. 63.15............................ Availability of Yes.....................
information and
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-09583 Filed 5-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P