p. 1 

# OAR Box 1875 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

# 62 ) ll-F- 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:48AM

Sheet 62 of 86P. 2 

## A-90-1 9 ll-F- 9

Attache d ar e material s distribute d b yth e EP

Aa t a meetin g wit h OM B o n Augus t 13 , 1992 . Belo w i s a lis t o f attendees . EPA Alle n Basal a Bruc e Jorda n Ja n Meye r Andre w Oti s Allyso n Siwi k TomWalto n Lydi a Wegma n Mik e Wine r OMB Stev e Aitke n Ric k Belze r Tro yHillie r Ti mHun t Shantal e Won g



### h\ ncr 

### , \\ 

### \99

Z d.
-P. 3 t i



### Hazardou s Organi c NESHA P (HON )

Th e Contro l Decision s

Augus t 13 , 199 2P. 4
Key Consideration s
• Decisio n criteri a fo rselectin g leve l beyon d th e rfo r MAC T standards : technica l feasibilit y nonai rqualit yhealt h an d environmenta l i m .act s cos t energ yimpact s
• Statutor ygoa l t o achiev e maximu m degre e o f emissio n reductio n considerin g statutor ycriteri a
• Consistenc ywit h pas t NSP S fo rsam e emissio n point s i n th e categor yi s desirabl e fo rsource s an d implementin g authoritie s Overal l Rational e fo r Decision s
• Control s ar e demonstrate d an d reasonabl e
• C/ E i n rang e o f CA A cos t estimate s an d consisten t wit h previou s benefit s analyse s
• Cos t estimate s ar e overstate d

assum e 1 contro l devic e fo reac h emissio n poin t assum e th e mos t expensiv e mean s o f complianc e rule is structured

to encourage

pollution prevention, but

these cost savings

are not included

• Cost s ar e a smal l fractio n o f productio n cost s
• HO N facilitie s ar e hig h ris k poin t source s an d ar e locate d i n populate d area sP. 5

Proces s Vent s Larges t contributo rt o overal l emission s TR E forma t allow s lowe rcos t complianc e throug h produc t recover yan d proces s change s Als o ge t significan t contro l o f VOC' s NSP S decision s hav e margina l C/ E o f $3,090/M g i n 1990 $
Existin g Source s Optio n
1 2 3 Emissio n

Redu c Mg/y r HA P 228,19 0 233,55 6 236,17 7 Percen t

HA P Redu c 9 1 9 3 9 4 Annua l

Cost , $100 0 pe ry r 57,11 4 65,93 9 73,88 0 Averag e

$/M g 25 0 28 2 31 3 Incre .

$/M g HA P 1,64 0 3,03 0 , Baselin e emissions : 250,66 4 Mg/y rHA P Floo relemen t i s Optio n 1 . Optio n 1 contro l vent s wit h TR E c/ e o f <$1500/Mg . Optio n 2 contro l vent s wit h TR E c/ e o f <$2000/Mg . Optio n 3 contro l vent s wit h TR E c/ e o f <$5000/Mg .P. 6


### Wastewate r
•Majo r contributo r t o overal l emission s •Importan t cross-medi a benefit s fro m contro l a t sourc e

less groundwate r contaminatio n reductio n i n volum e o f hazardou s wast e •Costs d o no t includ e saving s fro m pollutio n preventio n •Significan t co-contro l of VOC' s Optio n
1 2 Baselin e e n Emissio n

Redu c M g HAP/y r 112,81 0 127,00 0 lissions : 1 4 Existin g Source s

Percen t HA P Redu c 7 7 8 7 •5,58 5 Mg / Annua l

Cost , $100 0 pe r y r 30,80 0 80,40 0 Averag e

$/M g HA P 27 5 63 5 y r HA P & 529,92 0 M c Incre . $/M g HA P 3,50 0 l/y r VO C 

### Floo r elemen t i s n o control . Optio n 1 - contro l stream s >1 0 Ip m an d >100 0 ppm wHAP . Optio n 2 - contro l stream s > 1 Ip m an d > 50 0 ppm wVHAP . Ne wSource s Optio n
1 2 3 Baselin e e n Emissio n

Reduc t M g HAP/y r 17,79 0 24,17 0 24,27 0 lissions : 2 7 Percen t

HA P Reduc t 6 4 8 7 8 8 ,66 0 Mq/ y Annua l

Cost , $100 0 pe r y r 6,40 0 16,50 0 17,20 0 rHAP & 1 0 Averag e

$/M g 36 0 68 5 71 0 0,68 5 Mg / Incre .

$/M g
1,59 5 6,99 0 y r VO C 

### Floo r elemen t i s Optio n 1P. 7
Larg e Storag e
• C/ E o f $2500/M g i s reasonabl e an d consisten t wit h NSP S decision s C/ E • Contro l o f larg e tank s save s produc t Existin g Sources : 40,00 0 gallo n capacit yan d greate r Optio n
1 2 3 Emissio n

Reduc t M g HAP/y r 1,70 0 4,77 6 8,62 9 Percen t

HA P Reduc t 1 7 4 8 86. 6 Annua l

Cos t $100 0 pe ry r 4,05 7 7,290 a 17,06 8 Averag e

$/M g HA P 2,39 0 1,52 6 1,97 8 Incre .

$/M g HA P 1,05 1 2,53 8 Saselin e emissions : 996 4 Mg/y rHA P Floo relemen t i s Optio n 1 . Optio n 1 - contro l tank s storin g HAP' s wit h v p > 1. 9 psia . Optio n 2 - contro l tank s storin g HAP' s wit h v p >0.7 5 psia . Optio n 3 - contro l tank s storin g HAP' s wit h v p >0. 1 psia . Ne wSources : Optio n
1 2 Emissio n

Reduc t M g HAP/y r 55 8 1,64 0 40,00 0 gallo n capacit yan d greate r

Percen t HA P Reduc t 2 9 8 7 Annua l

Cos t $100 0 pe ry r 1,76 0 2,55 5 Averag e

$/M g HA P 3,15 5 1,558 8 Incre .

$/M g HA P
73 4 Cos t decreas e du e t o credit s fro m controllin g larg e tank s wit h v p betwee n 0.7 5 an d 0. 1 psia . Baselin e emissions : 189 3 Mg/y rHA P Floo relemen t i s Optio n 1 .P. 8

Attachmen t 3


## EXTENDE D BENEFIT ANALYSIS forth e HAZARDOU S ORGANI C NESHAP(HON)

BRIEFING TO OM

B AUGUS T 13 , 199

2P. 9


## OUTLIN E
Potential Scop e (Emissio n Point s andEffect s Categories ) Sampl e (Emissio n Point s an dEffect s Categories ) Methodolog y Result s Conclusion s an

dQualification s

?P.1 0



## POTENTIA L SCOP E
Emissio n Points : Tur

n t o Histogramon Pag e 4
Effect s Categories : Tur

n to Tabl e on Pag e 5

# ® TOTA L HO N EMISSION S B yEmissio n Poin t Tota l HO N Emission s (Mg/yr ) 300,00 0 250,00 0 200,00 0 150,00 0 100,00 0 50,00 0 0 S T W W E L P V 

## Emissio n Poin t T RP.1 2

POTENTIA L PHYSICA L EFFECT S CATEGORIE S FO R

TH E HO NREGULATIO N

Huma n Healt h Effect s Mortalit y

Du e t o Chroni c Exposur e Mortalit yDu e t o Acut e Exposur e Morbidit yDu e t o Chroni c Exposur e Morbidit yDu e t o Acut e Exposur e Reduce d Activit yDay s Huma n Welfar e Effect s Worke r Productivit yLosse s Odor s Non-Huma n Bioloqica l Effect s Agricultur e Forestr y Recreationa l Fishin g Ecosyste m Soilin q& Material s Damaq e Residential/Commercial/Industria l Facilitie s , * Miscellaneou s Material s Climat e & Visibilit y"Effect s Loca l Visibilit y Non-Loca l Visibilit y Climat e Visibilit ya t Park s Transportatio n Safet y Direc t HA P 1 * 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 1
2 2
N A N A 3 N A N A VOC / Ozon e 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3
1 1
N A N A 2 N A N A P M

2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
1 1 2

. 2 2 2 2 Legend : 1 - Documente d effect . 2 - Effec t likely , minima l documentation . 3 - Effec t possible , no t documented . N A- no t applicable . * - quantifie d fo r th e HONBenefi t Analysi s Extensio n 

### b

## SAMPL E

(Emissio n Points an d Effects Categories ) Selecte dSubset

of Proces s Vent

andWastewate r Emissio n Points-Wit

h Know n UT M Coordinates : Proces s Vent s 2 8 % of HAP Emission s 3 6 % of Tota l Cos t 2 4 % of All Facilitie s Wastewate r 2 0 % o f HA P Emission s 2 9 % of Tota l Cos t 1 4 % of Al l Facilitie s Effect s Categorie s Ai r Toxic s MortalityP.1 4


## METHODOLOG Y Exposur e Assessment
Mortality Ris k

Assessment
Ris k Reductio n Valuatio n

7

## METHODOLOGY : EXPOSURE ASSESSMEN T

(Concentration s T o Which Peopl e Ar e Exposed ) Regulator y Option s Modele dInclude : Proces s Vent

& Wastewate r

Option s Selecte d fo r Proposa l A Les s Stringen t

Option : Proces s Vents : MAC T Floo r Wastewater : Intermediat e Optio n Abov e Baselin e Dispersio n Modelin g t

o Predic t HA P Sou

p Concentration s Loca l Meteorologica l Dat afo r Modele d Facilitie s - 5 0 k mRadiu s of

Facility' s UT M Coordinate s Estimate dPopulatio n Expose dto Predicte dHA P Sou p Concentration s Recepto r Point s Withi n th e 5 0 k

mRadiu s 198 0 Populatio n Dat aa

t Bloc k Group/Enumeratio n Distric t Leve l 8P.1 6



## METHODOLOGY : RIS KASSESSMEN T (Predicte dIncidence s o

f Cancer ) Develope dProx y fo

r Aggregat e Inhalatio n Uni t (IUR ) Ris k

Facto r for HA P Sou

p 8 0 HAP s Produce db

y Proces s Vent s an d Wastewate r

Emissio n Points * CRAV E verifie dIU RFactor s Availabl e fo r 1 3 of th e 8 0 HAPs* * Usin g verifie dIURs , calculate dmea n IU R= 2. 4 x IO"

4 

## pe r jiig/m3 

## ** *

Other HAP s are emitte dfro

mproces s vent

an dwastewate r

emissio n point s bu t are not th e product s tha

t ar e bein g manufactured . Other HAP s hav e IURs . but

are not yet CRAVE verified .
' * Emissio n Weighte dMean : 3. 8 x 10" * per jxg/m 3 Productio n Weighte dMean : 2. 3 x \0^ per Mg/m 3

## METHODOLOGY : RIS KASSESSMEN T

(Predicte dIncidence s of

Cancer ) (Continued ) Estimate dCancer

Incidenc e Reduction s Combine dexposure assessmen t result s wit

h mea n inhalatio n uni t

ris k facto r fo r modele d proces s ven

t an dwastewate r

facilitie s a

t baselin e an

dthe regulatory option s Aggregate dpredicte dnumber o f incidence s acros s facilitie s fo

r eac hmodele dregulatory optio n an dbaselin e Subtracte dpredicte dincidence s fo r eac h modele dregulator

y optio n fro

mbaselin e to yiel dincidenc e reduction s

1 0P.1 8



## METHODOLOGY : RIS KVALUATIO N
Air Toxic s Mortality $1. 7 to $9. 4 millio n pe r

statistical lif

e save d (incidenc e reduced) ; 198 9 $' s Implici t Valuatio n fo

r Propose dWastewate r Option * Beyon dwha

t $ per megagramnumber

woul d th e non-HA P VO C benefit s hav e t o b e fo r th e propose doptio n t

o maximiz e net

benefit s Calculat e incremental cos t net of incremental incidenc e reductio n credi t betwee n th e les s stringen t an dpropose doption s Estimat e incremental non-HA P VO C emissio n reduction s betwee n th e les s stringen t an d propose doption s Divid e incremental cos t

net of incidenc e reductio n credi t

by th e incremental non-HA P VO C emissio n reduction s Implici t valuatio n fo

r proces s vent s no t

warranted . T o b e discusse di n th e result s section . 

## 1 1P.1 9



## RESULTS : INCIDENC E REDUCTION S *



## Emissio n Poin t Proces s Vent s Wastewate r Reduction s

for Les s Stringen t Optio n 275. 8 69. 6 Reduction s

for Propose dOptio n 276. 5 73. 2

Incidenc e reductio n estimate s ar e carrie dou t to several digit s t o revea l th e calculate d difference s betwee n options . Th e number of digit s i s no t

a n indicato r

of th e precisio n of th e estimates .



## 1 2P.2 0

RESULTS : MORTALITY RIS K REDUCTION BENEFIT S VERSUS CONTRO L COS T

Emissio n Poin t PROCES S VENT S Les s Stringen t Propose d Optio n
WASTEWATE R Les s Stringen t Propose d Optio n

1 ly Incrementa l Cost/Lif e (Millions) *
$.0 8 $1. 9

$.4 6 $1 4 Ne t Benefit s

(Millions)* *
$447. 5 t o $2,57 0 $447. 4 t o $2,58 0
$ 8 6 t o $62 3 $ 4 3 t o $60 7 * *

Benefit/Cos t

2 1 t o 11 7 2 0 t o 11 1

4 t o 2 0 2 t o 8

* * Fo r the sampl e facilities , incrementa l contro l cos t fo r the optio n divide d b

yth e estimate d incrementa l incidenc e reductio n Th e range s resul t fro mth e valuatio n o f incidenc e reduction s ($1. 7 t o $9. 4 million/statistica l lif e saved) . Th e calculation s ar e carrie d ou t t o man ydigit s t o clarif yhow smal l the difference s ar e betwee n som e options . Th e numbe r o f digit s i s no t a

n indicato r o f measuremen t precision .



## 1 3P.2 1



## RESULTS : IMPLICI T VALUATIO N FO R PROPOSE D WASTEWATE ROPTIO N
Propose dWastewate r

Optio n i s Preferre dt o th e Les s Stringen t

Optio n if

: Mortalit y ris k

reductio n credi t

i s $1. 7 Millio n pe r reduce dincidenc e an dth e non-HA P VO C emissio n reductio n credi t i s greate r

tha n $114 0 pe r megagram . Mortalit y ris k

reductio n credi t

i s $9. 4 Millio n pe r reduce dincidenc e an dth e non-HA P VO C emissio n reductio n credi t i s greate r

tha n $41 0 pe r megagram .

1 4

## CONCLUSION S AN D QUALIFICATION S

Give n Dat aInput s an dAnalytica l Procedure s Conclusio n Applicabl e t o Both Proces s Ven t an d Wastewate r

Emissio n Point s Al l considere doption s represen t economi c efficienc y gain s relativ e t o baselin e contro l level s Proces s Ven t

Conclusion s Th e propose doptio n fo r proces s vent s canno t b e discarde don economi c efficienc y ground s Th e differenc e in calculate dne t benefit s betwee n th e propose dan dles s stringen t option s i s to o clos e t o cal l

—-Becaus e propose doptio n generate s mor e opportunitie s t o duc t

multipl e vent s t o a singl e contro l device , cost s ar e expecte dt o b e les s than estimate d Wastewate r

Conclusion s Th e propose doptio n fo r wastewate r

emissio n point s canno t

b e discarde do n economi c efficienc y ground s Benefi t coverag e i s incomplet e 1 5

## CONCLUSION S AND QUALIFICATION S (Continued )

—Implici t

valuatio n number s for

non-HA P VO C emissio n reduction s ar e plausible , e.g. :

—Over 60 % of emissio n reduction s fo

r wastewate r

emissio n point s occur

i n ozon e non-attainmen t

areas .

—CEA estimate s marginal cos t o f contro l i n sucharea s a

t betwee n $200 0 and$10,00 0 pe r

megagramo

f VO C reduce d Qualification s of

th e Analysi s Lack-o f specifi c HA P emissio n informatio n fo r eac h emissio n point Incomplet e coverag e of

emissio n point s an

d facilitie s Incomplet e coverag e of

th e benefit s Uncertai n dispersio n modelin g a s wel l a s ris k assessmen t

andvaluatio n
1 6