1268 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0435; FRL–9507–8] 

RIN 2060–AR02 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 

Group IV Polymers and Resins; 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production; 

and Polyether Polyols Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

amendments to three national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP): National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant 

Emissions: Group IV Polymers and 

Resins; NESHAP for Pesticide Active 

Ingredient Production; and NESHAP for 

Polyether Polyols Production. For all 

three of these NESHAP rules, the EPA 

is proposing decisions concerning the 

following: residual risk reviews; 

technology reviews; emissions during 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction; standards for previously 

unregulated hazardous air pollutant 

emissions; and electronic reporting of 

performance test results. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before March 9, 2012. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of 

your comments on or before February 8, 

2012. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by January 19, 2012, a public 

hearing will be held on February 8, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0435, by one of 

the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0435. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0435. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA 

West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0435, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a total of two copies. In 

addition, please mail a copy of your 

comments on the information collection 

provisions to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: 

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA West (Air 

Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0435. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0435. 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, 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 http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0435. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

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. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will begin at 10 a.m. on 

February 8, 2012 and will be held at the 

EPA’s campus in Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate 

facility nearby. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony or inquiring 

as to whether a public hearing is to be 

held should contact Ms. Mary Tom 

Kissell, Sector Policies and Programs 

Division (E143–01), Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone number: (919) 541–4516. If a 

public hearing will be held, a 

notification will be posted on the 

following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/oarpg/t3main.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Nick Parsons, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

01), Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 

(919) 541–5372; fax number: (919) 541– 

0246; email address: 

parsons.nick@epa.gov. For specific 

information regarding the risk modeling 

methodology, contact Ms. Elaine 

Manning, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C159–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5499; fax 

number: (919) 541–0840; email address: 

manning.elaine@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

these three national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

to a particular entity, contact the 

appropriate person listed in Table 1 to 

this preamble. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1269 

TABLE 1—LIST OF THE EPA CONTACTS FOR THE RULES ADDRESSED IN THIS PROPOSED ACTION

NESHAP OECA contact 1 OAQPS contact 2

NESHAP for Group IV Polymers and Resins .... Tavara Culpepper, (202) 564–0902, culpepper.tavara@epa.gov.Nick Parsons, (919) 541–5372, parsons.nick@epa.gov. 

NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production.Tavara Culpepper, (202) 564–0902, culpepper.tavara@epa.gov.Andrea Siefers, (919) 541–1185, 

siefers.andrea@epa.gov. 

NESHAP for Polyether Polyols .......................... Tavara Culpepper, (202) 564–0902, culpepper.tavara@epa.gov.Andrea Siefers, (919) 541–1185, 

siefers.andrea@epa.gov. 

1OECA stands for the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

2OAQPS stands for the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Several acronyms and terms used to 

describe industrial processes, data 

inventories and risk modeling are 

included in this preamble. While this 

may not be an exhaustive list, to ease 

the reading of this preamble and for 

reference purposes, the following terms 

and acronyms are defined here: 

ABS—Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Resin 

ADAF—Age-Dependent Adjustment Factors 

AERMOD—Air Dispersion Model used by the 

HEM–3 Model 

AEGL—Acute Exposure Guideline Levels 

ASA/AMSAN—Acrylonitrile Styrene Resin/ 

Alpha Methyl Styrene Acrylonitrile Resin 

BACT—Best Available Control Technology 

CalEPA—California Environmental 

Protection Agency 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CDX—Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI—Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG—Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT—Electronic Reporting Tool 

HAP—Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HCl—Hydrochloric Acid 

HI—Hazard Index 

HEM–3—Human Exposure Model, Version 3 

HON—National Emission Standards for 

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry 

HQ—Hazard Quotient 

ICR—Information Collection Request 

IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System 

km—Kilometer 

LAER—Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

LDAR—Leak Detection and Repair 

MACT—Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

MACT Code—Code within the NEI used to 

Identify Processes Included in a Source 

Category 

MBS—Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene 

Styrene 

MIR—Maximum Individual Risk 

NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS—North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS—National Academy of Sciences 

NATA—National Air Toxics Assessment 

NESHAP—National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NEI—National Emissions Inventory 

NRC—National Research Council 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OECA—Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

P&R IV—National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Group 

IV Polymers and Resins 

PAI—Pesticide Active Ingredient 

PB–HAP—Hazardous Air Pollutants known 

to be Persistent and Bio-Accumulative in 

the Environment 

PCB—Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PCCT—Process Contact Cooling Tower 

PEPO—Polyether Polyols 

PET—Poly (Ethylene Terephthalate) Resin 

PM—Particulate Matter 

POM—Polycyclic Organic Matter 

PRD—Pressure Relief Device 

RACT—Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

RBLC—RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

REL—CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure 

Level 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC—Reference Concentration 

RfD—Reference Dose 

RTR—Residual Risk and Technology Review 

SAB—Science Advisory Board 

SAN—Styrene Acrylonitrile Resin 

SCC—Source Classification Codes 

SOCMI—Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry 

SOP—Standard Operating Procedures 

SSM—Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

THF—Tetrahydrofuran 

TOSHI—Target Organ-Specific Hazard Index 

TPA—Terephthalic Acid 

tpy—Tons Per Year 

TRIM—Total Risk Integrated Modeling 

System 

TRIM.FaTE—EPA’s Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology Fate, Transport and 

Ecological Exposure Model 

TTN—Technology Transfer Network 

UF—Uncertainty Factor 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

URE—Unit Risk Estimate 

VOC—Volatile Organic Compounds 

WWW—World Wide Web 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background 

A. What are the source categories 

addressed by this action? 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this proposed 

action? 

III. Analyses Performed 

A. How did we address unregulated 

emissions sources? 

B. How did we estimate risks posed by the 

source categories? 

C. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this proposal? 

D. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

E. What other issues are we addressing in 

this proposal? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins Source Categories 

A. Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Resin 

(ABS) 

B. Styrene Acrylonitrile Resin (SAN) 

C. Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene Styrene 

Resin (MBS) 

D. Polystyrene Resin 

E. Poly (ethylene terephthalate) Resin 

(PET) 

V. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions 

for Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

B. What are the results of the technology 

review? 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

VI. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for Polyether Polyols 

Production 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

B. What are the results of the technology 

review? 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

VII. Compliance Dates 

VIII. 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? 

IX. Request for Comments 

X. Submitting Data Corrections 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1270 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined in 

CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and 

widespread adverse effect, which may be 

reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life or 

natural resources, including adverse impacts on 

populations of endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of environmental qualities 

over broad areas. 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

A red-line version of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the proposed 

changes in this action is available in the 

docket. 

I. General Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) establishes a two-stage regulatory 

process to address emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from 

stationary sources. In the first stage, 

after the EPA has identified categories of 

sources emitting one or more of the HAP 

listed in CAA section 112(b), CAA 

section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate 

technology-based NESHAP for those 

sources. ‘‘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. For major sources, 

these technology-based standards must 

reflect the maximum degree of 

emissions reductions of HAP achievable 

(after considering cost, energy 

requirements and non-air quality health 

and environmental impacts) and are 

commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

MACT standards must require the 

maximum degree of emissions reduction 

achievable through the application of 

measures, processes, methods, systems 

or techniques, including, but not limited 

to, measures that: (1) Reduce the volume 

of or eliminate pollutants through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications; 

(2) enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; (3) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a 

process, stack, storage or fugitive 

emissions point; (4) are design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification); or 

(5) are a combination of the above. CAA 

section 112(d)(2)(A)–(E). The MACT 

standards may take the form of design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards where the EPA first 

determines either that: (1) A pollutant 

cannot be emitted through a conveyance 

designed and constructed to emit or 

capture the pollutants or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a 

conveyance would be inconsistent with 

law; or (2) the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations. CAA sections 

112(h)(1)–(2). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

floors for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources, 

but they cannot be less stringent than 

the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources in the 

category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on considerations of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

The EPA is then required to review 

these technology-based standards and 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every 8 years, under 

CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting 

this review, the EPA is not obliged to 

completely recalculate the prior MACT 

determination. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 

1077, 1084 (DC Cir. 2008). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining (i.e., 

‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). This provision requires, 

first, that the EPA prepare a Report to 

Congress discussing (among other 

things) methods of calculating the risks 

posed (or potentially posed) by sources 

after implementation of the MACT 

standards, the public health significance 

of those risks and the EPA’s 

recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. The EPA 

prepared and submitted this report 

(Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA– 

453/R–99–001) in March 1999. Congress 

did not act in response to the report, 

thereby triggering the EPA’s obligation 

under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze 

and address residual risk. 

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires the 

EPA to determine, for source categories 

subject to certain MACT standards, 

whether those emissions standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. If the MACT 

standards for HAP ‘‘classified as a 

known, probable, or possible human 

carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed to emissions from a source in 

the category or subcategory to less than 

one in one million,’’ the EPA must 

promulgate residual risk standards for 

the source category (or subcategory), as 

necessary to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. In doing 

so, the EPA may adopt standards equal 

to existing MACT standards if the EPA 

determines that the existing standards 

are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 (‘‘If EPA 

determines that the existing technologybased standards provide an ‘ample 

margin of safety,’ then the agency is free 

to readopt those standards during the 

residual risk rulemaking.’’). The EPA 

must also adopt more stringent 

standards, if necessary, to prevent an 

adverse environmental effect 1 but must 

consider cost, energy, safety and other 

relevant factors in doing so. 

Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly 

preserves our use of the two-step 

process for developing standards to 

address any residual risk and our 

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 first step in this process is 

the determination of acceptable risk. 

The second step provides for an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

which is the level at which the 

standards are to be set (unless an even 

more stringent standard is necessary to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1271 

energy, safety and other relevant factors, 

an adverse environmental effect). 

The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level’’ and ‘‘ample margin 

of safety’’ are not specifically defined in 

the CAA. However, CAA section 

112(f)(2)(B) preserves the EPA’s 

interpretation set out in the Benzene 

NESHAP, and the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 

concluded that the EPA’s interpretation 

of subsection 112(f)(2) is a reasonable 

one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 

(‘‘[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly 

incorporates EPA’s interpretation of the 

Clean Air Act from the Benzene 

standard, complete with a citation to the 

Federal Register.’’). See also, A 

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 

(Senate debate on Conference Report). 

We also notified Congress in the 

Residual Risk Report to Congress that 

we intended to use the Benzene 

NESHAP approach in making CAA 

section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as 

an overall objective: 

* * * in protecting public health with an 

ample margin of safety, we strive to provide 

maximum feasible protection against risks to 

health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) 

protecting the greatest number of persons 

possible to an individual lifetime risk level 

no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; 

and (2) limiting to no higher than 

approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in1 million] the estimated risk that a person 

living near a facility would have if he or she 

were exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years. 

The agency also stated that, ‘‘The EPA 

also considers incidence (the number of 

persons estimated to suffer cancer or 

other serious health effects as a result of 

exposure to a pollutant) to be an 

important measure of the health risk to 

the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risks to 

the exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ The agency 

went on to conclude that ‘‘estimated 

incidence would be weighed along with 

other health risk information in judging 

acceptability.’’ As explained more fully 

in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, 

the EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line[s] of 

acceptability,’’ but rather considers 

broad objectives to be weighed with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). 

The determination of what represents an 

‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based on a 

judgment of ‘‘what risks are acceptable 

in the world in which we live,’’ 

(Residual Risk Report to Congress, p. 

178, quoting NRDC v. EPA, 824 F.2d 

1146, 1165 (DC Cir. 1987) (Vinyl 

Chloride Decision)) recognizing that our 

world is not risk-free. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that the ‘‘EPA will generally presume 

that if the risk to [the maximum 

exposed] individual is no higher than 

approximately one in 10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR 38045. We discussed the maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk (or 

maximum individual risk (MIR)) as 

being ‘‘the estimated risk that a person 

living near a plant would have if he or 

she were exposed to the maximum 

pollutant concentrations for 70 years.’’ 

Id. We explained that this measure of 

risk ‘‘is an estimate of the upper bound 

of risk based on conservative 

assumptions, such as continuous 

exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 

years.’’ Id. We acknowledge that 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk ‘‘does not necessarily reflect the 

true risk, but displays a conservative 

risk level which is an upper-bound that 

is unlikely to be exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP that 

‘‘consideration of maximum individual 

risk * * * must take into account the 

strengths and weaknesses of this 

measure of risk.’’ Id. Consequently, the 

presumptive risk level of 100 in one 

million (one in 10 thousand) ‘‘provides 

a benchmark for judging the 

acceptability of maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk (MIR), but does not 

constitute a rigid line for making that 

determination.’’ Id. Further, in the 

Benzene NESHAP, we noted that, 

‘‘Particular attention will also be 

accorded to the weight of evidence 

presented in the risk assessment of 

potential carcinogenicity or other health 

effects of a pollutant. While the same 

numerical risk may be estimated for an 

exposure to a pollutant judged to be a 

known human carcinogen, and to a 

pollutant considered a possible human 

carcinogen based on limited animal test 

data, the same weight cannot be 

accorded to both estimates. In 

considering the potential public health 

effects of the two pollutants, the 

Agency’s judgment on acceptability, 

including the MIR, will be influenced 

by the greater weight of evidence for the 

known human carcinogen.’’ Id. at 

38046. 

The agency also explained in the 1989 

Benzene NESHAP the following: ‘‘In 

establishing a presumption for MIR, 

rather than a rigid line for acceptability, 

the Agency intends to weigh it with a 

series of other health measures and 

factors. These include the overall 

incidence of cancer or other serious 

health effects within the exposed 

population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime 

risk range and associated incidence 

within, typically, a 50-kilometer (km) 

exposure radius around facilities, the 

science policy assumptions and 

estimation uncertainties associated with 

the risk measures, weight of the 

scientific evidence for human health 

effects, other quantified or unquantified 

health effects, effects due to co-location 

of facilities, and co-emissions of 

pollutants.’’ Id. 

In some cases, these health measures 

and factors taken together may provide 

a more realistic description of the 

magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. As explained in the Benzene 

NESHAP, ‘‘[e]ven though the risks 

judged ‘acceptable’ by EPA in the first 

step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are 

already low, the second step of the 

inquiry, determining an ‘ample margin 

of safety,’ again includes consideration 

of all of the health factors, and whether 

to reduce the risks even further. [* * *] 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the agency will establish the standard at 

a level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health as 

required by CAA section 112.’’ 

In NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1082 

(DC Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals 

held that CAA section 112(f)(2) 

‘‘incorporates EPA’s ‘interpretation’ of 

the Clean Air Act from the Benzene 

Standard, and the text of this provision 

draws no distinction between 

carcinogens and non-carcinogens.’’ 

Additionally, the Court held there is 

nothing on the face of the statute that 

limits the Agency’s section 112(f) 

assessment of risk to carcinogens. Id. at 

1081–82. In the NRDC case, the 

petitioners argued, among other things, 

that CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) applied 

only to non-carcinogens. The DC Circuit 

rejected this position, holding that the 

text of that provision ‘‘draws no 

distinction between carcinogens and 

non-carcinogens,’’ Id., and that 

Congress’ incorporation of the Benzene 

standard applies equally to carcinogens 

and non-carcinogens. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1272 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

In the ample margin of safety decision 

process, the agency again considers all 

of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the first step. 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the agency will establish the standard at 

a level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 

38046. 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

The NESHAP and associated 

regulated industrial source categories 

that are the subject of this proposal are 

listed in Table 2 to this preamble. Table 

2 is not intended to be exhaustive, but 

rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding entities likely to be affected by 

the proposed action for the industrial 

source categories listed. These 

standards, and any changes considered 

in this rulemaking, would be directly 

applicable to sources as a Federal 

program. Thus, Federal, state, local and 

tribal government entities are not 

affected by this proposed action. The 

regulated categories affected by this 

proposed action include: 

TABLE 2—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

NESHAP and source category NAICS Code 1 MACT Code 2

Group IV Polymers and Resins 

Acrylic-Butadiene-Styrene Production ...................................................................................................... 325211 1302 

Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production 3 .......................................................... 325211 1317 

Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene-Styrene Production ................................................................................ 325211 1318 

Nitrile Resins Production 3 ........................................................................................................................ 325211 1342 

Polyethylene Terephthalate Production ................................................................................................... 325211 1328 

Polystyrene Production ............................................................................................................................. 325211 1331 

Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production ............................................................................................................... 325211 1338 

Pesticide Active Ingredient Production ............................................................................................................ 325199, 325320 0911 

Polyether Polyols Production ........................................................................................................................... 325199 1625 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology. 

3There are no longer any operating facilities in either the Methyl Methacrylate-Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene Production or Nitrile Resins Production source categories, and none are anticipated to begin operation in the future. Therefore, this proposal does not address these source 

categories. 

C. 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 

proposal will also be available on the 

World Wide Web (WWW) through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature by the EPA 

Administrator, a copy of this proposed 

action will be posted on the TTN’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at the 

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Additional information is available on 

the residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) web page at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This 

information includes source category 

descriptions and detailed emissions and 

other data that were used as inputs to 

the risk assessments. 

D. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and 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 CFR part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Nick 

Parsons, c/o OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attn: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0435. 

II. Background 

A. What are the source categories 

addressed by this action? 

1. Group IV Polymers and Resins 

Production Source Categories 

The National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: 

Group IV Polymers and Resins were 

promulgated on September 12, 1996 (61 

FR 48208), and codified at 40 CFR part 

63, subpart JJJ. The Group IV Polymers 

and Resins MACT standards apply to 

major sources and regulate HAP 

emissions from seven source categories: 

acrylonitrile butadiene styrene resin 

(ABS), styrene acrylonitrile resin (SAN), 

methyl methacrylate acrylonitrile 

butadiene styrene resin (MABS), methyl 

methacrylate butadiene styrene resin 

(MBS), polystyrene resin, poly (ethylene 

terephthalate) resin (PET) and nitrile 

resin. 

The Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards regulate HAP 

emissions resulting from the production 

of thermoplastics. A thermoplastic is a 

resin that softens with heat and 

rehardens to a rigid material upon 

cooling, without generally showing any 

change in the physical properties of the 

thermoplastic, even with repeated 

heating and cooling. Thermoplastics are 

composed of high-molecular-weight 

polymers which are synthesized from 

monomers; the thermoplastics covered 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1273 

2 It is the EPA’s practice in these circumstances 

to not conduct unnecessary risk and technology 

reviews for source categories that will no longer 

have sources operating in the U.S. See, e.g., 75 FR 

65068, 65075, n.5 (Oct. 21, 2010) and 76 FR 22566, 

22575, n.5 (Apr. 21, 2011). 

in these seven source categories, with 

one exception, use styrene monomer as 

the basic feedstock. The thermoplastics 

included in these source categories are 

produced via a polymerization/ 

copolymerization process, in which 

monomers undergo intermolecular 

chemical bond formation to form a very 

large polymer molecule. Generally, the 

production of these polymers entails 

four processes: (1) Raw material (i.e., 

solvent) storage and refining; (2) 

polymer formation in a reactor (either 

via the solution process, where 

monomers are dissolved in an organic 

solvent, or the emulsion process, where 

monomers are dispersed in water using 

a soap solution); (3) material recovery; 

and (4) finishing (i.e., blending, aging, 

coagulation, washing and drying). 

Sources of HAP emissions from 

thermoplastics production include raw 

material storage vessels, continuous and 

batch process vents, wastewater 

operations, heat exchangers and 

equipment leaks. The Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards 

include a combination of equipment 

standards and emission limits for the 

various emission sources, which vary in 

stringency in some cases among the 

source categories. 

To meet the requirements of the 

Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards, the typical control devices 

used to reduce organic HAP emissions 

from process vents include flares, 

incinerators, absorbers, carbon 

adsorbers and condensers. In addition, 

emissions of hydrochloric acid (HCl) are 

controlled using scrubbers. Emissions 

from storage vessels are controlled by 

fixed roofs with closed vent systems 

routed to a control device. Emissions 

from wastewater are controlled by a 

variety of methods, including 

equipment modifications (e.g., fixed 

roofs on storage vessels and oil water 

separators; covers on surface 

impoundments, containers and drain 

systems), treatment to remove the HAP 

(steam stripping, biological treatment), 

control devices and work practices. 

Emissions from equipment leaks and 

heat exchangers are typically reduced 

by leak detection and repair (LDAR) 

work practice programs and, in some 

cases, by equipment modifications. Each 

of the five Group IV Polymers and 

Resins source categories addressed in 

this proposal are discussed further 

below. Two of the Group IV Polymers 

and Resins source categories, MABS and 

nitrile resins, no longer have any 

operating facilities in the U.S. and we 

do not anticipate any will begin to 

operate in the future. Therefore, this 

proposal does not address these source 

categories.2

a. Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Resin 

(ABS) 

ABS consist of a terpolymer of 

acrylonitrile, butadiene and styrene and 

can be synthesized by emulsion, 

suspension and continuous mass 

polymerization. The majority of ABS 

resin production is by batch emulsion. 

Typical products made from ABS resins 

are piping, refrigerator door liners and 

food compartments, automotive 

components, telephones, luggage and 

cases, toys, mobile homes and 

margarine tubs. 

We identified five currently operating 

ABS facilities subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards. 

Styrene, acrylonitrile and 1,3-butadiene 

account for the majority of the HAP 

emissions from the ABS production 

processes at these facilities 

(approximately 156 tpy and 76 percent 

of the total HAP emissions by mass). 

These facilities also reported relatively 

small emissions of 23 other HAP. We 

estimate that the MACT-allowable 

emissions (i.e., the maximum emission 

levels allowed if in compliance with the 

MACT standards) from this source 

category are approximately equal to the 

reported, actual emissions. For more 

detail about this estimate of the ratio of 

actual to MACT-allowable emissions 

and the estimation of MACT-allowable 

emission levels and associated risks and 

impacts, see the memorandum, MACT 

Allowable Emissions and Risks for the 

Pesticide Active Ingredient, Polyether 

Polyols, and Polymers and Resins IV 

Production Source Categories, in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

b. Styrene Acrylonitrile Resin (SAN) 

SAN resins are copolymers of styrene 

and acrylonitrile, and they may be 

synthesized by emulsion, suspension 

and continuous mass polymerization; 

however, the majority of production is 

by batch emulsion. Typical uses include 

automobile instrument panels and 

interior trim and housewares. 

We identified two currently operating 

SAN facilities subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards. 

Ethyl benzene and styrene account for 

the majority of the HAP emissions from 

the SAN production processes at these 

facilities (approximately 2 tpy and 82 

percent of the total HAP emissions by 

mass). These facilities also reported 

relatively small emissions of methylene 

chloride and acrylonitrile. We estimate 

that the MACT-allowable emissions 

(i.e., the maximum emission levels 

allowed if in compliance with the 

MACT standards) from this source 

category are approximately equal to the 

reported, actual emissions. For more 

detail about this estimate of the ratio of 

actual to MACT-allowable emissions 

and the estimation of MACT-allowable 

emission levels and associated risks and 

impacts, see the memorandum, MACT 

Allowable Emissions and Risks for the 

Pesticide Active Ingredient, Polyether 

Polyols, and Polymers and Resins IV 

Production Source Categories, in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

c. Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene 

Styrene Resin (MBS) 

MBS resins are prepared by grafting 

methyl methacrylate and styrene onto a 

styrene-butadiene rubber in an emulsion 

process. The product is a two-phase 

polymer used as an impact modifier for 

rigid polyvinyl chloride products. These 

products are used for applications in 

packaging, building and construction. 

We identified two currently operating 

MBS facilities subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards. 

Methyl methacrylate and 1,3-butadiene 

account for the majority of the HAP 

emissions from the MBS production 

processes at these facilities 

(approximately 4 tpy and 75 percent of 

the total HAP emissions by mass). These 

facilities also reported relatively small 

emissions of ethyl acrylate, methanol, 

styrene and HCl. We estimate that the 

MACT-allowable emissions (i.e., the 

maximum emission levels allowed if in 

compliance with the MACT standards) 

from this source category are 

approximately equal to the reported, 

actual emissions. For more detail about 

this estimate of the ratio of actual to 

MACT-allowable emissions and the 

estimation of MACT-allowable emission 

levels and associated risks and impacts, 

see the memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

d. Polystyrene Resin 

Polystyrene resins are those produced 

by the polymerization of styrene 

monomer. This type of resin can be 

produced by three methods: (1) 

Suspension polymerization (operated in 

batch mode); (2) mass (operated in a 

continuous mode); and (3) emulsion 

process (operated in a continuous 

mode). The mass and suspension 

methods are the most commercially 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1274 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

significant, whereas use of the emulsion 

process has decreased significantly 

since the mid-1940s. The uses for 

polystyrene resin include packaging and 

one-time use, expandable polystyrene 

beads, electronics, resellers and 

compounding, consumer and 

institutional products and furniture, 

building or construction uses. A wide 

variety of consumer and construction 

products are made from polystyrene 

resins, including disposable 

dinnerware, shower doors, light 

diffusers, soap dishes, insulation board, 

food containers, drain pipes, audio and 

video tape, picnic coolers, loose fill 

packaging and tubing. 

We identified 11 currently operating 

polystyrene resin facilities subject to the 

Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards. Styrene accounts for the 

majority of the HAP emissions from the 

polystyrene resin production processes 

at these facilities (approximately 85 tpy 

and 94 percent of the total HAP 

emissions by mass). These facilities also 

reported relatively small emissions of 

eight other HAP. We estimate that the 

MACT-allowable emissions (i.e., the 

maximum emission levels allowed if in 

compliance with the MACT standards) 

from this source category are 

approximately equal to the reported, 

actual emissions. For more detail about 

this estimate of the ratio of actual to 

MACT-allowable emissions and the 

estimation of MACT-allowable emission 

levels and associated risks and impacts, 

see the memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

e. Poly (Ethylene Terephthalate) Resin 

(PET) 

Three different types of resins are 

made by sources covered by the PET 

source category: Solid-state resins (PET 

bottle grade resins), polyester film and 

engineering resins. They are all 

thermoplastic linear condensation 

polymers based on dimethyl 

terephthalate or terephthalic acid (TPA). 

PET meltphase polymer is used in the 

production of all three of these resins. 

PET production can occur via either a 

batch or continuous process. The most 

common use of PET solid-state resins is 

in soft drink bottles, and some 

industrial fiber-graded polyester (e.g., 

for tire cord) is also produced from PET 

solid-state resins. The most common 

uses of PET film are photographic film 

and magnetic media. PET is used 

extensively in the manufacture of 

synthetic fibers (i.e., polyester fibers), 

which compose the largest segment of 

the synthetic fiber industry. The most 

common uses of polyester fibers are 

apparel, home furnishings, carpets, 

fiberfill and other industrial processes. 

We identified 15 currently operating 

PET facilities subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards. 

Ethylene glycol, acetaldehyde and 

methanol account for the majority of the 

HAP emissions from the PET 

production processes at these facilities 

(approximately 1,048 tpy and 89 percent 

of the total HAP emissions by mass). 

These facilities also reported relatively 

small emissions of 34 other HAP. We 

estimate that the MACT-allowable 

emissions (i.e., the maximum emission 

levels allowed if in compliance with the 

MACT standards) from this source 

category are approximately equal to the 

reported, actual emissions. For more 

detail about this estimate of the ratio of 

actual to MACT-allowable emissions 

and the estimation of MACT-allowable 

emission levels and associated risks and 

impacts, see the memorandum, MACT 

Allowable Emissions and Risks for the 

Pesticide Active Ingredient, Polyether 

Polyols, and Polymers and Resins IV 

Production Source Categories, in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

2. Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production 

The National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide 

Active Ingredient Production were 

promulgated on June 23, 1999 (64 FR 

33549), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MMM. The Pesticide Active 

Ingredient (PAI) MACT standards apply 

to major sources and regulate HAP 

emissions resulting from the production 

of active ingredients in insecticides, 

herbicides, fungicides and related 

products. Typically, the active 

ingredients subject to the PAI MACT 

standards are subsequently formulated 

with inert ingredients to create endproduct pesticides for application. The 

MACT standards do not apply to the 

formulation of end-product pesticides or 

to other types of active ingredients, such 

as biocides. 

PAI are made from a number of raw 

materials in a variety of processes. A 

process often consists of several steps, 

which may include reaction, 

crystallization, washing, solvent 

extraction, distillation and/or drying. 

The HAP emission sources at PAI 

production facilities include storage 

vessels, process vents, equipment leaks, 

wastewater systems, heat exchange 

systems, bag dumps and product dryers. 

In the production of PAI, HAP are used 

primarily as reactants or extraction 

solvents; some of the PAI products are 

also HAP. The MACT standards for PAI 

production include a combination of 

equipment standards and emission 

limits for the various emission sources. 

To meet the requirements of the PAI 

MACT standards, the typical control 

devices used to reduce emissions from 

process vents include flares, 

incinerators, absorbers, carbon 

adsorbers and condensers. In addition, 

emissions of HCl are controlled using 

scrubbers. Emissions from storage 

vessels are controlled by fixed roofs 

with closed vent systems routed to a 

control device. Emissions from 

wastewater are controlled by a variety of 

methods, including equipment 

modifications (e.g., fixed roofs on 

storage vessels and oil water separators; 

covers on surface impoundments, 

containers and drain systems), treatment 

to remove the HAP (steam stripping, 

biological treatment), control devices 

and work practices. Emissions from 

equipment leaks and heat exchangers 

are typically reduced by LDAR work 

practice programs and, in some cases, 

by equipment modifications. Fabric 

filters are used to control particulate 

matter (PM) emissions from product 

dryers and bag dumps. 

We identified 17 currently operating 

facilities subject to the PAI MACT 

standards. Toluene, methanol and 

methylene chloride account for the 

majority of the HAP emissions from the 

PAI production processes at these 

facilities (approximately 177 tpy and 51 

percent of the total HAP emissions by 

mass). A variety of chemicals are used 

in the production of PAI, and these 

facilities also reported emissions of 67 

other HAP. We estimate that the actual 

emissions level is representative of the 

MACT-allowable level (i.e., the 

maximum emission levels allowed if in 

compliance with the MACT standards) 

for all emissions sources except process 

vents. As it is possible that the capture 

systems and control devices used at 

some facilities achieve greater emission 

reductions than what is required by the 

NESHAP for process vents, the MACTallowable level for organic HAP 

emissions could be up to five times the 

actual emissions and the MACTallowable level for chlorine and HCl 

emissions could be up to six times the 

actual emissions from this source 

category. For more detail about this 

estimate of the ratio of actual to MACTallowable emissions and the estimation 

of MACT-allowable emission levels and 

associated risks and impacts, see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1275 

3. Polyether Polyols Production 

The National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions for 

Polyether Polyols Production were 

promulgated on June 1, 1999 (64 FR 

29419), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart PPP. The Polyether Polyols 

(PEPO) MACT standards apply to major 

sources and regulate HAP emissions 

resulting from the production of 

chemical products with repeating ether 

linkages (i.e., -R–O–R-) formed by the 

reaction of ethylene oxide, propylene 

oxide or other cyclic ethers with 

compounds having one or more reactive 

hydrogens. (This definition excludes 

materials regulated as glycols or glycol 

ethers under the National Emission 

Standards for Organic Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From the Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing Industry 

(HON).) PEPO do not have significant 

uses of their own but are used to make 

a variety of other products. Urethane 

grade PEPO (i.e., those that are free of 

water) are used as raw material in the 

production of polyurethanes, including 

slabstock and molded flexible foams, 

rigid foams and other polyurethanes, 

including microcellular products, 

surface coatings, elastomers, fibers, 

adhesives and sealants. Nonurethane 

PEPO are used as surfactants, lubricants, 

degreasing agents, hydraulic fluids, 

cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. 

PEPO can be produced by either 

polymerization of epoxides (i.e., a threemembered cyclic ether, such as ethylene 

oxide or propylene oxide) or 

tetrahydrofuran (THF). The former 

process is usually conducted as a batch 

process, while production of polyols 

using THF is generally a continuous 

process. Ethylene oxide and propylene 

oxide are both HAP, but THF is not. For 

the MACT regulation, two subcategories 

of PEPO were created based on the use 

of either epoxides or THF in 

polymerization. 

The HAP emission sources at PEPO 

production facilities include process 

vents, storage vessels, equipment leaks 

and wastewater, and some facilities 

have cooling towers or other heat 

exchangers. In the production of PEPO, 

HAP are used primarily as reactants or 

extraction solvents; some of the PEPO 

products are also HAP compounds. The 

MACT standards for PEPO production 

include emission limits for process 

vents, a combination of equipment 

standards and work practices for storage 

vessels, wastewater and equipment 

leaks, and work practice standards for 

cooling towers. 

To meet the requirements of the PEPO 

MACT standards, the typical control 

devices used to reduce emissions from 

storage vessels are fixed roofs with 

closed vent systems routed to a control 

device. Emissions from wastewater are 

controlled by a variety of methods, 

including equipment modifications 

(e.g., fixed roofs on storage vessels and 

oil water separators; covers on surface 

impoundments, containers and drain 

systems), treatment to remove the HAP 

(steam stripping, biological treatment), 

control devices and work practices. 

Emissions from equipment leaks and 

heat exchangers are typically reduced 

by LDAR work practice programs and, 

in some cases, by equipment 

modifications. Controls for process 

vents for facilities that use THF as a 

reactant generally use scrubbers. 

Epoxide emissions from process vents 

are typically controlled by scrubbers or 

combustion devices, but some facilities 

use extended cookout as a pollution 

prevention technique. Extended cookout 

reduces the amount of unreacted 

ethylene oxide and/or propylene oxide 

(epoxides) in the reactor. This is 

accomplished by allowing the product 

to react for a longer time period, thereby 

having less unreacted epoxides and 

reducing epoxides emissions that may 

have otherwise occurred. Emissions 

from catalyst extraction and other 

processes are generally vented to the 

same control device as the epoxide 

emissions or are minimal if the 

extended cookout practice is used. 

We identified 23 currently operating 

facilities subject to the PEPO MACT 

standards. Ethylene glycol, ethylene 

oxide and propylene oxide account for 

the majority of the HAP emissions from 

the PEPO production processes at these 

facilities (approximately 269 tpy and 61 

percent of the total HAP emissions by 

mass). A variety of chemicals are used 

in the production of PEPO, and these 

facilities also reported emissions of 81 

other HAP. We estimate that the actual 

emissions level is representative of the 

MACT-allowable level (i.e., the 

maximum emission levels allowed if in 

compliance with the MACT standards) 

for all emissions sources except batch 

process vents and process vents that use 

organic HAP in catalyst extraction at 

units producing PEPO products using 

epoxides. As it is possible that the 

capture systems and control devices 

used at some facilities achieve greater 

emission reductions in the organic nonepoxide HAP than what is required by 

the NESHAP for these process vents, the 

MACT-allowable level for organic nonepoxide HAP emissions could be up to 

five times the actual emissions from this 

source category. For more detail about 

this estimate of the ratio of actual to 

MACT-allowable emissions and the 

estimation of MACT-allowable emission 

levels and associated risks and impacts, 

see the memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

B. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this proposed 

action? 

To perform the risk assessments for 

these source categories, we developed 

data sets for these seven source 

categories (five Group IV Polymers and 

Resins categories, PAI and PEPO) based 

on information in the 2005 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) (available at 

http://www.epa.gov/chief/net/ 

2005inventory.html). 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. We reviewed the 

NEI data and made changes where 

necessary to ensure the proper facilities 

were included and to ensure the proper 

processes were allocated to each source 

category. We also reviewed the 

emissions and other data to identify 

data anomalies that could affect risk 

estimates, such as whether a pollutant 

was expected to be emitted from 

facilities in a source category or whether 

an emission point was located within a 

facility’s fenceline. The NEI data were 

also reviewed by industry trade groups, 

including the American Chemistry 

Council and the Society of Chemical 

Manufacturers and Affiliates. Where the 

EPA received new information in 

response to these data review by 

industry, including updated emissions 

data and process information, facility 

closure information and information 

that some facilities were not subject to 

the PAI, PEPO or Group IV Polymers 

and Resins MACT standards, we revised 

the NEI data where we concluded the 

comments supported such adjustment. 

We obtained updated emissions data 

and process information, found that 

some facilities had closed and that 

others were no longer subject to the PAI, 

PEPO or Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards. In general, we found 

that emissions from these source 

categories had decreased from the 

values reported in the 2005 NEI, due to 

factors such as the installation of 

additional controls at the facility, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1276 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

duplication of emissions in the 

inventory, or emissions misappropriated 

to the wrong source category. We used 

this reviewed and revised data set to 

conduct the risk assessment and other 

analyses for each source category. Due 

to the uncertainties in the data (e.g., 

most emission estimates in the data set 

are the result of emission factors rather 

than test data), along with our general 

finding that emissions were less than 

those reported in the 2005 NEI, we 

believe that the data set provides a 

conservative estimate of the risk from 

these source categories. Further details 

on the changes made to the 2005 NEI 

data can be found in the memorandum, 

Emissions Data and Acute Risk Factor 

Used in Residual Risk Modeling: 

Pesticide Active Ingredients, Polyether 

Polyols, and Group IV Polymers and 

Resins, which is in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

To conduct the technology review, we 

primarily relied on information 

downloaded from the reasonably 

available control technology (RACT)/ 

best available control technology 

(BACT)/lowest achievable emission rate 

(LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC) for 

processes in Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing (for PAI controls), 

Polymer and Resin Production (for 

Group IV Polymers and Resins controls) 

and the Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (for 

PAI, PEPO and Group IV Polymers and 

Resins controls) with permits dating 

back to the promulgation dates of each 

MACT regulation. 

To evaluate unregulated emission 

points in the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins MACT standards, we relied on 

existing data submitted to the EPA 

during development of the MACT, 

information submitted after proposal of 

the MACT standards and information 

submitted with requests for 

reconsideration of standards. 

III. Analyses Performed 

A. How did we address unregulated 

emissions sources? 

For the Group IV Polymers and Resins 

source categories, we identified one 

subcategory—PET sources using a 

continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 

end finisher process—consisting of one 

facility that was not subject to standards 

for process contact cooling towers 

(PCCT) or equipment leaks. While the 

promulgated rule includes provisions 

for PCCT for this subcategory, the 

facility is not required to comply with 

these provisions due to an indefinite 

stay in the compliance date provisions 

issued by the EPA in response to a 

request to reconsider the emission limits 

for this equipment. For this facility, we 

also identified the absence of a standard 

for equipment leaks, which in the 

absence of an enforceable standard is a 

potential significant emissions source 

for this facility, even though its 

operators currently voluntarily conduct 

their own LDAR program. For the one 

facility in this subcategory, we are 

proposing to set standards for PCCT and 

equipment leaks under CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (d)(3) in this action. The 

results and proposed decisions based on 

the analyses performed pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) are 

presented in section IV.E.1 of this 

preamble. While we also identified the 

absence of a standard for wastewater for 

the acrylonitrile styrene resin/alpha 

methyl styrene acrylonitrile resin (ASA/ 

AMSAN) subcategory of the SAN source 

category, the only facility in this 

subcategory has permanently closed, 

and no new ASA/AMSAN operations 

are expected to begin operation in the 

United States. As stated previously and 

as established in prior risk and 

technology review rulemakings, it is not 

EPA’s practice to unnecessarily conduct 

risk and technology reviews for source 

categories that will no longer have 

sources operating in the United States. 

Therefore, we are not addressing this 

emission point in this proposed action. 

B. How did we estimate risks posed by 

the source categories? 

The EPA conducted risk assessments 

that provided estimates of the MIR 

posed by the HAP emissions from each 

source in each 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. The 

assessments also provided estimates of 

the distribution of cancer risks within 

the exposed populations, cancer 

incidence and an evaluation of the 

potential for adverse environmental 

effects for each source category. The risk 

assessments consisted of seven primary 

steps, as discussed below. The docket 

for this rulemaking contains the 

following document which provides 

more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for 7 Source Categories. The 

methods used to assess risks (as 

described in the seven primary steps 

below) are consistent with those peerreviewed by a panel of the EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 

and described in their peer review 

report issued in 2010; they are also 

consistent with the key 

recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. Establishing the Nature and 

Magnitude of Actual Emissions and 

Identifying the Emissions Release 

Characteristics 

As discussed in section II.B, we 

created the preliminary data sets for the 

seven source categories using data in the 

2005 NEI, supplemented by data 

collected from industry or industry 

trade associations when available. 

2. Establishing the Relationship 

Between Actual Emissions and MACT– 

Allowable Emissions Levels 

The available emissions data in the 

NEI and from other sources typically 

represent the mass of HAP actually 

emitted during the specified annual 

time period. These ‘‘actual’’ emission 

levels can be lower than the emission 

levels a facility might be allowed to emit 

and still comply with the MACT 

standards. The emissions level allowed 

to be emitted by the MACT standards is 

referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ 

emissions level. This represents the 

highest emissions level that could be 

emitted by facilities without violating 

the MACT standards. 

We discussed the use of both MACTallowable and actual emissions in the 

final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk 

rule (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, 

2005) and in the proposed and final 

HON residual risk rules (71 FR 34428, 

June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, 

December 21, 2006, respectively). In 

those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

because these risks reflect the maximum 

level sources could emit and still 

comply with national emission 

standards. We continue to take this 

view, for the reasons presented in those 

discussions. But we also explained that 

it is reasonable to consider actual 

emissions, where such data are 

available, in both steps of the risk 

analysis, in accordance with the 

Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989.) We also continue 

to take this view, for the reasons 

explained in those prior discussions. 

As described above, the actual 

emissions data were compiled based on 

the NEI and information gathered from 

facilities through industrial trade 

associations. To estimate emissions at 

the MACT-allowable level, we 

developed a ratio of MACT-allowable to 

actual emissions for each emissions 

source type in each source category, 

based on the level of control required by 

the MACT standards compared to the 

level of reported actual emissions and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1277 

3U.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). 

4A census block is generally the smallest 

geographic area for which census statistics are 

tabulated. 

5The IRIS information is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/IRIS. 

6U.S. EPA, 2006. Performing risk assessments 

that include carcinogens described in the 

Supplemental Guidance as having a mutagenic 

mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer 

Guidelines Implementation Workgroup 

Communication II: Memorandum from W.H. 

Farland, dated June 14, 2006. http://epa.gov/osa/ 

spc/pdfs/CGIWGCommunication_II.pdf. 

7U.S. EPA, 2005. Supplemental Guidance for 

Assessing Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/ 

630/R–03/003F. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

childrens_supplement_final.pdf. 

8Only one of these mutagenic compounds, 

benzo[a]pyrene, is emitted by any of the sources 

covered by this proposal. 

9U.S. EPA, 2005. Science Policy Council Cancer 

Guidelines Implementation Workgroup 

Communication I: Memorandum from W.H. 

Farland, dated October 4, 2005, to Science Policy 

Council. http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/ 

canguid1.pdf. 

available information on the level of 

control achieved by the emissions 

controls in use. For example, if there 

was information to suggest several 

facilities in a source category were 

controlling storage tank emissions by 98 

percent, while the MACT standards 

required only 92-percent control, we 

would estimate that MACT-allowable 

emissions from these emission points 

could be as much as four times higher 

(8-percent allowable emissions 

compared with 2 percent actually 

emitted), and the ratio of MACTallowable to actual would be 4:1 for this 

emission point type at the facilities in 

this source category. After developing 

these ratios for each emission point type 

in each source category, we next applied 

these ratios on a facility-by-facility basis 

to the maximum chronic risk values 

from the inhalation risk assessment to 

obtain facility-specific maximum risk 

values based on MACT-allowable 

emissions. Further explanation of this 

evaluation is provided in the technical 

document, MACT Allowable Emissions 

and Risks for the Pesticide Active 

Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, and 

Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, 

Determining Inhalation Exposures, and 

Estimating Individual and Population 

Inhalation Risks 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from each facility in the 

source categories addressed in this 

proposal were estimated using the 

Human Exposure Model (HEM) 

(Community and Sector HEM–3 version 

1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs three of the 

primary risk assessment activities listed 

above: (1) Conducting dispersion 

modeling to estimate the concentrations 

of HAP in ambient air; (2) estimating 

long-term and short-term inhalation 

exposures to individuals residing within 

50 km of the modeled sources; and (3) 

estimating individual and populationlevel inhalation risks using the exposure 

estimates and quantitative doseresponse information. 

The dispersion model used by HEM– 

3 is AERMOD, which is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities.3 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 (1991) of hourly surface and upper 

air observations for 189 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of 

the United States and Puerto Rico. A 

second library of United States Census 

Bureau census block 4 internal point 

locations and populations provides the 

basis of human exposure calculations 

(U.S. Census, 2000). In addition, the 

census library includes the elevation 

and controlling hill height for each 

census block, which are also used in 

dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant unit risk factors and other 

health benchmarks is used to estimate 

health risks. These risk factors and 

health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values 

are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentration of each of the HAP 

emitted by each source for which we 

have emissions data in the source 

category. The air concentrations at each 

nearby census block centroid were used 

as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all people 

who reside in that census block. We 

calculated the MIR for each facility as 

the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week and 52 weeks per year 

for a 70-year period) exposure to the 

maximum concentration at the centroid 

of inhabited census blocks. Individual 

cancer risks were calculated by 

multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk 

estimate (URE), which is an upper 

bound estimate of an individual’s 

probability of contracting cancer over a 

lifetime of exposure to a concentration 

of 1 microgram of the pollutant per 

cubic meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use URE 

values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS).5 For 

carcinogenic pollutants without EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

URE values, 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 doseresponse values in place of, or in 

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

We note here that several carcinogens 

have a mutagenic mode of action.6 Of 

these compounds, polycyclic organic 

matter (POM) is emitted by facilities in 

the PEPO and PET source categories, 

and vinyl chloride is emitted by 

facilities in the PEPO and the PAI 

source categories. For these compounds, 

the age-dependent adjustment factors 

(ADAF) described in the EPA’s 

Supplemental Guidance for Assessing 

Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure 

to Carcinogens 7 were applied. This 

adjustment has the effect of increasing 

the estimated lifetime risks for these 

pollutants by a factor of 1.6.8 In 

addition, the EPA expresses 

carcinogenic potency for compounds in 

the POM group in terms of 

benzo[a]pyrene equivalence, based on 

evidence that carcinogenic POM have 

the same mutagenic mechanism of 

action as does benzo[a]pyrene. For this 

reason, the EPA’s Science Policy 

Council 9 recommends applying the 

Supplemental Guidance to all 

carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons for which risk estimates 

are based on relative potency. 

Accordingly, we have applied the ADAF 

to benzo[a]pyrene equivalent portion of 

all POM mixtures. 

Incremental individual lifetime 

cancer risks associated with emissions 

from the source categories were 

estimated as the sum of the risks for 

each of the carcinogenic HAP (including 

those classified as carcinogenic to 

humans, likely to be carcinogenic to 

humans, and suggestive evidence of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1278 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the 

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer 

review of the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment 

(NATA) entitled, NATA—Evaluating the Nationalscale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB 

Advisory, available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570CA

007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf. 

11NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for 

Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous 

Chemicals, page 2. 

carcinogenic potential 10) emitted by the 

modeled sources. Cancer incidence and 

the distribution of individual cancer 

risks for the population within 50 km of 

any source were also estimated for the 

source categories as part of these 

assessments by summing individual 

risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent 

with both the analysis supporting the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) 

and the limitations of Gaussian 

dispersion models, including AERMOD. 

To assess risk of noncancer health 

effects from chronic exposures, we 

summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference level, which is either the EPA 

reference concentration (RfC), defined 

as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty 

spanning perhaps an order of 

magnitude) of a continuous inhalation 

exposure to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime,’’ 

or, in cases where an RfC from the 

EPA’s IRIS database is not available, a 

value from the following prioritized 

sources for chronic dose-response 

values: (1) The Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry 

Minimum Risk Level, which is defined 

as ‘‘an estimate of daily human 

exposure to a substance that is likely to 

be without an appreciable risk of 

adverse effects (other than cancer) over 

a specified duration of exposure’’; (2) 

the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure 

Level (REL), which is defined as ‘‘the 

concentration level at or below which 

no adverse health effects are anticipated 

for a specified exposure duration’’; or 

(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, in place of or 

in concert with other values. 

Screening estimates of acute 

exposures and risks were also evaluated 

for each of the HAP at the point of 

highest off-site exposure for each facility 

(i.e., not just the census block 

centroids), assuming that a person is 

located at this spot at a time when both 

the peak (hourly) emission rates from 

each emission point at the facility and 

worst-case dispersion conditions occur. 

The acute HQ is the estimated acute 

exposure divided by the acute doseresponse value. In each case, acute HQ 

values were calculated using best 

available, short-term health threshold 

values. These acute dose-response 

values, which are described below, 

include the acute REL, acute exposure 

guideline levels (AEGL) and emergency 

response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 

1-hour exposure durations. As 

discussed below, we used conservative 

assumptions for emission rates, 

meteorology and exposure location for 

our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http:// 

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) 

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ Acute REL values 

are based on the most sensitive, 

relevant, adverse health effect reported 

in the medical and toxicological 

literature. Acute REL values are 

designed to protect the most sensitive 

sub-populations (e.g., asthmatics) by the 

inclusion of margins of safety. Because 

margins of safety are incorporated to 

address data gaps and uncertainties, 

exceeding the REL value does not 

automatically indicate an adverse health 

impact. 

AEGL values were derived in 

response to recommendations from the 

National Research Council (NRC). As 

described in Standing Operating 

Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/ 

opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),11 ‘‘the 

NRC’s previous name for acute exposure 

levels—community emergency exposure 

levels—was replaced by the term AEGL 

to reflect the broad application of these 

values to planning, response and 

prevention in the community, the 

workplace, transportation, the military 

and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.’’ This document also states that 

AEGL values ‘‘represent threshold 

exposure limits for the general public 

and are applicable to emergency 

exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 

hours.’’ The document lays out the 

purpose and objectives of AEGL by 

stating (page 21) that ‘‘the primary 

purpose of the AEGL program and the 

National Advisory Committee for Acute 

Exposure Guideline Levels for 

Hazardous Substances is to develop 

guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, 

short-term exposures to airborne 

concentrations of acutely toxic, highpriority chemicals.’’ In detailing the 

intended application of AEGL values, 

the document states (page 31) that ‘‘[i]t 

is anticipated that the AEGL values will 

be used for regulatory and 

nonregulatory purposes by U.S. Federal 

and state agencies and, possibly, the 

international community in conjunction 

with chemical emergency response, 

planning and prevention programs. 

More specifically, the AEGL values will 

be used for conducting various risk 

assessments to aid in the development 

of emergency preparedness and 

prevention plans, as well as real-time 

emergency response actions, for 

accidental chemical releases at fixed 

facilities and from transport carriers.’’ 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

of a substance above which it is 

predicted that the general population, 

including susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, irritation 

or certain asymptomatic nonsensory 

effects. However, the effects are not 

disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

The document also notes (page 3) that, 

‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL– 

1 represent exposure levels that can 

produce mild and progressively 

increasing but transient and 

nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory 

irritation or certain asymptomatic, 

nonsensory effects.’’ Similarly, the 

document defines AEGL–2 values as 

‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed 

as ppm or milligrams per cubic meter 

(mg/m3) of a substance above which it 

is predicted that the general population, 

including susceptible individuals, could 

experience irreversible or other serious, 

long-lasting adverse health effects or an 

impaired ability to escape.’’ 

ERPG values are derived for use in 

emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association’s document titled, 

Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and 

Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/ 

1documents/committees/ 

ERPSOPs2006.pdf), which states that, 

‘‘Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines were developed for 

emergency planning and are intended as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1279 

12ERP Committee Procedures and 

Responsibilities. 1 November, 2006. American 

Industrial Hygiene Association. 

13See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/ 

field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 

source of these data. 

14The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http://yosemite.epa.

gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A

8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007- 

unsigned.pdf. 

15U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific 

Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical 

Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 

EPA/600/R–09/061, and available on-line at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?

deid=211003. 

health-based guideline concentrations 

for single exposures to chemicals.’’12

The ERPG–1 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

1 hour without experiencing other than 

mild transient adverse health effects or 

without perceiving a clearly defined, 

objectionable odor.’’ Similarly, the 

ERPG–2 value is defined as ‘‘the 

maximum airborne concentration below 

which it is believed that nearly all 

individuals could be exposed for up to 

1 hour without experiencing or 

developing irreversible or other serious 

health effects or symptoms which could 

impair an individual’s ability to take 

protective action.’’ 

As can be seen from the definitions 

above, the AEGL and ERPG values 

include the similarly-defined severity 

levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a 

severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 

not been developed because the types of 

effects for these chemicals are not 

consistent with the AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

definitions; in these instances, higher 

severity level AEGL–2 or ERPG–2 values 

are compared to our modeled exposure 

levels to screen for potential acute 

concerns. When AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

values are available, they are used in 

our acute risk assessments. 

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure 

durations are typically lower than their 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1 values are 

often similar to the corresponding 

ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are 

often similar to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute 

screening risk assessments typically 

result when basing them on the acute 

REL value for a particular pollutant. In 

cases where our maximum acute HQ 

value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ 

value based on the next highest acute 

dose-response value (usually the AEGL– 

1 and/or the ERPG–1 value). 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures in the absence of hourly 

emissions data, generally we first 

develop estimates of maximum hourly 

emissions rates by multiplying the 

average actual annual hourly emission 

rates by a default factor to cover 

routinely variable emissions. We choose 

the factor to use based on process 

knowledge and engineering judgment 

and with awareness of a Texas study of 

short-term emissions variability, which 

showed that most peak emission events 

in a heavily-industrialized 4-county area 

(Harris, Galveston, Chambers and 

Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than 

twice the annual average hourly 

emission rate. The highest peak 

emissions event was 74 times the 

annual average hourly emission rate, 

and the 99th percentile ratio of peak 

hourly emissions rate to the annual 

average hourly emissions rate was 9.13

This analysis is provided in the Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for 7 Source 

Categories report, which is available in 

the docket for this action. Considering 

this analysis, to account for more than 

99 percent of the peak hourly emissions, 

we apply a conservative screening 

multiplication factor of 10 to the average 

annual hourly emissions rate in our 

acute exposure screening assessments as 

our default approach. However, we use 

a factor other than 10 if we have 

information that indicates that a 

different factor is appropriate for a 

particular source category. For these 

source categories, a factor of 10 was 

applied to all emissions, with two 

exceptions. For certain facilities with 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions greater than 876 tpy and for 

several facilities with emissions from 

equipment leaks, a factor of two was 

applied. A further discussion of why 

this factor was chosen can be found in 

the memorandum, Emissions Data and 

Acute Risk Factor Used in Residual Risk 

Modeling: Pesticide Active Ingredients, 

Polyether Polyols, and Group IV 

Polymers and Resins, available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

As part of our acute risk assessment 

process, for cases where acute HQ 

values from the screening step were less 

than or equal to 1, acute impacts were 

deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. In the cases 

where an acute HQ from the screening 

step was greater than 1, additional sitespecific data were considered to 

develop a more refined estimate of the 

potential for acute impacts of concern. 

The data refinements considered 

include using a peak-to-mean hourly 

emissions ratio based on source 

category-specific knowledge or data 

(rather than the default factor of 10) and 

using the site-specific facility layout to 

distinguish facility property from an 

area where the public could be exposed. 

Ideally, we would prefer to have 

continuous measurements over time to 

see how the emissions vary by each 

hour over an entire year. Having a 

frequency distribution of hourly 

emission rates over a year would allow 

us to perform a probabilistic analysis to 

estimate potential threshold 

exceedances and their frequency of 

occurrence. Such an evaluation could 

include a more complete statistical 

treatment of the key parameters and 

elements adopted in this screening 

analysis. However, we recognize that 

having this level of data is rare, hence 

our use of the multiplier approach. 

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

acute exposures to HAP, and in 

response to a key recommendation from 

the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s RTR 

risk assessment methodologies,14 we 

generally examine a wider range of 

available acute health metrics (e.g., REL, 

AEGL) than we do for our chronic risk 

assessments. This is in response to the 

SAB’s acknowledgement that there are 

generally more data gaps and 

inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. In some cases, when 

Reference Value Arrays15 for HAP have 

been developed, we consider additional 

acute values (i.e., occupational and 

international values) to provide a more 

complete risk characterization. 

4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure 

and Risk Screening 

The potential for significant human 

health risks due to exposures via routes 

other than inhalation (i.e., 

multipathway exposures) and the 

potential for adverse environmental 

impacts were evaluated in a two-step 

process. In the first step, we determined 

whether any facilities emitted any HAP 

known to be persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB– 

HAP). There are 14 PB–HAP 

compounds or compound classes 

identified for this screening in the EPA’s 

Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library 

(available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are 

cadmium compounds, chlordane, 

chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 

heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, 

hexachlorocyclohexane, lead 

compounds, mercury compounds, 

methoxychlor, polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCB), POM, toxaphene and 

trifluralin. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1280 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16Short-term mobility is movement from one 

microenvironment to another over the course of 

hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 

from one residence to another over the course of a 

lifetime. 

In the second step of the screening 

process, we determined whether the 

facility-specific emission rates of each of 

the emitted PB–HAP were large enough 

to create the potential for significant 

non-inhalation human or environmental 

risks under reasonable worst-case 

conditions. To facilitate this step, we 

have developed emission rate 

thresholds for several of these PB–HAP 

using a hypothetical worst-case 

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 hypothetical 

screening scenario was subjected to a 

sensitivity analysis to ensure that its key 

design parameters were established 

such that environmental media 

concentrations were not underestimated 

(i.e., to minimize the occurrence of false 

negatives or results that suggest that 

risks might be acceptable when, in fact, 

actual risks are high) and to also 

minimize the occurrence of false 

positives for human health endpoints. 

We call this application of the 

TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. The 

facility-specific emission rates of each of 

the PB–HAP in each source category 

were compared to the TRIM-Screen 

emission threshold values for each of 

these PB–HAP to assess the potential for 

significant human health risks or 

environmental risks via non-inhalation 

pathways. 

5. Assessing Risks Considering 

Emissions Control Options 

In addition to assessing baseline 

inhalation risks and screening for 

potential multipathway risks, for some 

source categories, we also estimated 

risks considering the potential emission 

reductions that would be achieved by 

the particular control options under 

consideration. In these cases, the 

expected emissions reductions were 

applied to the specific HAP and 

emission points in the source category 

dataset to develop corresponding 

estimates of risk reductions. 

6. Conducting Other Risk-Related 

Analyses: Facility-Wide Assessments 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we examined 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, for 

each facility that includes one or more 

sources from a source category under 

review, we examined the HAP 

emissions not only from that source 

category, but also emissions of HAP 

from all other emission sources at the 

facility. The emissions data for 

generating these ‘‘facility-wide’’ risks 

were obtained from the 2005 NEI. We 

analyzed risks due to the inhalation of 

HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ for 

the populations residing within 50 km 

of each facility, consistent with the 

methods used for the source category 

analysis described above. For these 

facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled 

source category risks were compared to 

the facility-wide risks to determine the 

portion of facility-wide risks that could 

be attributed to each of the seven source 

categories addressed in this proposal. 

We 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 risk 

documentation available through the 

docket for this action provides all 

facility-wide risks and the percentage of 

source category contribution for all 

source categories assessed. 

The methodology and results of the 

facility-wide analyses for each source 

category are included in the residual 

risk documentation as referenced in 

sections IV though VI of this preamble, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action. 

7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk 

Assessment 

Uncertainty and the potential for bias 

are inherent in all risk assessments, 

including those performed for the 

source categories addressed in this 

proposal. Although uncertainty exists, 

we believe the approach taken, which 

used conservative tools and 

assumptions, ensures that our decisions 

are health-protective. A brief discussion 

of the uncertainties in the emissions 

data sets, dispersion modeling, 

inhalation exposure estimates and doseresponse relationships follows below. A 

more thorough discussion of these 

uncertainties is included in the risk 

assessment documentation (Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for 7 Source 

Categories (September 2011)), which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Data 

Sets 

Although the development of the RTR 

data sets involved quality assurance/ 

quality control processes, the accuracy 

of emissions values will vary depending 

on the source of the data, the degree to 

which data are incomplete or missing, 

the degree to which assumptions made 

to complete the data sets are accurate, 

errors in estimating emissions values 

and other factors. The emission values 

considered in this analysis generally are 

annual totals that do not reflect shortterm fluctuations during the course of a 

year or variations from year to year. In 

contrast, the estimates of peak hourly 

emission rates for the acute effects 

screening assessment were based on 

emission adjustment factors applied to 

the average annual hourly emission 

rates (the default factor is 10 for the 

initial screening), which are intended to 

account for emission fluctuations due to 

normal facility operations. In some 

cases, more refined estimates, using 

lower emission adjustment factors that 

reflected consideration of categoryspecific information, were used for 

source categories where the screening 

estimates did not ‘‘screen out’’ all 

sources and more specific information 

was available. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

While the analysis employed the 

EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD, we 

recognize that there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

AERMOD. Where possible, model 

options (e.g., rural/urban, plume 

depletion, chemistry) were selected to 

provide an overestimate of ambient air 

concentrations of the HAP rather than 

underestimates. However, because of 

practicality and data limitation reasons, 

some factors (e.g., meteorology, building 

downwash) have the potential in some 

situations to overestimate or 

underestimate ambient impacts. For 

example, meteorological data were 

taken from a single year (1991), and 

facility locations can be a significant 

distance from the site where these data 

were taken. Despite these uncertainties, 

we believe that at off-site locations and 

census block centroids, the approach 

considered in the dispersion modeling 

analysis should generally yield 

overestimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The effects of human mobility on 

exposures were not included in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.16 Not 

considering short or long-term 

population mobility does not bias the 

estimate of the theoretical MIR, nor does 

it affect the estimate of cancer incidence 

because the total population number 

remains the same. It does, however, 

affect the shape of the distribution of 

individual risks across the affected 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1281 

17U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85.) 18 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/ 

help_gloss.htm). 

19An 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. 

20According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) 

‘‘[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, 

that are applied to various elements of the risk 

assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC 

report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process, defined default option as 

‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

absence of data to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). 

Therefore, default options are not rules that bind 

the agency; rather, the agency may depart from 

them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific 

substance when it believes this to be appropriate. 

In keeping with the EPA’s goal of protecting public 

health and the environment, default assumptions 

are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not 

underestimated (although defaults are not intended 

to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA 2004, An 

examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles 

and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001, available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

population, shifting it toward higher 

estimated individual risks at the upper 

end and reducing the number of people 

estimated to be at lower risks, thereby 

increasing the estimated number of 

people at specific high risk levels (e.g., 

1-in-1 million). 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but it is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. 

The assessments evaluate the cancer 

inhalation risks associated with 

continuous pollutant exposures over a 

70-year period, which is the assumed 

lifetime of an individual. In reality, both 

the length of time that modeled 

emissions sources at facilities actually 

operate (i.e., more or less than 70 years) 

and the domestic growth or decline of 

the modeled industry (i.e., the increase 

or decrease in the number or size of 

United States facilities) will influence 

the risks posed by a given source 

category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these 

factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk 

levels and in the total estimated number 

of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, 

where a facility maintains or increases 

its emission levels beyond 70 years, 

residents live beyond 70 years at the 

same location, and the residents spend 

most of their days at that location, then 

the risks could potentially be 

underestimated. Annual cancer 

incidence estimates from exposures to 

emissions from these sources would not 

be affected by uncertainty in the length 

of time emissions sources operate. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient levels of pollutants. Because 

most people spend the majority of their 

time indoors, actual exposures may not 

be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many HAP, indoor levels 

are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, these levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overstatement of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures.17

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

other factors specific to the acute 

exposure assessment. The accuracy of 

an acute inhalation exposure assessment 

depends on the simultaneous 

occurrence of independent factors that 

may vary greatly, such as hourly 

emissions rates, meteorology and 

human activity patterns. In this 

assessment, we assume that individuals 

remain for 1 hour at the point of 

maximum ambient concentration as 

determined by the co-occurrence of 

peak emissions and worst-case 

meteorological conditions. These 

assumptions would tend to be worstcase actual exposures, as it is unlikely 

that a person would be located at the 

point of maximum exposure during the 

time of worst-case impact. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the reference values 

used in our risk assessments for cancer 

effects from chronic exposures and 

noncancer effects from both chronic and 

acute exposures. Some uncertainties 

may be considered quantitatively and 

others generally are expressed in 

qualitative terms. We note as a preface 

to this discussion a point on doseresponse uncertainty that is brought out 

in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer Guidelines; 

namely, that ‘‘the primary goal of EPA 

actions is protection of human health; 

accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk 

assessment procedures, including 

default options that are used in the 

absence of scientific data to the 

contrary, should be health protective.’’ 

(EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, 

pages 1–7.) This is the approach 

followed here as summarized in the 

next several paragraphs. A complete 

detailed discussion of uncertainties and 

variabilities in dose-response 

relationships is given in the residual 

risk documentation, which is available 

in the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).18 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.19 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate health 

protection, the EPA typically uses the 

upper bound estimates rather than 

lower bound or central tendency 

estimates in our risk assessments, an 

approach that may have limitations for 

other uses (e.g., priority-setting or 

expected benefits analysis). 

Chronic noncancer reference (RfC) 

and reference dose (RfD) values 

represent chronic exposure levels that 

are intended to be health-protective 

levels. Specifically, these values provide 

an estimate (with uncertainty spanning 

perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily 

oral exposure (RfD) or of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime. To derive values that 

are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable 

risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an 

uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. 

EPA, 1993, 1994), which includes 

consideration of both uncertainty and 

variability. The UF are applied to derive 

reference values that are intended to 

protect against appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects. The UF are 

commonly default values,20 e.g., factors 

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of 

compound-specific data; where data are 

available, UF may also be developed 

using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1282 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

21Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk were an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

tendency to overestimate risk in the 

sense that further study might support 

development of reference values that are 

higher (i.e., less potent), because fewer 

default assumptions are needed. 

However, for some pollutants it is 

possible that risks may be 

underestimated. 

While collectively termed ‘‘UF,’’ these 

factors account for a number of different 

quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or 

human toxicity data in the development 

of the RfC. The UF are intended to 

account for: (1) Variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the 

human population (i.e., inter-individual 

variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal 

data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a 

study with less-than-lifetime exposure 

(i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in 

extrapolating the observed data to 

obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is 

incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. 

Many of the UF used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values 

are quite similar to those developed for 

chronic durations, but they more often 

use individual UF values that may be 

less than 10. UF are applied based on 

chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to 

derive an acute reference value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute reference values are 

developed for the same purpose and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of shortterm dose-response values at different 

levels of severity should be factored into 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

Although every effort is made to 

identify peer-reviewed reference values 

for cancer and noncancer effects for all 

pollutants emitted by the sources 

included in this assessment, some 

pollutants have no peer-reviewed 

reference values for cancer, chronic 

noncancer or acute effects. Since 

exposures to these pollutants cannot be 

included in a quantitative risk estimate, 

an understatement of risk for these 

pollutants at environmental exposure 

levels is possible. For a group of 

compounds that are either unspeciated 

or do not have reference values for every 

individual compound (e.g., glycol 

ethers) we conservatively use the most 

protective reference value to estimate 

risk from individual compounds in the 

group of compounds. 

Additionally, chronic reference values 

for several of the compounds included 

in this assessment are currently under 

EPA IRIS review, and revised 

assessments may determine that these 

pollutants are more or less potent than 

the current value. We may re-evaluate 

residual risks for the final rulemaking if 

these reviews are completed prior to our 

taking final action for these source 

categories and if a dose-response metric 

changes enough to indicate that the risk 

assessment supporting this notice may 

significantly understate human health 

risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

and Environmental Effects Screening 

Assessment 

We generally assume that when 

exposure levels are not anticipated to 

adversely affect human health, they also 

are not anticipated to adversely affect 

the environment. For each source 

category, we generally rely on the sitespecific levels of PB–HAP emissions to 

determine whether a full assessment of 

the multipathway and environmental 

effects is necessary. Our screening 

methods use worst-case scenarios to 

determine whether multipathway 

impacts might be important. The results 

of such a process are biased high for the 

purpose of screening out potential 

impacts. Thus, when individual 

pollutants or facilities screen out, we are 

confident that the potential for 

multipathway impacts is negligible. On 

the other hand, when individual 

pollutants or facilities do not screen out, 

it does not mean that multipollutant 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility. 

C. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this proposal? 

As discussed in the previous section 

of this preamble, we apply a two-step 

process for determining whether to 

develop standards to address residual 

risk. 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 

level on maximum individual lifetime 

[cancer] risk (MIR) 21 of approximately 

one in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 

million].’’ 54 FR 38045. In the second 

step of the process, the EPA determines 

what level of the standard is needed to 

provide an ample margin of safety ‘‘in 

consideration of all health information, 

including the number of persons at risk 

levels higher than approximately one in 

one million, as well as other relevant 

factors, including costs and economic 

impacts, technological feasibility, and 

other factors relevant to each particular 

decision.’’ Id. 

In past residual risk actions, the EPA 

presented and considered a number of 

human health risk metrics associated 

with emissions from the category under 

review, including: The MIR; the 

numbers of persons in various risk 

ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum 

noncancer HI; and the maximum acute 

noncancer hazard. See, e.g., 75 FR 

65068, 65072–74 (Oct. 21, 2010), and 76 

FR 22566, 22575 (Apr. 21, 2011). In 

estimating risks, the EPA considered 

sources under review that are located 

near each other and that affect the same 

population. The EPA developed risk 

estimates based on the actual emissions 

from the source category under review 

as well as based on the maximum 

emissions allowed pursuant to the 

source category MACT standards. The 

EPA also discussed and considered risk 

estimation uncertainties. The EPA is 

providing this same type of information 

in support of these actions. 

The agency is considering all 

available health information to inform 

our determinations of risk acceptability 

and ample margin of safety under CAA 

section 112(f). Specifically, 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 [previous] 

section 112 is best judged on the basis 

of a broad set of health risk measures 

and information.’’ 54 FR 38046. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1283 

Similarly, with regard to making the 

ample margin of safety determination, 

as stated in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘[i]n 

the ample margin decision, the Agency 

again considers all of the health risk and 

other health information considered in 

the first step. Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The agency acknowledges that the 

Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility 

regarding what factors the EPA might 

consider in making our determinations 

and how they might be weighed for each 

source category. In responding to 

comment on our policy under the 

Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained 

that: ‘‘The 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 

noncancer 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 [her] 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 

[her] judgment, believes are appropriate 

to determining what will ‘protect the 

public health.’ ’’ 54 FR 38057. 

Thus, the level of the MIR is only one 

factor to be weighed in determining 

acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explains ‘‘an MIR of 

approximately one in 10 thousand 

should ordinarily be the upper end of 

the range of acceptability. As risks 

increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable 

under CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety analysis, the Benzene 

NESHAP states 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. 

D. How did we perform the technology 

review? 

Our technology review is focused on 

the identification and evaluation of 

‘‘developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies.’’ If a review of 

available information identifies such 

developments, then we conduct an 

analysis of the technical feasibility of 

requiring the implementation of these 

developments, along with the impacts 

(costs, emission reductions, risk 

reductions, etc.). We then make a 

decision on whether it is necessary to 

amend the regulation to require 

compliance with revised standards in 

light of these developments. This has 

become our standard practice in 

conducting technology reviews. See, 

e.g., 75 FR 65068, 65083 (October 21, 

2010). 

Based on specific knowledge of each 

source category, we began by identifying 

known developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies. For 

the purpose of this exercise, we 

considered any of the following to be a 

‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during MACT 

development; 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that was identified and considered 

during MACT development) that could 

result in significant additional emission 

reduction; 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified and 

considered during MACT development; 

and 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied that was not identified 

and considered during MACT 

development. 

In addition to looking back at 

practices, processes or control 

technologies reviewed at the time we 

developed the MACT standards, we 

reviewed a variety of sources of data to 

aid in our evaluation of whether there 

were additional practices, processes or 

controls to consider. One of these 

sources of data was subsequent air 

toxics rules. Since the promulgation of 

the MACT standards for the source 

categories addressed in this proposal, 

the EPA has developed air toxics 

regulations for a number of additional 

source categories. In these subsequent 

air toxic regulatory actions, we 

consistently evaluated any new 

practices, processes and control 

technologies. We reviewed the 

regulatory requirements and/or 

technical analyses associated with these 

subsequent regulatory actions to 

identify any practices, processes and 

control technologies considered in these 

efforts that could possibly be applied to 

emission sources in the source 

categories under this current RTR 

review. 

We also consulted the EPA’s RBLC. 

The terms ‘‘RACT,’’ ‘‘BACT’’ and 

‘‘LAER’’ are acronyms for different 

program requirements under the CAA 

provisions addressing the national 

ambient air quality standards. Control 

technologies classified as RACT, BACT 

or LAER apply to stationary sources 

depending on whether the sources are 

existing or new and on the size, age and 

location of the facility. BACT and LAER 

(and sometimes RACT) are determined 

on a case-by-case basis, usually by state 

or local permitting agencies. The EPA 

established the RBLC to provide a 

central data base of air pollution 

technology information (including 

technologies required in source-specific 

permits) to promote the sharing of 

information among permitting agencies 

and to aid in identifying future possible 

control technology options that might 

apply broadly to numerous sources 

within a category or apply only on a 

source-by-source basis. The RBLC 

contains over 5,000 air pollution control 

permit determinations that can help 

identify appropriate technologies to 

mitigate many air pollutant emission 

streams. We searched this database to 

determine whether any practices, 

processes or control technologies are 

included for the types of processes used 

for emission sources (e.g., tanks or 

vents) in the source categories under 

consideration in this proposal. 

We also reviewed other information 

sources, such as state or local permitting 

agency databases and industrysupported databases. 

E. What other issues are we addressing 

in this proposal? 

In addition to the RTR performed 

regarding the NESHAP, we are also 

proposing revisions to the NESHAP to 

address emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM) and revisions to require 

electronic reporting of emissions test 

results. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1284 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

(SSM) 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

vacated portions of two provisions in 

the EPA’s CAA Section 112 regulations 

governing the emissions of HAP during 

periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 

130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, 

the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 

CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a 

regulation, commonly referred to as the 

‘‘General Provisions Rule,’’ that the EPA 

promulgated under section 112 of the 

CAA. When incorporated into CAA 

section 112(d) regulations for specific 

source categories, these two provisions 

exempt sources from the requirement to 

comply with the otherwise applicable 

CAA section 112(d) emission standard 

during periods of SSM. 

As we have done in other recent risk 

and technology review rulemakings, we 

are proposing the elimination of the 

SSM exemption in each of the three 

MACT standards addressed by this rule. 

See, e.g., 76 FR 22568, 22573 (Apr. 21, 

2011). Consistent with Sierra Club v. 

EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in 

these rules that apply at all times. We 

are also proposing several revisions to 

the General Provisions Applicability 

table in each of the MACT standards. 

For example, we are proposing to 

eliminate the incorporation of the 

General Provisions’ requirement that the 

source develop an SSM plan. We also 

are proposing to eliminate or revise 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

related to the SSM exemption. The EPA 

has attempted to ensure that we have 

not included in the proposed regulatory 

language any provisions that are 

inappropriate, unnecessary or 

redundant in the absence of the SSM 

exemption. We are specifically seeking 

comment on whether there are any such 

provisions that we have inadvertently 

incorporated or overlooked. 

In proposing the standards in these 

rules, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and has 

not proposed different standards for 

those periods because we expect the 

difference in emission levels during 

periods of startup and shutdown are 

insignificant and that facilities in these 

source categories should be able to 

comply with the standards during these 

times. 

Periods of startup, normal operation 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner * * *.’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA 

has determined that CAA section 112 

does not require that emissions that 

occur during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 112 standards. Under section 

112, emissions standards for new 

sources must be no less stringent than 

the level ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

controlled similar source and for 

existing sources generally must be no 

less stringent than the average emission 

limitation ‘‘achieved’’ by the best 

performing 12 percent of sources in the 

category. There is nothing in section 112 

that directs the agency to consider 

malfunctions in determining the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing or 

best controlled sources when setting 

emission standards. Moreover, while the 

EPA accounts for variability in setting 

emissions standards consistent with the 

CAA section 112 caselaw, nothing in 

that caselaw requires the agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. Section 112 uses the concept 

of ‘‘best controlled’’ and ‘‘best 

performing’’ unit in defining the level of 

stringency that CAA section 112 

performance standards must meet. 

Applying the concept of ‘‘best 

controlled’’ or ‘‘best performing’’ to a 

unit that is malfunctioning presents 

significant difficulties, as malfunctions 

are sudden and unexpected events. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

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. 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 (DC 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 (DC 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, the goal of a 

best controlled or best performing 

source is to operate in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions of the source, and 

accounting for malfunctions could lead 

to standards that are significantly less 

stringent than levels that are achieved 

by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with section 112 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute. 

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). 

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause an 

exceedance of the relevant emission 

standard. (See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excessive Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown 

(Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, 

Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb. 

15, 1983)). The EPA is, therefore, 

proposing to follow its recently 

established practice (see, e.g., 76 FR 

22566, 22573–74 (Apr. 21, 2011)) and 

add to the rules an affirmative defense 

to civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits that are caused by 

malfunctions. See proposed 40 CFR 

63.1312 (Group IV Polymers and 

Resins), 40 CFR 63.1361 (PAI) and 40 

CFR 63.1423 (PEPO). The regulations 

define ‘‘affirmative defense’’ to mean, in 

the context of an enforcement 

proceeding, a response or defense put 

forward by a defendant, regarding 

which the defendant has the burden of 

proof, and the merits of which are 

independently and objectively 

evaluated in a judicial or administrative 

proceeding. We also are proposing other 

regulatory provisions to specify the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1285 

elements that are necessary to establish 

this affirmative defense; the source must 

prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that it has met all of the 

elements set forth in proposed 40 CFR 

63.1310(k) (Group IV Polymers and 

Resins), 40 CFR 63.1360(k) (PAI) and 40 

CFR 63.1420(i) (PEPO). (See 40 CFR 

22.24). The criteria ensure that the 

affirmative defense is available only 

where the event that causes an 

exceedance of the emission limit meets 

the narrow definition of malfunction in 

40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not 

reasonable preventable and not caused 

by poor maintenance and or careless 

operation). For example, to successfully 

assert the affirmative defense, the source 

must prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere 

caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 

unavoidable failure of air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment, 

process equipment, or a process to 

operate in a normal or usual manner 

* * *.’’ The criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with proposed 40 CFR 

63.1310(j)(4) (Group IV Polymers and 

Resins), 40 CFR 63.1362(i) (PAI) and 40 

CFR 63.1420(h)(4) (PEPO) and to 

prevent future malfunctions. For 

example, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that 

‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as 

possible when the applicable emission 

limitations were being exceeded * * *’’ 

and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken 

to minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health * * *.’’ 

In any judicial or administrative 

proceeding, the Administrator may 

challenge the assertion of the affirmative 

defense and, if the respondent has not 

met its burden of proving all of the 

requirements in the affirmative defense, 

appropriate penalties may be assessed 

in accordance with section 113 of the 

CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.27). 

The EPA included an affirmative 

defense in these proposed rules in an 

attempt to balance a tension, inherent in 

many types of air regulation, to ensure 

adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

limits may be exceeded under 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that ‘‘limit the 

quantity, rate, or concentration of 

emissions of air pollutants on a 

continuous basis.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) 

(defining ‘‘emission limitation and 

emission standard’’). See generally, 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is 

required to ensure that section 112 

emissions limitations are continuous. 

The affirmative defense for malfunction 

events meets this requirement by 

ensuring that even where there is a 

malfunction, the emission limitation is 

still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. While ‘‘continuous’’ limitations, 

on the one hand, are required, there is 

also caselaw indicating that in many 

situations it is appropriate for the EPA 

to account for the practical realities of 

technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 

433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the District of 

Columbia Circuit acknowledged that, in 

setting standards under CAA section 

111, ‘‘variant provisions’’ such as 

provisions allowing for upsets during 

startup, shutdown and equipment 

malfunction ‘‘appear necessary to 

preserve the reasonableness of the 

standards as a whole and that the record 

does not support the ‘never to be 

exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ 

See also, Portland Cement Association 

v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 

1973). Though intervening caselaw such 

as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 

amendments undermine the relevance 

of these cases today, they support the 

EPA’s view that a system that 

incorporates some level of flexibility is 

reasonable. The affirmative defense 

simply provides for a defense to civil 

penalties for excess emissions that are 

proven to be beyond the control of the 

source. By incorporating an affirmative 

defense, EPA has formalized its 

approach to upset events. In a Clean 

Water Act setting, the Ninth Circuit 

required this type of formalized 

approach when regulating ‘‘upsets 

beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 

F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). See, 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 

1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding 

that an informal approach is adequate). 

The affirmative defense provisions give 

the EPA the flexibility to both ensure 

that its emission limitations are 

‘‘continuous’’ as required by 42 U.S.C. 

section 7602(k), and account for 

unplanned upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a 

whole. 

In addition to these changes in the 

provisions related to SSM, we are also 

proposing that there be no discharge to 

the atmosphere from any pressure relief 

device (PRD) on any equipment in HAP 

service within the process units for 

these seven source categories. To ensure 

compliance with this requirement, 

facility owners or operators would be 

required to install electronic indicators 

on each PRD that would be able to 

identify and record the time and 

duration of each pressure release and 

notify operators that a pressure release 

has occurred. While pressure release 

events may be associated with 

unplanned, nonroutine discharges that 

result from operator error, malfunctions 

or other unexpected causes that require 

immediate venting of gas from process 

equipment in order to avoid safety 

hazards or equipment damage, we are 

concerned that a large number of these 

releases that occur may emit large 

quantities of HAP, may not be identified 

and controlled in a timely manner and 

may be due to repeat problems that have 

not been corrected. These proposed 

provisions will clarify that such release 

events would be violations of the 

emissions standards of these rules. If 

any pressure release events that occur 

are related to a process or control device 

malfunction, the owner or operator 

could claim the affirmative defense 

described above. 

2. Electronic Reporting 

We are proposing to add electronic 

reporting requirements to the PAI, PEPO 

and the Group IV Polymers and Resin 

Production NESHAP. The EPA must 

have performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA section 112 

standards, as well as for many other 

purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor 

development and annual emission rate 

determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, the EPA has found it 

ineffective and time consuming, not 

only for us, but also for regulatory 

agencies and source owners and 

operators, to locate, collect and submit 

performance test data because of varied 

locations for data storage and varied 

data storage methods. In recent years, 

though, stack testing firms have 

typically collected performance test data 

in electronic format, making it possible 

to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

Through this proposal, the EPA is 

presenting a step to increase the ease 

and efficiency of data submittal and 

improve data accessibility. Specifically, 

the EPA is proposing that owners and 

operators of PAI, PEPO and Group IV 

Polymers and Resins facilities submit 

electronic copies of required 

performance test reports to the EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE 

database was constructed to store 

performance test data for use in 

developing emission factors. A 

description of the WebFIRE database is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1286 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ 

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

As proposed above, data entry would 

be through an electronic emissions test 

report structure called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT would 

generate electronic report which would 

be submitted using the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI). The submitted report would be 

transmitted through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) network for 

storage in the WebFIRE database making 

submittal of data very straightforward 

and easy. A description of the ERT can 

be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be 

accessed through the CDX Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/cdx). 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

would apply only to those performance 

tests conducted using test methods that 

will be supported by the ERT. The ERT 

contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. 

We believe that industry would benefit 

from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Having these 

data, the EPA would be able to develop 

improved emission factors, make fewer 

information requests and promulgate 

better regulations. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. Another advantage 

is that the ERT clearly states what 

testing information would be required. 

Another important proposed benefit of 

submitting these data to the EPA at the 

time the source test is conducted is that 

it should substantially reduce the effort 

involved in data collection activities in 

the future. When the EPA has 

performance test data in hand, there 

will likely be fewer or less substantial 

data collection requests in conjunction 

with prospective required residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews. This 

would result in a reduced burden on 

both affected facilities (in terms of 

reduced manpower to respond to data 

collection requests) and the EPA (in 

terms of preparing and distributing data 

collection requests and assessing the 

results). 

State, local and tribal agencies could 

also benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. The ERT would 

allow for an electronic review process 

rather than a manual data assessment 

making review and evaluation of the 

source provided data and calculations 

easier and more efficient. Finally, 

another benefit of the proposed data 

submittal to WebFIRE electronically is 

that these data would greatly improve 

the overall quality of existing and new 

emissions factors by supplementing the 

pool of emissions test data for 

establishing emissions factors and by 

ensuring that the factors are more 

representative of current industry 

operational procedures. A common 

complaint heard from industry and 

regulators is that emission factors are 

outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely 

receipt and incorporation of data from 

most performance tests, the EPA would 

be able to ensure that emission factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. In 

summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies and the EPA 

significant time, money and effort while 

also improving the quality of emission 

inventories and, as a result, air quality 

regulations. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for Group IV Polymers and 

Resins Source Categories 

A. Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Resin 

(ABS) 

1. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 3 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 

TABLE 3—ABS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2

Population 

at risk 

≥ 

1-in-1 million 

Annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site 

acute noncancer 

HQ 4

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

5 ........................ 30 30 32,000 0.003 0.2 0.2 HQREL = 2 acetaldehyde. 

HQERPG–1 = 0.04 acetaldehyde. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the ABS source category is the reproductive system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available dose-response value. See section III.B.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-response values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 3, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 

30-in-1 million, the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 

0.2, and the maximum off-facility site 

acute HQ value could be up to 2, based 

on the actual emissions level and the 

REL value for acetaldehyde. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from these facilities, based on actual 

emission levels, is 0.003 excess cancer 

cases per year or one case in every 333 

years. 

Based on our analysis, we believe that 

actual emissions approximate emissions 

allowable under the MACT standards. 

Therefore, the risk results for MACTallowable emissions are approximately 

equal to those for actual emissions. For 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1287 

more detail about this estimate of the 

ratio of actual to MACT-allowable 

emissions and the estimation of MACTallowable emission levels and 

associated risks and impacts, see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

There were no reported emissions of 

PB–HAP; therefore, we do not expect 

potential for human health 

multipathway risks or adverse 

environmental impacts as a result of 

PB–HAP. 

b. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 4 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment was conducted based on 

actual emission levels. For detailed 

facility-specific results, see Appendix 4 

of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for 7 Source Categories in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

TABLE 4—ABS FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

Cancer Risk:* 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ................................................................................................. 30 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more .................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the ABS source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks 

of 100-in-1 million or more ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 

Number of facilities at which the ABS source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk of 

1-in-1 million or more ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Chronic Noncancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ............................................................................................................................... < 1 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 ............................................................................ 0 

Number of facilities at which the ABS source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer 

TOSHI of 1 or more .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards 

for ABS resins is estimated to be 30-in1 million, based on actual emissions. Of 

the 5 facilities included in this analysis, 

none have a facility-wide MIR of 100-in1 million. There are 4 facilities with 

facility-wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or 

greater (MIR ranging from 10 to 30 in a 

million). Each of these facilities has 

ABS production operations that 

contribute greater than 50 percent to the 

facility-wide risks. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be less than 1, based on 

actual emissions. Of the 5 facilities 

included in this analysis, none have 

facility-wide maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI values greater than 1. 

c. What is our proposed decision 

regarding risk acceptability? 

As noted in section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various cancer 

and noncancer risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; 

the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the 

extent of noncancer risks; the potential 

for adverse environmental effects; 

distribution of cancer and noncancer 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

For the ABS source category, the risk 

analysis we performed indicates that the 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed could be up to 30-in-1 million 

due to both actual and allowable 

emissions. This value is considerably 

less than 100-in-1 million, which is the 

presumptive level of acceptability. The 

risk analysis also shows low cancer 

incidence (1 in every 333 years), no 

potential for human health 

multipathway effects, and that chronic 

noncancer health impacts are unlikely. 

We estimate that the worst-case acute 

HQ value could exceed a value of 1 for 

one HAP, acetaldehyde, with a potential 

maximum HQ up to 2 based on the 

acute REL dose-response value. Only 

one of the five facilities in this source 

category had an estimated HQ greater 

than 1 (REL of 2 for acetaldehyde). All 

other facilities modeled had an HQ less 

than 1. The maximum HQ based on an 

AEGL–1 or ERPG–1 dose-response value 

is 0.04 for acetaldehyde based on the 

ERPG–1. As described earlier in this 

preamble, the acute assessment includes 

some conservative assumptions and 

some uncertainties. Moreover, the REL 

are protective and designed to protect 

the most sensitive individuals in the 

population by inclusion of margins of 

safety and exposures above the REL do 

not necessarily indicate that adverse 

effects will occur. Considering the 

improbable assumption that worst-case 

meteorological conditions are present at 

the same time that maximum hourly 

emissions of acetaldehyde exceed the 

average hourly emission rate by a factor 

of 10 at all emission points 

simultaneously, coincident with 

individuals being in the location of 

maximum impact, and considering the 

low acute HQ values based on the 

AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 dose-response 

values collectively with the REL value, 

we believe it is unlikely that HAP 

emissions from this source category 

would result in acute health effects. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 30-in-1 

million and that the maximum chronic 

exposures are expected to be without 

appreciable risk of adverse noncancer 

health effects. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.B.7 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the risks from the ABS source 

category are acceptable. 

d. What is our proposed decision 

regarding ample margin of safety? 

We considered whether the MACT 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. In this 

analysis, we investigated available 

emissions control options that might 

reduce the risk associated with 

emissions from the source category and 

considered this information along with 

all of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination. 

For the ABS source category, we 

identified only one control option to 

further address risks from equipment 

leaks. This control option would require 

sources to install leakless valves to 

prevent leaks from those components. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1288 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

While approximately 15 percent of the 

emissions from this source category are 

due to equipment leaks, these emissions 

do not contribute to the maximum 

individual cancer risks estimated for the 

source category. 

We estimated HAP reduction 

resulting from this control option is 

approximately 6 tpy from the baseline 

actual emissions level. We estimated 

that achieving these reductions would 

involve a capital cost of approximately 

$11,000,000, a total annualized cost of 

about $1,500,000 and a cost 

effectiveness of $244,000 per ton of HAP 

emissions reduced. The additional 

control requirement would not achieve 

a reduction in the maximum individual 

cancer risks. We estimate that the 

MACT allowable emissions from this 

source category are approximately equal 

to the reported, actual emissions. 

Therefore, the estimated emission 

reduction, risk reduction and costs 

discussed above would also be 

applicable to the MACT allowable 

emissions level. We believe that the 

costs of this option are not reasonable, 

given the level of emission and risk 

reduction. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighed all health risk 

measures and information considered in 

the risk acceptability determination, 

along with the costs and economic 

impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and other relevant factors in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

Considering the health risk information 

and the unreasonable cost effectiveness 

of the option identified, we propose that 

the existing MACT standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

2. What are the results of the technology 

review? 

In the decade since the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards 

were promulgated, the EPA has 

developed 19 air toxics regulations for 

source categories that emit organic HAP 

from the same type of emissions sources 

that are present in the five Group IV 

Polymers and Resins source categories 

addressed in this proposed action. We 

reviewed the regulatory requirements 

and/or technical analyses for these 19 

regulations for new practices, processes 

and control technologies. We also 

conducted a search of the RBLC for 

controls for VOC–SOCMI categories 

with permits dating back to 1997. 

We identified no advancements in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies applicable to the emission 

sources in the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins source categories in our 

technology review. 

3. What other actions are we proposing? 

a. SSM Provisions 

We are proposing to eliminate the 

SSM exemption in the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

EPA is proposing that standards in this 

rule would apply at all times. We are 

proposing several revisions to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart JJJ. Specifically, we are 

proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate 

that the requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e) 

of the General Provisions do not apply. 

The 40 CFR 63.6(e) requires the owner 

or operator to act according to the 

general duty to ‘‘operate and maintain 

any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions.’’ We are 

separately proposing to incorporate this 

general duty to minimize into 40 CFR 

63.1310(j)(4). The 40 CFR 63.6(e) also 

requires the owner or operator of an 

affected source to develop a written 

SSM plan. We are proposing to remove 

the SSM plan requirement. We are 

proposing to remove the explanation of 

applicability of emissions standards 

during periods SSM in 40 CFR 

63.1310(j); remove the malfunction plan 

from 40 CFR 63.1335(b); clarify that 

representative conditions do not include 

periods of SSM throughout the rule; 

remove references to periods of SSM in 

monitoring; remove the provisions for 

excused excursions from 40 CFR 

63.1334(g); and revise the SSMassociated recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1335(b) to 

require reporting and recordkeeping for 

periods of malfunction. We are also 

proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate 

that SSM-related provisions in 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1); 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1); 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1); and 40 

CFR 63.10(d)(5) of the General 

Provisions do not apply. We are also 

proposing to add requirements in 40 

CFR 63.1331(a)(9)) to clarify that PRD 

releases to the atmosphere are violations 

of the emissions standards and to 

require pressure release alarms and to 

add requirements in 40 CFR 

63.1335(e)(9) to require reporting of any 

pressure device releases to the 

atmosphere with the periodic report. In 

addition, we are proposing to 

promulgate an affirmative defense 

against civil penalties for exceedances 

of emission standards caused by 

malfunctions, as well as criteria for 

establishing the affirmative defense. 

b. Electronic Reporting 

To increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and improve data 

accessibility, we are proposing to 

require the submission of electronic 

copies of required performance tests for 

test methods that are supported by the 

ERT to EPA’s WebFIRE database. These 

provisions are added in 40 CFR 

63.1335(e)(10). 

B. Styrene Acrylonitrile Resin (SAN) 

1. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 5 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 

TABLE 5—SAN INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2

Population at 

risk ≥ 1-in-1 

million 

Annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site 

acute noncancer HQ 4

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

2 ........................ 0.03 0.03 0 0.000006 0.0002 0.0002 HQREL = 0.007 methylene chloride. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the SAN source category is the respiratory system. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1289 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. See section III.B.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute doseresponse values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 5, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 

0.03-in-1 million, the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 

0.0002, and the maximum off-facility 

site acute HQ value could be up to 

0.007, based on the actual emissions 

level and the REL value for methylene 

chloride. The total estimated national 

cancer incidence from these facilities 

based on actual emission levels is 

0.000006 excess cancer cases per year or 

one case in every 166,666 years. 

Based on our analysis, we believe that 

actual emissions approximate emissions 

allowable under the MACT standards. 

Therefore, the risk results for MACTallowable emissions are approximately 

equal to those for actual emissions. For 

more detail about this estimate of the 

ratio of actual to MACT-allowable 

emissions and the estimation of MACTallowable emission levels and 

associated risks and impacts, see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

There were no reported emissions of 

PB–HAP; therefore, we do not expect 

potential for human health 

multipathway risks or adverse 

environmental impacts as a result of 

PB–HAP. 

b. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 6 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment was conducted based on 

actual emission levels. For detailed 

facility-specific results, see Appendix 4 

of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for 7 Source Categories in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

TABLE 6—SAN FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ................................................................................................. 20 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more .................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the SAN source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks 

of 100-in-1 million or more ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 

Number of facilities at which the SAN source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk 

of 1-in-1 million or more .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

Chronic Noncancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ............................................................................................................................... 2 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 ............................................................................ 1 

Number of facilities at which the SAN source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer 

TOSHI of 1 or more .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards 

for SAN resins is estimated to be 20-in1 million, based on actual emissions. Of 

the 2 facilities included in this analysis, 

none have a facility-wide MIR of 100-in1 million. There are 2 facilities with 

facility-wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or 

greater (MIR of 20 and 10 in a million). 

Neither of these facilities have SAN 

production operations that contribute 

greater than 50 percent to the facilitywide risks. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be 2, based on actual 

emissions. Of the 2 facilities included in 

this analysis, only one facility has a 

facility-wide maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value greater than 1 

(TOSHI of 2). 

c. What is our proposed decision 

regarding risk acceptability? 

As noted in section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various cancer 

and noncancer risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; 

the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the 

extent of noncancer risks; the potential 

for adverse environmental effects; 

distribution of cancer and noncancer 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

For the SAN source category, the risk 

analysis we performed indicates that the 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed could be up to 0.03-in-1 

million due to both actual and allowable 

emissions. This value is less than 1-in1 million. The risk analysis also shows 

low cancer incidence (1 in every 

166,666 years), no potential for human 

health multipathway effects and that 

chronic noncancer and acute health 

effects are unlikely. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 20-in-1 

million. The maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be 2, 

but the source category contributes less 

than 1 percent to the maximum facilitywide TOSHI. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.B.7 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the risks from the SAN source 

category are acceptable. 

d. What is our proposed decision 

regarding ample margin of safety? 

The SAN source category emits HAP 

which are known, probable or possible 

carcinogens. The EPA evaluated the 

emissions of these HAP and determined 

that the cancer risks to the individual 

most exposed are less than 1-in-1 

million. Our analysis demonstrated that 

chronic noncancer risks are expected to 

be low, based on actual and MACT 

allowable emissions. We determined 

that emissions from the SAN source 

category would result in a chronic 

noncancer TOSHI less than 1 and an 

acute HQ less than 1 for the individual 

most exposed. The EPA undertook 

further analysis to assess whether 

environmental effects might result from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1290 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

emissions from this source category. We 

assume that human toxicity values for 

the inhalation pathway are generally 

protective of terrestrial mammals and 

plants, and thus, we do not anticipate 

that actual or MACT allowable 

emissions would result in acute or 

chronic noncancer health effects to 

these mammals. While we believe this 

to be generally true, we acknowledge 

that there is some associated uncertainty 

with this assumption. In addition, this 

source category had no reported 

emissions of PB–HAP and, therefore, no 

potential for an adverse environment 

effect via multipathway exposures was 

identified as a result of PB–HAP. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.B.7 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the existing MACT standards for 

the SAN source category provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

2. What are the results of the technology 

review? 

The results of the technology review 

for the Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards are discussed above in 

section IV.A.2. We identified no 

advancements in practices, processes, 

and control technologies applicable to 

the emission sources in the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins source categories 

in our technology review. 

3. What other actions are we proposing? 

a. SSM Provisions 

The proposed changes to the SSM 

provisions for the Group IV Polymers 

and Resins MACT standards, which 

apply to the SAN source category, are 

discussed above in section IV.A.3.a. 

b. Electronic Reporting 

The proposed addition of electronic 

reporting requirements for performance 

tests for the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins MACT standards, which apply to 

the SAN source category, is discussed 

above in section IV.A.3.b. 

C. Methyl Methacrylate Butadiene 

Styrene Resin (MBS) 

1. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 7 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 

TABLE 7—MBS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2

Population at 

risk ≥ 1-in-1 

million 

Annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site 

acute noncancer HQ 4

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

2 ........................ 0.4 0.4 0 0.00003 0.007 0.007 HQERPG–1 = 9 ethyl 

acrylate. 

HQAEGL–1 = 0.01 

ethyl acrylate. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the MBS source category is the reproductive system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute threshold. For this source category, the maximum acute values were based on the 

ERPG–1 HQ for ethyl acrylate, and no REL value was available for this HAP. See section III.B.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute doseresponse values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 7, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 

0.4-in-1 million, the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could up to 

0.007 and the maximum off-facility site 

acute HQ value could be up to 9, based 

on the actual emissions level and the 

ERPG–1 value for ethyl acrylate. The 

total estimated national cancer 

incidence from these facilities, based on 

actual emission levels is 0.00003 excess 

cancer cases per year or one case in 

every 33,333 years. 

Based on our analysis, we believe that 

actual emissions approximate emissions 

allowable under the MACT standards. 

Therefore, the risk results for MACTallowable emissions are approximately 

equal to those for actual emissions. For 

more detail about this estimate of the 

ratio of actual to MACT-allowable 

emissions and the estimation of MACTallowable emission levels and 

associated risks and impacts, see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

There were no reported emissions of 

PB–HAP; therefore, we do not expect 

potential for human health 

multipathway risks or adverse 

environmental impacts as a result of 

PB–HAP. 

b. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 8 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment was conducted based on 

actual emission levels. For detailed 

facility-specific results, see Appendix 4 

of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for 7 Source Categories in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

TABLE 8—MBS FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ..................................................................................................... 2 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more .................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the MBS source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks 

of 100-in-1 million or more ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1291 

TABLE 8—MBS FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS—Continued 

Number of facilities at which the MBS source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk 

of 1-in-1 million or more .................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

Chronic Noncancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ............................................................................................................................... < 1 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 ............................................................................ 0 

Number of facilities at which the MBS source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer 

TOSHI of 1 or more .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards 

for MBS resins is estimated to be 2-in1 million, based on actual emissions. Of 

the 2 facilities included in this analysis, 

none have a facility-wide MIR of 100-in1 million. There is 1 facility with a 

facility-wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or 

greater (MIR of 2 in a million). The 

facility with an MIR greater than 1-in1 million does not have MBS 

production operations that contribute 

greater than 50 percent to the facilitywide risks. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be less than 1, based on 

actual emissions. Of the 2 facilities 

included in this analysis, neither have 

facility-wide maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI values greater than 1. 

c. What is our proposed decision 

regarding risk acceptability? 

As noted in section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various cancer 

and noncancer risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; 

the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the 

extent of noncancer risks; the potential 

for adverse environmental effects; 

distribution of cancer and noncancer 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

For the MBS source category, the risk 

analysis we performed indicates that the 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed could be up to 0.4-in-1 million 

due to both actual and allowable 

emissions. This value is less than 1-in1 million. The risk analysis also shows 

low cancer incidence (1 in every 33,333 

years), no potential for human health 

multipathway effects and that chronic 

noncancer health impacts are unlikely. 

We estimate that the worst-case acute 

HQ value could exceed a value of 1 for 

one HAP, ethyl acrylate, with a 

potential maximum HQ up to 9 based 

on the acute ERPG–1 dose-response 

value. One of the two facilities in this 

source category had an estimated HQ 

greater than 1 (ERPG–1 of 9 for ethyl 

acrylate). All other facilities modeled 

had an HQ less than 1. The maximum 

HQ based on an AEGL–1 dose-response 

value is 0.01 for ethyl acrylate. For ethyl 

acrylate, the ERPG–1 value is indicative 

of the odor recognition threshold, while 

the AEGL–1 value is indicative of a 

level which could result in eye 

irritation. This suggests that, at this 

worst-case exposure level, a person 

might smell the pollutant, but not 

experience any eye irritation. As 

described earlier in this preamble, the 

acute assessment includes some 

conservative assumptions and some 

uncertainties. Considering the 

improbable assumption that worst-case 

meteorological conditions are present at 

the same time that maximum hourly 

emissions of ethyl acrylate exceed the 

average hourly emission rate by a factor 

of 10 at all emission points 

simultaneously, coincident with 

individuals being in the location of 

maximum impact and considering the 

low acute HQ value based on the AEGL– 

1 dose-response value collectively with 

the ERPG–1 value, we believe it is 

unlikely that HAP emissions from this 

source category would result in acute 

health effects. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 2-in-1 

million and that the maximum chronic 

exposures are expected to be without 

appreciable risk of adverse noncancer 

health effects. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.B.7 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the risks from the MBS source 

category are acceptable. 

d. What is our proposed decision 

regarding ample margin of safety? 

The MBS source category emits HAP 

which are known, probable or possible 

carcinogens. The EPA evaluated the 

emissions of these HAP and determined 

that the cancer risks to the individual 

most exposed are less than 1-in-1 

million. Our analysis demonstrated that 

chronic noncancer risks are expected to 

be low, based on actual and MACT 

allowable emissions. We determined 

that emissions from the MBS source 

category would result in a chronic 

noncancer TOSHI less than 1 for the 

individual most exposed. While the 

assessment for acute impacts suggests 

that short-term ethyl acrylate 

concentrations at one facility could 

exceed the ERPG–1 dose-response 

value, we believe it unlikely that acute 

impacts would occur due to the 

conservative assumptions and 

uncertainties associated with the acute 

analysis. These assumptions include 

having worst-case meteorological 

conditions present at the same time that 

maximum hourly emissions of ethyl 

acrylate exceed the average hourly 

emission rate by a factor of 10, 

coincident with individuals being in the 

location of maximum impact. The EPA 

undertook further analysis to assess 

whether environmental effects might 

result from emissions from this source 

category. We assume that human 

toxicity values for the inhalation 

pathway are generally protective of 

terrestrial mammals and plants and, 

thus, we do not anticipate that actual or 

MACT allowable emissions would 

result in acute or chronic noncancer 

health effects to these mammals. While 

we believe this to be generally true, we 

acknowledge that there is some 

associated uncertainty with this 

assumption. In addition, this source 

category had no reported emissions of 

PB–HAP and, therefore, no potential for 

an adverse environmental effect via 

multipathway exposures was identified. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.B.7 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the existing MACT standards for 

the MBS source category provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

2. What are the results of the technology 

review? 

The results of the technology review 

for the Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards are discussed above in 

section IV.A.2. We identified no 

advancements in practices, processes 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1292 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

and control technologies applicable to 

the emission sources in the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins source categories 

in our technology review. 

3. What other actions are we proposing? 

a. SSM Provisions 

The proposed changes to the SSM 

provisions for the Group IV Polymers 

and Resins MACT standards, which 

apply to the MBS source category, are 

discussed above in section IV.A.3.a. 

b. Electronic Reporting 

The proposed addition of electronic 

reporting requirements for performance 

tests for the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins MACT standards, which apply to 

the MBS source category, are discussed 

above in section IV.A.3.b. 

D. Polystyrene Resin 

1. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 9 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 

TABLE 9—POLYSTYRENE RESINS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2

Population at 

risk ≥ 1-in-1 

million 

Annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site 

acute noncancer HQ 4

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

11 ...................... 2 2 180 0.00003 0.004 0.004 HQREL = 0.3 styrene. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the polystyrene resin source category is the nervous system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. See section III.B.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute doseresponse values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 9, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 2- 

in-1 million, the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 

0.004, and the maximum off-facility site 

acute HQ value could be up to 0.3, 

based on the actual emissions level and 

the REL value for styrene. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from these facilities, based on actual 

emission levels, is 0.00003 excess 

cancer cases per year, or one case in 

every 33,333 years. 

Based on our analysis, we believe that 

actual emissions approximate emissions 

allowable under the MACT standards. 

Therefore, the risk results for MACTallowable emissions are approximately 

equal to those for actual emissions. For 

more detail about this estimate of the 

ratio of actual to MACT-allowable 

emissions and the estimation of MACTallowable emission levels and 

associated risks and impacts, see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

There were no reported emissions of 

PB–HAP; therefore, we do not expect 

potential for human health 

multipathway risks or adverse 

environmental impacts as a result of 

PB–HAP. 

b. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 10 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment was conducted based on 

actual emission levels. For detailed 

facility-specific results, see Appendix 4 

of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for 7 Source Categories in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

TABLE 10—POLYSTYRENE RESINS FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) .......................................................................................... 10 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more ............................................. 0 

Number of facilities at which the polystyrene resin source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more ......................................................................................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the polystyrene resin source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more ............................................................................................................................... 1 

Chronic Noncancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ........................................................................................................................ <1 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 ..................................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the Polystyrene Resin source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more ....................................................................................................................................... 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards 

for polystyrene resins is estimated to be 

10-in-1 million, based on actual 

emissions. Of the 11 facilities included 

in this analysis, none have a facilitywide MIR of 100-in-1 million. There are 

2 facilities with facility-wide MIR of 1- 

in-1 million or greater (MIR of 10 and 

2 in a million). One of these facilities 

has polystyrene resin production 

operations that contribute greater than 

50 percent to the facility-wide risks. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be less than 1, based on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1293 

22Note that these uncontrolled emissions were 

included in the risk assessment for the PET source 

category. 

actual emissions. Of the 11 facilities 

included in this analysis, none have 

facility-wide maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI values greater than 1. 

c. What is our proposed decision 

regarding risk acceptability? 

As noted in section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various cancer 

and noncancer risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; 

the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the 

extent of noncancer risks; the potential 

for adverse environmental effects; 

distribution of cancer and noncancer 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

For the Polystyrene Resin source 

category, the risk analysis we performed 

indicates that the cancer risks to the 

individual most exposed could be up to 

2-in-1 million due to both actual and 

allowable emissions. This value is 

considerably less than 100-in-1 million, 

which is the presumptive level of 

acceptability. The risk analysis also 

shows low cancer incidence (1 in every 

33,333 years), no potential for human 

health multipathway effects and that 

acute and chronic noncancer health 

impacts are unlikely. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 10-in-1 

million and that the maximum chronic 

exposures are expected to be without 

appreciable risk of adverse noncancer 

health effects. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.B.7 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the risks from the Polystyrene Resin 

source category are acceptable. 

d. What is our proposed decision 

regarding ample margin of safety? 

We considered whether the MACT 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. In this 

analysis, we investigated available 

emissions control options that might 

reduce the risk associated with 

emissions from the source category and 

considered this information along with 

all of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination. 

For the Polystyrene Resin source 

category, we identified only one control 

option to further address risks from 

equipment leaks, which were shown to 

contribute 100 percent to the maximum 

individual cancer risks for this source 

category. This control option would 

require sources to install leakless valves 

to prevent leaks from those components. 

We estimated HAP reduction 

resulting from this control option is 

approximately 5 tpy from the baseline 

actual emissions level. We estimated 

that achieving these reductions would 

involve a capital cost of approximately 

$9,000,000, a total annualized cost of 

about $1,300,000 and a cost 

effectiveness of $244,000 per ton of HAP 

emissions reduced. The additional 

control requirement would achieve 

approximately 20-percent reduction in 

baseline risks at a very high cost. We 

estimate that the MACT allowable 

emissions from this source category are 

approximately equal to the reported, 

actual emissions. Therefore, the 

estimated emission reduction, risk 

reduction and costs discussed above 

would also be applicable to the MACT 

allowable emissions level. We believe 

that the costs of this option are not 

reasonable, given the level of emission 

and risk reduction. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighed all health risk 

measures and information considered in 

the risk acceptability determination, 

along with the costs and economic 

impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and other relevant factors in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

Considering the health risk information 

and the unreasonable cost effectiveness 

of the option identified, we propose that 

the existing MACT standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

2. What are the results of the technology 

review? 

The results of the technology review 

for the Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards are discussed above in 

section IV.A.2. We identified no 

advancements in practices, processes 

and control technologies applicable to 

the emission sources in the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins source categories 

in our technology review. 

3. What other actions are we proposing? 

a. SSM Provisions 

The proposed changes to the SSM 

provisions for the Group IV Polymers 

and Resins MACT standards, which 

apply to the polystyrene resin source 

category, are discussed above in section 

IV.A.3.a. 

b. Electronic Reporting 

The proposed addition of electronic 

reporting requirements for performance 

tests for the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins MACT standards, which apply to 

the polystyrene resin source category, 

are discussed above in section IV.A.3.b. 

E. Poly (Ethylene Terephthalate) Resin 

(PET) 

1. What are the results of our analyses 

and proposed decisions regarding 

unregulated HAP and/or emissions 

sources? 

a. Equipment Leaks 

We identified the absence of a limit 

for a potentially significant emissions 

source within the provisions of the 

Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards that apply to the PET 

continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 

end finisher subcategory. Specifically, 

there are no regulations for equipment 

leaks for this source subcategory.22 As 

these processes are potentially major 

sources of emissions for the one facility 

in the source category, we are proposing 

to set a work practice standard for 

equipment leaks under CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (d)(3) in this action. CAA 

section 112(h)(1) states that the 

Administrator may prescribe a work 

practice standard or other requirements, 

consistent with the provisions of CAA 

sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases 

where, in the judgment of the 

Administrator, it is not feasible to 

enforce an emission standard. CAA 

section 112(h)(2) defines the phrase 

‘‘not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 

emission standard’’ as follows: 

[A]ny situation in which the Administrator 

determines that (A) a hazardous air pollutant 

or pollutants cannot be emitted through a 

conveyance designed and constructed to emit 

or capture such pollutant, or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance 

would be inconsistent with any Federal, 

State, or local law, or (B) the application of 

measurement methodology to a particular 

class of sources is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations. 

The work practice standards in this 

proposed rule are consistent with CAA 

section 112(h)(2)(B), because applying a 

measurement methodology to this class 

of sources is not technologically and 

economically feasible due to the number 

of openings and possible emissions 

points and because the fugitive 

emissions cannot be routed to a 

conveyance designed to capture such 

emissions. 

As there is only one facility in the 

source subcategory, the emissions level 

currently being achieved by this facility 

represents the MACT floor. However, 

emissions from equipment leaks are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1294 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

23Memorandum to Group IV Resins Docket, A– 

92–45, from Ken Meardon, Pacific Environmental 

Services, Inc. Re-Evaluation of Equipment Leak 

Emissions and Costs at PET Facilities. 

intermittent and fugitive in nature and, 

therefore, it is not feasible to fully 

measure the mass emission rate from 

numerous potential leaks at this facility 

or to route such emissions through a 

conveyance designed and constructed to 

emit or capture such fugitive pollutants. 

For this reason, under CAA section 

112(h), we are proposing to establish the 

MACT floor for this source subcategory, 

based on the work practices this facility 

currently performs to limit emissions 

from equipment leaks. The work 

practices this facility follows are to 

perform a 2- to 3-hour leak check upon 

startup following an outage where 

changes have been made to the facility’s 

esterification equipment, which is the 

only area of the facility that has 

equipment in gas/vapor service. This is 

conducted by introducing hot ethylene 

g1yco1 vapors into the system. Any 

leaks identified are repaired by 

tightening flange bolts before 

introducing new materials into the 

process. The other equipment 

components at the facility are in 

vacuum or heavy liquid service, which 

are not monitored due to the low vapor 

pressure of predominant HAP, ethylene 

glycol and the low potential for 

equipment leak emissions from these 

components. 

As part of our beyond-the-floor 

analysis, we considered alternatives 

more stringent than the MACT floor 

option. We identified the HON LDAR 

program as one such option, which is 

the required level of control for other 

facilities subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards. 

The HON requires the use of sensory 

monitoring for pumps, valves, agitators 

and connectors in heavy liquid service; 

the use of EPA Method 21 of 40 CFR 

part 60, Appendix A, for instrument 

monitoring of equipment in gas/vapor 

service; and equipment in vacuum 

service is not required to be monitored. 

Based on previous information prepared 

to examine the equipment leak costs for 

facilities in the PET source category,23

the capital costs of this option are 

estimated to be approximately $13,000 

and the total annual costs are estimated 

to be approximately $13,000. The 

estimated HAP decrease is 1.27 tpy, 

with a cost effectiveness of 

approximately $11,000/ton. Table 11 

summarizes the cost and emission 

reduction impacts of the proposed 

options. Because the HAP reduced 

would be ethylene glycol, which does 

not contribute to the cancer risk 

estimate for the PET source category, the 

MIR for the source category would 

remain at 9. Any impact on the 

magnitude of the HI resulting from 

ethylene glycol emission reductions due 

to this control option would be 

negligible as ethylene glycol contributes 

minimally to the chronic noncancer 

TOSHI of 0.5. These risk values are 

discussed further in section IV.E.2 

below. 

TABLE 11—PET CONTINUOUS TPA HIGH VISCOSITY EQUIPMENT LEAKS OPTIONS IMPACTS

Regulatory alternatives HAP emissions 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

($) 

Annual cost 

($) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Baseline ........................................................................................... 1.43 —— —— —— 

1 (MACT floor) ................................................................................. 1.43 0 0 —— 

2 (Beyond-the-floor) ......................................................................... 0.16 13,000 13,000 11,000 

We believe that the costs of this 

beyond-the-floor option are not 

reasonable, given the level of emission 

reduction. Therefore, we are proposing 

an emission standard that reflects the 

MACT floor option, which is a work 

practice standard. 

We are requesting comment on this 

analysis and these options. 

b. Changes to PCCT Provisions in 

Response to a Petition for 

Reconsideration 

We identified a potentially significant 

emissions source that is currently 

effectively unregulated within the 

provisions of the Group IV Polymers 

and Resins MACT standards that apply 

to the sources producing PET using the 

continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 

end finisher process. Specifically, 

sources have not been required to 

comply with the previously 

promulgated provisions addressing 

emissions from PCCT within this source 

subcategory. We originally promulgated 

standards for PCCT in this subcategory 

in the September 12, 1996, Federal 

Register publication of NESHAP for 

Group IV Polymer and Resin source 

categories. On August 29, 2000, the EPA 

took action to indefinitely stay the 

compliance date for the PCCT 

provisions for this subcategory because 

the EPA was in the process of 

responding to a request to reconsider 

portions of the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins MACT standards that could 

result in changes to the emission 

limitation for PCCT in this subcategory 

(65 FR 52319–23). As PCCT are 

potentially major sources of emissions 

for the one facility in the PET 

continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 

end finisher subcategory, we have 

reconsidered the emissions and cost 

data available and we are proposing 

MACT standards for PCCT under CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) in this 

action. 

As there is only one facility in the 

source subcategory, the emissions level 

currently being achieved by this facility 

represents the MACT floor. The facility 

is currently regulated by the Polymers 

Manufacturing New Source Performance 

Standards, which requires the facility to 

maintain an ethylene glycol 

concentration in the PCCT at or below 

6.0 percent by weight, averaged on a 

daily basis over a rolling 14-day period 

of operating days. We are proposing to 

establish the MACT floor for this source 

subcategory, based on the 6.0 percent by 

weight ethylene glycol concentration 

limit this facility is required to achieve. 

As part of our beyond-the-floor 

analysis, we considered alternatives 

more stringent than the MACT floor 

option. The original PCCT regulations 

promulgated in the Group IV Polymer 

and Resin NESHAP established an 

ethylene glycol concentration limit of 

4.0 percent by weight for PCCT in this 

source subcategory, based on the 

information available on controls and 

costs, but the source has never been 

required to achieve this limit, in light of 

our August 29, 2000, indefinite stay of 

the compliance date. We identified this 

4.0-percent concentration limit as a 

beyond-the-floor option for our revised 

analysis. To achieve the beyond-thefloor option, the facility would need to 

modify its existing ethylene glycol 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1295 

recovery system and increase the 

amount of steam used to strip ethylene 

glycol from the contaminated water. 

Based on information received from the 

only facility in the subcategory after 

promulgation of the Group IV Polymers 

and Resins MACT standards, the capital 

costs of this option are estimated to be 

approximately $8.7 million and the total 

annual costs are estimated to be 

approximately $4.2 million. The 

estimated HAP decrease is 49.0 tpy, 

with a cost effectiveness of 

approximately $86,000/ton. Table 12 

summarizes the cost and emission 

reduction impacts of the proposed 

options. Because the HAP reduced 

would be ethylene glycol, which does 

not contribute to the cancer risk 

estimate for the PET source category, the 

MIR for the source category would 

remain at 9. Any impact on the 

magnitude of the HI resulting from 

ethylene glycol emission reductions due 

to this control option would be 

negligible as ethylene glycol contributes 

minimally to the chronic noncancer 

TOSHI of 0.5. These risk values are 

discussed further in section IV.E.2 

below. Further information regarding 

this analysis can be found in the 

memorandum, Impacts Assessment for 

Process Contact Cooling Towers for the 

PET Continuous TPA High Viscosity 

Multiple End Finisher Subcategory, 

available in the docket for this action. 

TABLE 12—PET CONTINUOUS TPA HIGH VISCOSITY MULTIPLE END FINISHER SUBCATEGORY PROCESS CONTACT

COOLING TOWERS OPTIONS IMPACTS

Regulatory alternatives HAP emissions 

(tpy) 

Capital cost 

($) 

Annual cost 

($) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton HAP 

removed) 

Baseline ........................................................................................... 147.0 —— —— —— 

1 (MACT floor) ................................................................................. 147.0 0 0 —— 

2 (Beyond-the-floor) ......................................................................... 98.0 8,800,000 4,200,000 86,000 

We believe that the costs of this 

beyond-the-floor option are not 

reasonable, given the level of emission 

reduction. Therefore, we are proposing 

to re-set the previously stayed MACT 

standard as an emission standard that 

reflects the MACT floor option, which is 

the ethylene glycol concentration limit 

of 6.0 weight percent. 

We are requesting comment on this 

analysis and these options. 

2. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 13 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 

TABLE 13—PET INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum 

individual 

cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2 Population 

at risk ≥ 

1-in-1 million 

Annual 

cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum 

chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site 

acute noncancer 

HQ 4

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

HQREL = 8 

acetaldehyde. 

15 ...................... 9 9 4,200 0.002 0.5 0.5 HQERPG–1 = 1 acetaldehyde. 

HQAEGL–1 = 0.2 acetaldehyde. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PET source category is the respiratory system. 4 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. See section III.B.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute doseresponse values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 13, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 9- 

in-1 million, the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 

0.5, and the maximum off-facility site 

acute HQ value could be up to 8, based 

on the actual emissions level and the 

REL value for acetaldehyde. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from these facilities based on actual 

emission levels is 0.002 excess cancer 

cases per year or one case in every 500 

years. 

Based on our analysis, we believe that 

actual emissions approximate emissions 

allowable under the MACT standards. 

Therefore, the risk results for MACTallowable emissions are approximately 

equal to those for actual emissions. For 

more detail about this estimate of the 

ratio of actual to MACT-allowable 

emissions and the estimation of MACTallowable emission levels and 

associated risks and impacts, see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

One facility reported emissions of PB– 

HAP, including cadmium compounds, 

lead compounds and POM. Therefore, 

we compared the facility-specific 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1296 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

emission rates of each of these PB–HAP 

to the TRIM–Screen emission threshold 

values to assess the potential for 

significant human health risks or 

environmental risks via non-inhalation 

pathways. The emission rates were less 

than the emission threshold values; 

therefore, we do not expect potential for 

human health multipathway risks or 

adverse environmental impacts as a 

result of PB–HAP. 

b. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 14 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment was conducted based on 

actual emission levels. For detailed 

facility-specific results, see Appendix 4 

of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for 7 Source Categories in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

TABLE 14—PET FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ................................................................................................. 9 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more .................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the PET source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks 

of 100-in-1 million or more ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 

Number of facilities at which the PET source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk of 

1-in-1 million or more ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 

Chronic Noncancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ............................................................................................................................... 1 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 ............................................................................ 1 

Number of facilities at which the PET source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer 

TOSHI of 1 or more .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins MACT standards 

for PET is estimated to be 9-in-1 million, 

based on actual emissions. Of the 15 

facilities included in this analysis, none 

have a facility-wide MIR of 100-in-1 

million. There are 8 facilities with 

facility-wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or 

greater (MIR ranging from 2 to 9 in a 

million). Six of these facilities have PET 

production operations that contribute 

greater than 50 percent to the facilitywide risks. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be 1, based on actual 

emissions. Of the 15 facilities included 

in this analysis, one has a facility-wide 

maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 

value of 1. 

c. What is our proposed decision 

regarding risk acceptability? 

As noted in section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various cancer 

and noncancer risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; 

the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the 

extent of noncancer risks; the potential 

for adverse environmental effects; 

distribution of cancer and noncancer 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

For the PET source category, the risk 

analysis we performed indicates that the 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed could be up to 9-in-1 million 

due to both actual and allowable 

emissions. This value is considerably 

less than 100-in-1 million, which is the 

presumptive level of acceptability. The 

risk analysis also shows low cancer 

incidence (1 in every 500 years), no 

potential for human health 

multipathway effects and that chronic 

noncancer health impacts are unlikely. 

We estimate that the worst-case acute 

HQ value could exceed a value of 1 for 

one HAP, acetaldehyde, with a potential 

maximum HQ up to 8 based on the 

acute REL dose-response value. Seven of 

the 15 facilities in this source category 

had an estimated acute HQ greater than 

1 (REL for acetaldehyde ranging from 3 

to 8). All other facilities modeled had an 

acute HQ less than 1. The maximum 

acute HQs based on ERPG–1 and AEGL– 

1 dose-response values for acetaldehyde 

are 1 and 0.2, respectively. As described 

earlier in this preamble, the acute 

assessment includes some conservative 

assumptions and some uncertainties. 

Considering the improbable assumption 

that worst-case meteorological 

conditions are present at the same time 

that maximum hourly emissions of 

acetaldehyde exceed the average hourly 

emission rate by a factor of 10 at all 

emission points simultaneously, 

coincident with individuals being in the 

location of maximum impact and 

considering the low acute HQ values, 

based on the ERPG–1 and AEGL–1 doseresponse values collectively with the 

REL value, we believe it is unlikely that 

HAP emissions from this source 

category would result in acute health 

effects. 

Our screening level evaluation of the 

potential health risks associated with 

emissions of PB–HAP did not indicate 

potential for adverse multipathway 

impacts due to emissions of the any of 

the PB–HAP associated with the source 

category. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 9-in-1 

million. The maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be 1, 

but the source category contributes only 

5 percent to the maximum facility-wide 

TOSHI. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.B.7 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the risks from the PET source 

category are acceptable. 

d. What is our proposed decision 

regarding ample margin of safety? 

We considered whether the MACT 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. In this 

analysis, we investigated available 

emissions control options that might 

reduce the risk associated with 

emissions from the source category and 

considered this information along with 

all of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination. 

For the PET source category, we 

identified only one control option to 

further address risks from equipment 

leaks, which were shown to contribute 

100 percent to the maximum individual 

cancer risks for this source category. 

This control option would require 

sources to install leakless valves to 

prevent leaks from those components. 

We estimated HAP reduction 

resulting from this control option is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1297 

approximately 123 tpy from the baseline 

actual emissions level. We estimated 

that achieving these reductions would 

involve a capital cost of approximately 

$220,000,000, a total annualized cost of 

about $30,000,000 and a cost 

effectiveness of $244,000 per ton of HAP 

emissions reduced. The additional 

control requirement would achieve 

approximately 20-percent reduction in 

baseline risks at a very high cost. We 

estimate that the MACT allowable 

emissions from this source category are 

approximately equal to the reported, 

actual emissions. Therefore, the 

estimated emission reduction, risk 

reduction and costs discussed above 

would also be applicable to the MACT 

allowable emissions level. We believe 

that the costs of this option are not 

reasonable, given the level of emission 

and risk reduction. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighed all health risk 

measures and information considered in 

the risk acceptability determination, 

along with the costs and economic 

impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and other relevant factors in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

Considering the health risk information 

and the unreasonable cost effectiveness 

of the option identified, we propose that 

the existing MACT standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

3. What are the results of the technology 

review? 

The results of the technology review 

for the Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards are discussed above in 

section IV.A.2. We identified no 

advancements in practices, processes 

and control technologies applicable to 

the emission sources in the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins source categories 

in our technology review. 

4. What other actions are we proposing? 

a. SSM Provisions 

The proposed changes to the SSM 

provisions for the Group IV Polymers 

and Resins MACT standards, which 

apply to the PET source category, are 

discussed above in section IV.A.3.a. 

b. Electronic Reporting 

The proposed addition of electronic 

reporting requirements for performance 

tests for the Group IV Polymers and 

Resins MACT standards, which apply to 

the PET source category, are discussed 

above in section IV.A.3.b. 

V. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for Pesticide Active 

Ingredient Production 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 16 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 

TABLE 16—PAI INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2

Population at 

risk ≥ 1-in-1 

million 

Annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site 

acute noncancer HQ 4

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual emissions level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

17 ...................... 7 7 11,000 0.001 0.7 3 HQREL = 8 ethylene 

glycol ethyl ether. 

HQERPG–1 = 0.3 chlorine. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PAI source category is the respiratory system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. See section III.B.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute doseresponse values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 16, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 7- 

in-1 million, the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 

0.7, and the maximum off-facility site 

acute HQ value could be up to 8, based 

on the actual emissions level and the 

REL value for ethylene glycol ethyl 

ethers. The total estimated national 

cancer incidence from these facilities, 

based on actual emission levels is 0.001 

excess cancer cases per year or one case 

in every 1,000 years. 

Based on our analysis, we estimate 

that the MACT-allowable emissions 

levels from process vents for organic 

HAP emissions could be up to five times 

the actual emissions and the MACTallowable level for chlorine and HCl 

emissions could be up to six times the 

actual emissions from this source 

category. However, the highest cancer 

risks are caused by fugitive emissions 

and the application of the factor of five 

to the organic HAP emissions from 

point sources did not result in cancer 

risks in excess of the levels resulting 

from actual fugitive source emissions. 

Therefore, the cancer risk results for 

MACT-allowable emissions are 

approximately equal to those for actual 

emissions. The highest TOSHI at the 

MACT-allowable level is approximately 

3. For more detail about this estimate of 

the ratio of actual to MACT-allowable 

emissions and the estimation of MACTallowable emission levels and 

associated risks and impacts, see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Three facilities reported emissions of 

PB–HAP, including lead compounds, 

PCBs and hexachlorobenzene. We 

typically would compare the facilityspecific emission rates of each of these 

PB–HAP to the TRIM–Screen emission 

threshold values to assess the potential 

for significant human health risks or 

environmental risks via non-inhalation 

pathways. However, while lead is a PB– 

HAP, the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) value (which was 

used for the chronic noncancer risk 

assessment) takes into account airrelated multipathway exposures, so a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1298 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

separate multipathway screening value 

was not developed here. Since we did 

not estimate any exceedances of the 

NAAQS in our chronic noncancer risk 

assessment, we do not expect any 

unacceptable multipathway exposure 

and risk of concern due to lead 

emissions from these facilities. In 

addition, there is currently not a 

screening value for PCBs or 

hexachlorobenzene, and they were not 

evaluated for potential non-inhalation 

risks. 

2. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 17 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment was conducted based on 

actual emission levels. For detailed 

facility-specific results, see Appendix 4 

of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for 7 Source Categories in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

TABLE 17—PAI FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ................................................................................................. 20 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more .................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the PAI source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks 

of 100-in-1 million or more ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 

Number of facilities at which the PAI source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk of 

1-in-1 million or more ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4 

Chronic Noncancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ............................................................................................................................... 2 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 ............................................................................ 1 

Number of facilities at which the PAI source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer 

TOSHI of 1 or more .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the PAI MACT 

standards is estimated to be 20-in-1 

million, based on actual emissions. Of 

the 17 facilities included in this 

analysis, none have a facility-wide MIR 

of 100-in-1 million. There are 12 

facilities with facility-wide MIR of 1-in1 million or greater (2 facilities with an 

MIR of 20 in a million and 2 facilities 

with an MIR of 10 in a million; the 

remaining 8 facilities have an MIR 

below 10 in a million). Four of these 

facilities have PAI production 

operations that contribute greater than 

50 percent to the facility-wide risks. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be 2, based on actual 

emissions. Of the 17 facilities included 

in this analysis, one has a facility-wide 

maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 

values greater than 1 (TOSHI of 2). 

3. What is our proposed decision 

regarding risk acceptability? 

As noted in section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various cancer 

and noncancer risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; 

the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the 

extent of noncancer risks; the potential 

for adverse environmental effects; 

distribution of cancer and noncancer 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

For the PAI source category, the risk 

analysis we performed indicates that the 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed could be up to 7-in-1 million 

due to both actual and allowable 

emissions. This value is considerably 

less than 100-in-1 million, which is the 

presumptive level of acceptability. The 

risk analysis also shows low cancer 

incidence (1 in every 1,000 years) and 

that chronic noncancer health impacts 

are unlikely at the actual emissions 

levels. 

We estimate that the worst-case acute 

HQ value could exceed a value of 1 for 

six HAP: ethylene glycol ethyl ethers 

(one facility); acrolein (one facility); 

chloroform (one facility); nickel 

compounds (one facility); chlorine (one 

facility); and formaldehyde (one 

facility). One facility had acute HQ 

greater than 1 for three HAP (ethyl 

glycol ethyl ether, acrolein and nickel). 

The potential maximum HQ is up to 8, 

based on the acute REL dose-response 

value for ethylene glycol ethyl ether. 

Four of the 17 facilities in this source 

category had an estimated HQ greater 

than 1. All other facilities modeled had 

an HQ less than 1. The maximum HQ 

based on an ERPG–1 or AEGL–1 doseresponse value is 0.3, based on the 

AEGL–1 for chlorine. As described 

earlier in this preamble, the acute 

assessment includes some conservative 

assumptions and some uncertainties. 

Considering the improbable assumption 

that worst-case meteorological 

conditions are present at the same time 

that maximum hourly emissions of 

ethylene glycol ethyl ether exceed the 

average hourly emission rate by a factor 

of 10 at all emission points 

simultaneously for three of these four 

facilities or a factor of 2 at all emission 

points simultaneously for the other 

facility, coincident with individuals 

being in the location of maximum 

impact and considering the low acute 

HQ values, based on the AEGL–1 and 

ERPG–1 dose-response values 

collectively with the REL values, we 

believe it is unlikely that HAP 

emissions from this source category 

would result in acute health effects. 

Our screening level evaluation of the 

potential health risks associated with 

emissions of PB–HAP did not indicate 

potential for adverse multipathway 

impacts due to emissions of lead. While 

there are no screening values for PCB 

and hexachlorobenzene, these HAP are 

not emitted in appreciable quantities 

and are not expected to cause 

multipathway impacts of concern. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 20-in-1 

million. The maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be 2, 

but the source category contributes less 

than 5 percent to the maximum facilitywide TOSHI. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.B.7 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the risks from the PAI source 

category are acceptable. 

4. What is our proposed decision 

regarding ample margin of safety? 

We considered whether the MACT 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. In this 

analysis, we investigated available 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1299 

emissions control options that might 

reduce the risk associated with 

emissions from the source category and 

considered this information along with 

all of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination. 

For the PAI source category, we 

identified only one control option to 

further address risks from equipment 

leaks, which were shown to contribute 

100 percent to the maximum individual 

cancer risks for this source category. 

This control option would require 

sources to install leakless valves to 

prevent leaks from those components. 

We estimated HAP reduction 

resulting from this control option is 

approximately 101 tpy from the baseline 

actual emissions level. We estimated 

that achieving these reductions would 

involve a capital cost of approximately 

$180,000,000, a total annualized cost of 

about $25,000,000 and a cost 

effectiveness of $244,000 per ton of HAP 

emissions reduced. The additional 

control requirement would achieve 

approximately 60-percent reduction in 

baseline risks at a very high cost. We 

estimate that the MACT allowable 

emissions from equipment leaks at this 

source category are approximately equal 

to the reported, actual emissions. 

Therefore, the estimated emission 

reduction, risk reduction and costs 

discussed above would also be 

applicable to the MACT allowable 

emissions level. We believe that the 

costs of this option are not reasonable, 

given the level of emission and risk 

reduction. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighed all health risk 

measures and information considered in 

the risk acceptability determination, 

along with the costs and economic 

impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and other relevant factors in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

Considering the health risk information 

and the unreasonable cost effectiveness 

of the option identified, we propose that 

the existing MACT standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

B. What are the results of the technology 

review? 

In the decade since the PAI NESHAP 

was promulgated, the EPA has 

developed 19 air toxics regulations for 

source categories that emit organic HAP 

from the same type of emissions sources 

that are present in the PAI source 

category. We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses 

for these 19 regulations for new 

practices, processes and control 

technologies. We also conducted a 

search of the RBLC for controls for VOCand HAP-emitting processes in the 

Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 

and the SOCMI categories with permits 

dating back to 1997. 

We identified no advancements in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies applicable to the emission 

sources in the PAI source category in 

our technology review. 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

1. SSM Provisions 

As we have done in other recent risk 

and technology rulemakings, we are 

proposing to eliminate the SSM 

exemption in the PAI MACT standards. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

EPA is proposing that standards in this 

rule would apply at all times. We are 

proposing several revisions to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart MMM. Specifically, we 

are proposing to revise Table 1 to 

indicate that the requirements of 40 CFR 

63.6(e) of the General Provisions do not 

apply. The 40 CFR 63.6(e) requires 

owner or operators to act according to 

the general duty to ‘‘operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions.’’ We are 

separately proposing to incorporate this 

general duty to minimize into 40 CFR 

63.1360(e). The 40 CFR 63.6(e) also 

requires the owner or operator of an 

affected source to develop a written 

SSM plan. We are proposing to remove 

the SSM plan requirement. We are 

proposing to remove the explanation of 

applicability of emissions standards 

during periods SSM in 40 CFR 

63.1360(e); remove the malfunction plan 

from 40 CFR 63.1367(a); clarify that 

representative conditions do not include 

periods of SSM throughout the rule; 

remove references to periods of SSM in 

monitoring; and revise the SSMassociated recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1367(a) to 

require reporting and recordkeeping for 

periods of malfunction. We are also 

proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate 

that SSM-related provisions in 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1); 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1); 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)–(3); 40 CFR 

63.10(c)(10), (11), and (15); and 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do 

not apply. We are also proposing to add 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1363(b)(4) to 

clarify that PRD releases to the 

atmosphere are violations of the 

emissions standards and to require 

pressure release alarms and to add 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1463(h)(4) to 

require reporting of any pressure device 

releases to the atmosphere with the 

periodic report. In addition, following 

our recently established practice in 

other risk and technology review 

rulemakings, we are proposing to 

promulgate an affirmative defense 

against civil penalties for exceedances 

of emission standards caused by 

malfunctions, as well as criteria for 

establishing the affirmative defense. 

2. Electronic Reporting 

To increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and improve data 

accessibility, we are proposing to 

require the submission of electronic 

copies of required performance tests for 

test methods that are supported by the 

ERT to EPA’s WebFIRE database. These 

provisions are added in 40 CFR 

63.1368(p). 

VI. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for Polyether Polyols 

Production 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessments? 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

Table 19 provides an overall summary 

of the inhalation risk assessment results 

for the source category. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1300 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 19—PEPO INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of 

facilities 1

Maximum individual cancer risk 

(in 1 million) 2

Population at 

risk ≥ 1-in-1 

million 

Annual cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Maximum chronic noncancer 

TOSHI 3

Maximum off-site 

Actual acute noncancer HQ 4

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

Actual 

emissions 

level 

Allowable 

emissions 

level 

23 ...................... 30 30 160,000 0.02 0.8 0.8 HQREL = 6 glycol 

ethers. 

HQAEGL–1 = 0.1 acrolein. 

1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 

2 Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 

3 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the PEPO source category is the respiratory system. 

4The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which, in most cases, is the REL. When HQ values exceed 1, we also 

show HQ values using the next lowest available acute dose-response value. See section III.B.3 of this preamble for explanation of acute doseresponse values. 

The inhalation risk modeling was 

performed using actual emissions level 

data. As shown in Table 19, the results 

of the inhalation risk assessment 

indicated the maximum lifetime 

individual cancer risk could be up to 

30-in-1 million, the maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI value could be up to 

0.8 and the maximum off-facility site 

acute HQ value could be up to 6, based 

on the actual emissions level and the 

REL value for glycol ethers. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from these facilities, based on actual 

emission levels is 0.02 excess cancer 

cases per year or one case in every 50 

years. 

Based on our analysis, we estimate 

that the MACT-allowable emissions 

level for organic non-epoxide HAP 

emissions from certain process vents 

could be up to five times the actual 

emissions from this source category. 

However, the highest cancer risks are 

caused by epoxide emissions, and the 

application of the factor of five to the 

non-epoxide organic HAP emissions 

from point sources did not result in 

cancer risks in excess of the levels 

resulting from actual epoxide emissions. 

Therefore, the cancer risk results for 

MACT-allowable emissions are 

approximately equal to those for actual 

emissions. For more detail about this 

estimate of the ratio of actual to MACTallowable emissions and the estimation 

of MACT-allowable emission levels and 

associated risks and impacts, see the 

memorandum, MACT Allowable 

Emissions and Risks for the Pesticide 

Active Ingredient, Polyether Polyols, 

and Polymers and Resins IV Production 

Source Categories, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Two facilities reported emissions of 

PB–HAP, including fluoranthene (a 

POM HAP) and lead compounds. We 

typically compare the facility-specific 

emission rates of PB–HAP to the TRIM– 

Screen emission threshold values to 

assess the potential for significant 

human health risks or environmental 

risks via non-inhalation pathways. 

However, while lead is a PB–HAP, the 

NAAQS value (which was used for the 

chronic noncancer risk assessment) 

takes into account multipathway 

exposures, so a separate multipathway 

screening value was not developed. 

Since we did not estimate any 

exceedances of the NAAQS in our 

chronic noncancer risk assessment, we 

do not expect any significant 

multipathway exposure and risk due to 

lead emissions from these facilities. For 

fluoranthene emissions, one facility 

emits this PB–HAP and the emissions 

exceed the screening-level threshold 

level for POM by a factor of four. Based 

on this screening analysis, we cannot 

rule out the potential for multipathway 

impacts of concern due to emissions of 

fluoranthene from the one facility. 

However, we do not expect fluoranthene 

emissions from PEPO processes, and we 

specifically request data regarding these 

emissions. 

2. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment 

Results 

Table 20 displays the results of the 

facility-wide risk assessment. This 

assessment was conducted based on 

actual emission levels. For detailed 

facility-specific results, see Appendix 4 

of the Draft Residual Risk Assessment 

for 7 Source Categories in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

TABLE 20—PEPO FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23 

Cancer Risk: 

Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ................................................................................................. 30 

Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more .................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the PEPO source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer 

risks of 100-in-1 million or more ....................................................................................................................................................... 0 

Number of facilities at which the PEPO source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk 

of 1-in-1 million or more .................................................................................................................................................................... 14 

Chronic Noncancer Risk: 

Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ............................................................................................................................... 2 

Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 ............................................................................ 1 

Number of facilities at which the PEPO source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer 

TOSHI of 1 or more .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0 

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP 

emissions at a facility that contains 

sources subject to the PEPO MACT 

standards is estimated to be 30-in-1 

million, based on actual emissions. Of 

the 23 facilities included in this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1301 

analysis, none have a facility-wide MIR 

of 100-in-1 million. There are 20 

facilities with a facility-wide MIR of 1- 

in-1 million or greater (10 of these 

facilities have a facility-wide MIR equal 

to or greater than 10 in a million). 

Fourteen of these facilities have PEPO 

production operations that contribute 

greater than 50 percent to the facilitywide risks. 

The facility-wide maximum 

individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is 

estimated to be 2 based on actual 

emissions. Of the 23 facilities included 

in this analysis, one has facility-wide 

maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 

values greater than 1 (TOSHI of 2). 

3. What is our proposed decision 

regarding risk acceptability? 

As noted in section III.C of this 

preamble, we weigh all health risk 

factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, including the MIR; the 

number of persons in various cancer 

and noncancer risk ranges; cancer 

incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; 

the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the 

extent of noncancer risks; the potential 

for adverse environmental effects; 

distribution of cancer and noncancer 

risks in the exposed population; and 

risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 

38044, September 14, 1989). 

For the PEPO source category, the risk 

analysis we performed indicates that the 

cancer risks to the individual most 

exposed could be up to 30-in-1 million 

due to both actual and allowable 

emissions. This value is considerably 

less than 100-in-1 million, which is the 

presumptive level of acceptability. The 

risk analysis also shows low cancer 

incidence (1 in every 50 years). The 

chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated 

to be 1 due to emissions of chlorine. 

We estimate that the worst-case acute 

HQ value could exceed a value of 1 for 

two HAP, glycol ethers and acrolein, 

with a potential maximum acute HQ up 

to 6, based on the acute REL doseresponse value for glycol ethers. For 

glycol ethers, we used the lowest acute 

REL of any of the glycol ethers with 

such health values (i.e., ethylene glycol 

monomethyl ether) to assess the other 

glycol ethers without such values. Two 

of the 23 facilities in this source 

category had an estimated acute HQ 

greater than 1. All other facilities 

modeled had an acute HQ less than 1. 

The maximum acute HQ (based on the 

AEGL–1 dose-response value for 

acrolein) is 0.1. As described earlier in 

this preamble, the acute assessment 

includes some conservative 

assumptions and some uncertainties. 

Considering the improbable assumption 

that worst-case meteorological 

conditions are present at the same time 

that maximum hourly emissions of 

glycol ethers exceed the average hourly 

emission rate by a factor of 2 at all 

emission points simultaneously for both 

of these facilities and coincident with 

individuals being in the location of 

maximum impact, and considering the 

low acute HQ values, based on the 

AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 dose-response 

values collectively with the REL values, 

we believe it is unlikely that HAP 

emissions from this source category 

would result in acute health effects. 

Our screening level evaluation of the 

potential health risks associated with 

emissions of PB–HAP did not indicate 

potential for adverse multipathway 

impacts due to emissions of lead. The 

screening level evaluation indicated that 

the one facility that reported 

fluoranthene emissions exceeded the 

screening-level threshold for POM by a 

factor of 4; however, as explained in 

section III.B.7.e, our screening methods 

use worst-case scenarios and the results 

are biased high. 

Our additional analysis of facilitywide risks showed that the maximum 

facility-wide cancer risk is 30-in-1 

million. The maximum chronic 

noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be 3, 

but the source category contributes less 

than one-third to the maximum facilitywide TOSHI. 

The EPA has weighed the various 

health risk measures and health factors, 

including risk estimation uncertainty, 

discussed above and in section III.B.7 of 

this preamble, and we are proposing 

that the risks from the PEPO source 

category are acceptable. 

4. What is our proposed decision 

regarding ample margin of safety? 

We considered whether the MACT 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. In this 

analysis, we investigated available 

emissions control options that might 

reduce the risk associated with 

emissions from the source category and 

considered this information along with 

all of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the risk 

acceptability determination. 

For the PEPO source category, we 

identified only one control option to 

further address risks from equipment 

leaks, which were shown to contribute 

approximately 47 percent to the 

maximum individual cancer risks for 

this source category. This control option 

would require sources to install leakless 

valves to prevent leaks from those 

components. 

We estimated HAP reduction 

resulting from this control option is 

approximately 59 tpy from the baseline 

actual emissions level. We estimated 

that achieving these reductions would 

involve a capital cost of about 

$104,000,000, a total annualized cost of 

about $14,000,000 and a cost 

effectiveness of $244,000 per ton of HAP 

emissions reduced. The additional 

control requirement would achieve 

approximately 30-percent reduction in 

baseline risks at a very high cost. We 

estimate that the MACT allowable 

emissions from equipment leaks at this 

source category are approximately equal 

to the reported, actual emissions. 

Therefore, the estimated emission 

reduction, risk reduction and costs 

discussed above would also be 

applicable to the MACT allowable 

emissions level. We believe that the 

costs of this option are not reasonable, 

given the level of emission and risk 

reduction. 

In accordance with the approach 

established in the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA weighed all health risk 

measures and information considered in 

the risk acceptability determination, 

along with the costs and economic 

impacts of emissions controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and other relevant factors in making our 

ample margin of safety determination. 

Considering the health risk information 

and the unreasonable cost effectiveness 

of the option identified, we propose that 

the existing MACT standards provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

B. What are the results of the technology 

review? 

In the decade since the PEPO 

NESHAP was promulgated, EPA has 

developed 19 air toxics regulations for 

source categories that emit organic HAP 

from the same type of emissions sources 

that are present in the PEPO source 

category. We reviewed the regulatory 

requirements and/or technical analyses 

for these 19 regulations for new 

practices, processes and control 

technologies. We also conducted a 

search of the RBLC for controls for VOCand HAP-emitting processes in the 

SOCMI categories with permits dating 

back to 1997. 

We identified no advancements in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies applicable to the emission 

sources in the PEPO source category in 

our technology review. 

C. What other actions are we proposing? 

1. SSM Provisions 

As we have done in other recent risk 

and technology review rulemakings, we 

are proposing to eliminate the SSM 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1302 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

exemption in the PEPO MACT 

standards. Consistent with Sierra Club 

v. EPA, the EPA is proposing that 

standards in this rule would apply at all 

times. We are proposing several 

revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

PPP. Specifically, we are proposing to 

revise Table 1 to indicate that the 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.6(e) of the 

General Provisions do not apply. The 40 

CFR 63.6(e) requires owners or 

operators to act according to the general 

duty to ‘‘operate and maintain any 

affected source, including associated air 

pollution control equipment and 

monitoring equipment, in a manner 

consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions.’’ We are 

separately proposing to incorporate this 

general duty to minimize into 40 CFR 

63.1420(h). The 40 CFR 63.6(e) also 

requires the owner or operator of an 

affected source to develop a written 

SSM plan. We are proposing to remove 

the SSM plan requirement. We are 

proposing to remove the explanation of 

applicability of emissions standards 

during periods SSM in 40 CFR 

63.1420(h); remove the malfunction 

plan from 40 CFR 63.1439(b); clarify 

that representative conditions do not 

include periods of SSM throughout the 

rule; remove references to periods of 

SSM in monitoring; remove the 

provisions for excused excursions in 40 

CFR 63.1438(g) and revise the SSMassociated recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1439(b) to 

require reporting and recordkeeping for 

periods of malfunction. We are also 

proposing to revise Table 1 to indicate 

that SSM-related provisions in 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1), 63.6(e)(3), 63.6(f)(1); 40 CFR 

63.7(e)(1); 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1); 40 CFR 

63.10(c)(10), (11) and (15); and 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5) of the General Provisions do 

not apply. We are also proposing to add 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1434(c) to 

clarify that PRD releases to the 

atmosphere are violations of the 

emissions standards and to require 

pressure release alarms and to add 

requirements in 40 CFR 63.1439(e)(9) to 

require reporting of any pressure device 

releases to the atmosphere with the 

periodic report. In addition, following 

our practice established in other risk 

and technology review rulemakings, we 

are proposing to promulgate an 

affirmative defense against civil 

penalties for exceedances of emission 

standards caused by malfunctions, as 

well as criteria for establishing the 

affirmative defense. 

2. Electronic Reporting 

To increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and improve data 

accessibility, we are proposing to 

require the submission of electronic 

copies of required performance tests for 

test methods that are supported by the 

ERT to EPA’s WebFIRE database. These 

provisions are added in 40 CFR 

63.1439(e)(10). 

VII. Compliance Dates 

For the three MACT standards being 

addressed in this action, the proposed 

compliance date for the revised SSM 

requirements and electronic reporting 

requirements is the effective date of the 

promulgated revised standards. We are 

proposing these compliance dates 

because these requirements should be 

immediately implementable by the 

facilities upon the next occurrence of a 

malfunction or the performance of a 

performance test that is required to be 

submitted to the ERT. We also believe 

that the facilities should already be able 

to comply with the existing standards 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

In accordance with CAA section 

112(i)(3), the compliance date for PRD 

monitoring is 3 years from the effective 

date of the promulgated standards. This 

time period will allow facilities to 

purchase, install and test the 

equipment. 

For the facility in the PET continuous 

TPA high viscosity multiple end 

finisher subcategory subject to the 

Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards, the proposed compliance 

date for the new MACT standards 

applicable to equipment leaks and PCCT 

is the effective date of the promulgated 

standards. Since this facility is already 

performing the proposed equipment 

leak requirements and meeting the 

proposed PCCT standards, the facility 

should be able to comply immediately 

with the promulgated rule provisions. It 

should be feasible for the facility to 

conduct any additional recordkeeping 

required upon the promulgation date 

and information required in the next 

periodic report for these requirements 

would only reflect the period of time 

between the promulgation date and the 

periodic report due date. 

Beyond the revised SSM and 

electronic reporting requirements, there 

are no changes to the PAI and PEPO 

MACT standards. 

VIII. Summary of Cost, Environmental 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We anticipate that each facility in 

these seven source categories will be 

affected by these proposed amendments. 

We estimate there are 17 existing 

facilities subject to the PAI MACT 

standards, 23 existing facilities subject 

to the PEPO MACT standards and 30 

existing facilities subject to the Group 

IV Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards. We do not know of any new 

facilities that are expected to be 

constructed in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, our impact analysis is 

focused on the existing sources affected 

by the MACT standards for these source 

categories. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

No quantifiable air quality impacts are 

expected to result from the proposed 

amendments to these three MACT 

standards for seven source categories. 

For the two emissions sources, we are 

proposing new emissions standards for 

equipment leaks and PCCT in the PET 

continuous TPA high viscosity multiple 

end finisher subcategory regulated by 

the Group IV Polymers and Resins 

MACT standards, we are proposing to 

establish the MACT floor at the current 

emissions levels for the one facility in 

this subcategory. As a result, no 

additional emission reduction will be 

realized, although increases in 

emissions in the future will be 

prevented. For the proposed revisions to 

the MACT standards regarding SSM, 

while these changes may result in fewer 

emissions during these periods or less 

frequent periods of startup, shutdown or 

malfunction, these possible emission 

reductions are difficult to quantify and 

are not included in our assessment of air 

quality impacts. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

Under the proposed amendments, 

facilities in all seven source categories 

are expected to incur initial capital and 

annual operation and maintenance costs 

for the installation of PRD monitoring 

systems. The capital costs for each 

facility were estimated, based on data 

collected for other EPA projects. The 

memorandum, Draft Cost Impacts of the 

Revised NESHAP for 7 Source 

Categories, includes a complete 

description of the cost estimate methods 

used for this analysis and is available in 

the docket. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1303 

TABLE 21—COST IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PRD MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Source category 

Total capital 

costs 

(million 2010 $) 

Total annual costs 

(million 2010 

$/year) 

PAI ................................................................................................................................................................. 3.2 0 .5 

PEPO ............................................................................................................................................................. 4.7 0 .7 

P&R IV: 

ABS ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.9 0 .1 

MBS ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.4 0 .05 

Polystyrene Resins ................................................................................................................................. 2.0 0 .3 

PET ......................................................................................................................................................... 2.8 0 .4 

SAN ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.4 0 .05 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

We estimate that there will be no 

more than a 0.5-percent price change 

and a similar reduction in output 

associated with the proposal. This is 

based on the costs of the rule and 

responsiveness of producers and 

consumers based on supply and 

demand elasticities for the industries 

affected by this proposal. The impacts to 

affected firms will be low because the 

annual compliance costs are quite small 

when compared to the annual revenues 

for the affected parent firms (much less 

than 1 percent for each). The impacts to 

affected consumers should also be quite 

small. Thus, there will not be any 

significant impacts on affected firms 

and their consumers as a result of this 

proposal. 

E. What are the benefits? 

No quantifiable monetized benefits 

are expected to result from the proposed 

amendments to these three MACT 

standards for seven source categories. 

As explained in the air quality impacts 

section, there are no quantifiable 

emission reductions associated with the 

proposed amendments for these MACT 

standards and, therefore, there are no 

quantifiable health benefits to associate 

with reduced emissions. 

IX. Request for Comments 

We are soliciting comments on this 

proposed action. All comments received 

during the comment period will be 

considered. In addition to general 

comments on the proposed actions, we 

are also interested in any additional 

data that may help to reduce the 

uncertainties inherent in the risk 

assessments. Such data should include 

supporting documentation in sufficient 

detail to allow characterization of the 

quality and representativeness of the 

data or information. Please see the 

following section for more information 

on submitting data. 

X. Submitting Data Corrections 

The facility-specific data used in the 

source category risk analyses and 

facility-wide analyses for each source 

category subject to this action are 

available for download on the RTR Web 

page at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

rrisk/rtrpg.html. These data files include 

detailed information for each HAP 

emissions release point at each facility 

included in the source category and all 

other HAP emissions sources at these 

facilities (facility-wide emissions 

sources). However, it is important to 

note that the source category risk 

analysis included only those emissions 

tagged with the MACT code associated 

with the source category subject to the 

risk analysis. 

If you believe the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern, and provide 

the data that you believe are more 

accurate, 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 Web 

page, complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. The 

data fields that may be revised include 

the following: 

Data element Definition 

Control Measure ....................................................................................... Are control measures in place? (yes or no). 

Control Measure Comment ...................................................................... Select control measure from list provided, and briefly describe the control measure. 

Delete ....................................................................................................... Indicate here if the facility or record should be deleted. 

Delete Comment ....................................................................................... Describes the reason for deletion. 

Emission Calculation Method Code For Revised Emissions ................... Code description of the method used to derive emissions. For example, continuous emission monitoring, material balance, stack test, 

etc. 

Emission Process Group .......................................................................... Enter the general type of emission process associated with the specified emission point. 

Fugitive Angle ........................................................................................... Enter release angle (clockwise from true North); orientation of the y-dimension relative to true North, measured positive for clockwise starting at 0 degrees (maximum 89 degrees). 

Fugitive Length ......................................................................................... Enter dimension of the source in the east-west (x-) direction, commonly 

referred to as length (ft). 

Fugitive Width ........................................................................................... Enter dimension of the source in the north-south (y-) direction, commonly referred to as width (ft). 

Malfunction Emissions .............................................................................. Enter total annual emissions due to malfunctions (tpy). 

Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly .......................................................... Enter maximum hourly malfunction emissions here (lb/hr). 

North American Datum ............................................................................. Enter datum for latitude/longitude coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if 

left blank, NAD83 is assumed. 

Process Comment .................................................................................... Enter general comments about process sources of emissions. 

REVISED Address .................................................................................... Enter revised physical street address for MACT facility here. 

REVISED City ........................................................................................... Enter revised city name here. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1304 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Data element Definition 

REVISED County Name ........................................................................... Enter revised county name here. 

REVISED Emission Release Point Type ................................................. Enter revised Emission Release Point Type here. 

REVISED End Date .................................................................................. Enter revised End Date here. 

REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate ................................................................. Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here (ft3/sec). 

REVISED Exit Gas Temperature ............................................................. Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here (F). 

REVISED Exit Gas Velocity ..................................................................... Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/sec). 

REVISED Facility Category Code ............................................................ Enter revised Facility Category Code here, which indicates whether facility is a major or area source. 

REVISED Facility Name ........................................................................... Enter revised Facility Name here. 

REVISED Facility Registry Identifier ........................................................ Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned 

by the EPA Facility Registry System. 

REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level Code .............................. Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance Level here. 

REVISED Latitude .................................................................................... Enter revised Latitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED Longitude ................................................................................. Enter revised Longitude here (decimal degrees). 

REVISED MACT Code ............................................................................. Enter revised MACT Code here. 

REVISED Pollutant Code ......................................................................... Enter revised Pollutant Code here. 

REVISED Routine Emissions ................................................................... Enter revised routine emissions value here (tpy). 

REVISED SCC Code ............................................................................... Enter revised SCC Code here. 

REVISED Stack Diameter ........................................................................ Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft). 

REVISED Stack Height ............................................................................ Enter revised Stack Height here (Ft). 

REVISED Start Date ................................................................................ Enter revised Start Date here. 

REVISED State ........................................................................................ Enter revised State here. 

REVISED Tribal Code .............................................................................. Enter revised Tribal Code here. 

REVISED Zip Code .................................................................................. Enter revised Zip Code here. 

Shutdown Emissions ................................................................................ Enter total annual emissions due to shutdown events (tpy). 

Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly ............................................................. Enter maximum hourly shutdown emissions here (lb/hr). 

Stack Comment ........................................................................................ Enter general comments about emission release points. 

Startup Emissions ..................................................................................... Enter total annual emissions due to startup events (tpy). 

Startup Emissions Max Hourly ................................................................. Enter maximum hourly startup emissions here (lb/hr). 

Year Closed .............................................................................................. Enter date facility stopped operations. 

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, etc.). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0435 (through one of 

the methods described in the ADDRESSES

section of this preamble). To expedite 

review of the revisions, it would also be 

helpful if you submitted a copy of your 

revisions to the EPA directly at 

RTR@epa.gov in addition to submitting 

them to the docket. 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a facility with multiple source 

categories, you need only submit one 

file for that facility, which should 

contain all suggested changes for all 

source categories at that facility. We 

request that all data revision comments 

be submitted in the form of updated 

Microsoft® Access files, which are 

provided on the http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html Web page. 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

significant regulatory action because it 

raises novel legal and policy issues. 

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to OMB for review under 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011) and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

The information requirements are based 

on notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), which are mandatory for all 

operators subject to national emissions 

standards. These recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by CAA section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted 

to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to agency policies set forth in 

40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 

being amended with this proposed rule 

(i.e., 40 CFR part 63, subparts JJJ, MMM, 

and PPP) under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. The OMB control numbers 

for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

For these proposed rules, the EPA is 

adding affirmative defense to the 

estimates of burden in the ICR for these 

rules. To provide the public with an 

estimate of the relative magnitude of the 

burden associated with an assertion of 

the affirmative defense position adopted 

by a source, the EPA has provided 

administrative adjustments to this ICR 

to show what the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with the 

assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records for any individual incident, 

including the root cause analysis, totals 

$1,459 annually per MACT standard 

and is based on the time and effort 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1305 

required of a source to review relevant 

data, interview plant employees and 

document the events surrounding a 

malfunction that has caused an 

exceedance of an emissions limit. The 

estimate also includes time to produce 

and retain the record and reports for 

submission to the EPA. The EPA 

provides this illustrative estimate of this 

burden because these costs are only 

incurred if there has been a violation 

and a source chooses to take advantage 

of the affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances 

under which malfunctions could occur, 

as well as differences among sources’ 

operation and maintenance practices, 

we cannot reliably predict the severity 

and frequency of malfunction-related 

excess emissions events for a particular 

source. It is important to note that the 

EPA has no basis currently for 

estimating the number of malfunctions 

that would qualify for an affirmative 

defense. Current historical records 

would be an inappropriate basis, as 

source owners or operators previously 

operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emissions 

standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of excess emissions events 

reported by source operators, only a 

small number would be expected to 

result from a malfunction (based on the 

definition above) and only a subset of 

excess emissions caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source 

choosing to assert the affirmative 

defense. Thus, we believe the number of 

instances in which source operators 

might be expected to avail themselves of 

the affirmative defense will be 

extremely small. For this reason, we 

estimate no more than 1 or 2 such 

occurrences for all sources subject to 

subparts JJJ, MMM and PPP over the 3- 

year period covered by this ICR. We 

expect to gather information on such 

events in the future and will revise this 

estimate as better information becomes 

available. 

1. Group IV Polymers and Resins MACT 

Standards 

The ICR document prepared by the 

EPA for the amendments to the Group 

IV Polymers and Resins MACT 

standards has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 1737.01. Burden changes 

associated with these amendments 

would result from new recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements associated 

with the cooling towers and equipment 

leak provisions for one facility and PRD 

monitoring systems and affirmative 

defense provisions for all facilities 

subject to the MACT standards. 

We estimate 30 regulated facilities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart JJJ. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to 

subpart JJJ is estimated to be 327 labor 

hours at a cost of $19,947 per year. 

There is no estimated change in annual 

burden to the Federal government for 

these amendments. 

2. Pesticide Active Ingredient 

Production MACT Standards 

The ICR document prepared by the 

EPA for the amendments to the PAI 

MACT standards has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 1807.05. Burden changes 

associated with these amendments 

would result from new recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements associated 

with PRD monitoring systems and 

affirmative defense provisions for all 

facilities subject to the MACT standards. 

We estimate 17 regulated facilities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart MMM. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to 

subpart MMM is estimated to be 187 

labor hours at a cost of $11,433 per year. 

There is no estimated change in annual 

burden to the Federal government for 

these amendments. 

3. Polyether Polyols Production MACT 

Standards 

The ICR document prepared by the 

EPA for the amendments to the PEPO 

MACT standards has been assigned EPA 

ICR number 1811.06. Burden changes 

associated with these amendments 

would result from new recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements associated 

with PRD monitoring systems and 

affirmative defense provisions for all 

facilities subject to the MACT standards. 

We estimate 23 regulated facilities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart PPP. The annual monitoring, 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection (averaged over the first 3 

years after the effective date of the 

standards) for these amendments to 

subpart PPP is estimated to be 253 labor 

hours at a cost of $15,433 per year. 

There is no estimated change in annual 

burden to the Federal government for 

these amendments. 

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. When 

these ICR are approved by OMB, the 

agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control numbers for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in the final rules. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0435. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice for where to submit 

comments to the EPA. Send comments 

to OMB at the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Because 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after January 9, 2012, a comment 

to OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by February 8, 

2012. The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. According to the 

SBA small business standards 

definitions, for the Group IV Polymers 

and Resins source categories, which 

have the NAICS code of 325211 (i.e., 

Plastics Material and Resin 

Manufacturing), the SBA small business 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1306 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

size standard is 750 employees. For the 

PEPO source category, which has the 

NAICS code of 325199 (i.e., All Other 

Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing), 

the SBA small business size standard is 

1,000 employees. For the PAI source 

category, which has the NAICS codes of 

325199 (i.e., All Other Basic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing) and 325320 

(i.e., Pesticide and Other Agricultural 

Chemical Manufacturing), the SBA 

small business size standards are 1,000 

employees and 500 employees, 

respectively. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Only one small business in the PAI 

source category is impacted and only 

one small business in the Group IV 

Polymers and Resins source categories 

is impacted. For each affected small 

business, the impact of this proposal is 

an annual compliance cost of less than 

1 percent of the parent firm’s revenues. 

There are no affected small businesses 

in the PEPO source category. All of the 

other companies affected by this rule are 

generally large integrated corporations 

that are not considered to be small 

entities per the definitions provided in 

this section. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for state, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

proposed rule would not result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local and tribal governments, 

in aggregate, or the private sector in any 

1 year. This proposed rule would 

require the use of PRD monitoring 

systems, but the nationwide annualized 

costs of this proposed requirement are 

estimated to be approximately $2 

million for affected sources. Thus, this 

proposed rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The burden to 

the respondents and the states is 

approximately $2,000,000 for the three 

MACT standards addresses in this 

proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed rule from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

The EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant, as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action would not cause 

appreciable increases in emissions or 

emissions-related health risks. The 

EPA’s risk assessments (included in the 

docket for this proposed rule) 

demonstrate that the existing 

regulations are associated with an 

acceptable level of risk and provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent adverse 

environmental effects. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action,’’ as defined under 

Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely 

to have significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

This action will not create any new 

requirements and, therefore, no 

additional costs for sources in the 

energy supply, distribution or use 

sectors. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA 

to use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless 

to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

VCS are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

to use ASTM D2908–74 or 91 and 

ASTM D3370–76 or 96a for the PCCT at 

the one Group IV Polymers and Resins 

facility in the PET continuous TPA high 

viscosity multiple end finisher 

subcategory. No applicable VCS were 

identified for these methods. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of this proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable VCS and 

to explain why such standards should 

be used in this regulation. 

Under section 63.7(f) and section 

63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General 

Provisions, a source may apply to the 

EPA for permission to use alternative 

test methods or alternative monitoring 

requirements in place of any required 

testing methods, performance 

specifications or procedures in the 

proposed rule. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1307 

To examine the potential for any 

environmental justice issues that might 

be associated with the level of the 

standards for each source category, we 

performed a comparative analysis of the 

demographics of the population within 

the vicinity of the facilities in these 

source categories (i.e., within a 3-mile 

radius) and the national average 

demographic distributions. The results 

of this analysis show that most 

demographic categories are within 2 

percentage points of national averages, 

except for the African American 

population, which exceeds the national 

average by 6 percentage points (18 

percent versus 12 percent). The EPA has 

determined that the current health risks 

posed by emissions from these source 

categories are acceptable and provide an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevent adverse 

environmental effects. The proposed 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

maintains the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations. 

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: November 30, 2011. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to amend Title 

40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart JJJ—[Amended] 

2. Section 63.1310 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) 

introductory text, (a)(4)(iv) and 

(a)(4)(vi); 

b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) 

introductory text; 

c. Revising paragraph (j); and 

d. Adding paragraph (k) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1310 Applicability and designation of 

affected sources. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Emission points and equipment. 

The affected source also includes the 

emission points and components 

specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through 

(vi) of this section that are associated 

with each applicable group of one or 

more TPPU constituting an affected 

source. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Each process contact cooling 

tower used in the manufacture of poly 

(ethylene terephthalate) resin (PET) that 

is associated with a new affected source. 

* * * * * 

(vi) Components required by or 

utilized as a method of compliance with 

this subpart, which may include control 

devices and recovery devices. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Components and equipment that 

do not contain organic HAP and is 

located within a TPPU that is part of an 

affected source; 

* * * * * 

(d) Processes excluded from the 

affected source. The processes specified 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section are not part of the affected 

source and are not subject to the 

requirements of both this subpart and 

subpart A of this part: 

* * * * * 

(j) Applicability of this subpart. (1) 

The emission limitations set forth in 

this subpart and the emission 

limitations referred to in this subpart 

shall apply at all times except during 

periods of non-operation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. 

(2) The emission limitations set forth 

in subpart H of this part, as referred to 

in § 63.1331, shall apply at all times 

except during periods of non-operation 

of the affected source (or specific 

portion thereof) in which the lines are 

drained and depressurized, resulting in 

cessation of the emissions to which 

§ 63.1331 applies. 

(3) The owner or operator shall not 

shut down items of equipment that are 

required or utilized for compliance with 

this subpart during times when 

emissions (or, where applicable, 

wastewater streams or residuals) are 

being routed to such items of 

equipment, if the shutdown would 

contravene requirements of this subpart 

applicable to such items of equipment 

(4) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator, which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records and 

inspection of the source. 

(k) Affirmative defense for exceedance 

of emission limit during malfunction. In 

response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in this subpart, the 

owner or operator may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the owner or operator fails 

to meet their burden of proving all of 

the requirements in the affirmative 

defense. The affirmative defense shall 

not be available for claims for injunctive 

relief. 

(1) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, the owner or operator must timely 

meet the notification requirements in 

paragraph (k)(2) of this section, and 

must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that: 

(i) The excess emissions: 

(A) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent and unavoidable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided or planned for; and 

(D) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used to the extent practicable 

to make these repairs; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(iv) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury or severe property 

damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1308 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(2) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the affected source 

experiencing an exceedance of its 

emission limit(s) during a malfunction 

shall notify the Administrator by 

telephone or facsimile (FAX) 

transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than 2 business days after the 

initial occurrence of the malfunction, if 

it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall also submit a written report to the 

Administrator within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of 

the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that it has 

met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45-day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

3. Section 63.1311 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1311 Compliance dates and 

relationship of this subpart to existing 

applicable rules. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (5) of this section, existing 

affected sources whose primary product, 

as determined using the procedures 

specified in § 63.1310(f), is PET shall be 

in compliance with § 63.1331 no later 

than August 6, 2002. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.1312 is amended by: 

a. Removing the term ‘‘Start-up, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan 

(§ 63.101)’’ in paragraph (a); and 

b. Adding the definition for 

‘‘Affirmative defense’’ in alphabetical 

order in paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1312 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.1319 [Amended] 

5. Section 63.1319 is amended by 

removing ‘‘Lfimits’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘limits’’ in the heading for 

paragraph (c). 

6. Section 63.1324 is amended by 

revising the first two sentences of 

paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(C) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1324 Batch process vents— 

monitoring equipment. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) The owner or operator may 

prepare and implement a gas stream 

flow determination plan that documents 

an appropriate method which will be 

used to determine the gas stream flow. 

The plan shall require determination of 

gas stream flow by a method which will 

at least provide a value for either a 

representative or the highest gas stream 

flow anticipated in the scrubber during 

representative operating conditions 

other than malfunctions. * * * 

* * * * * 

7. Section 63.1329 is amended by: 

a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (c) introductory text; and 

b. Adding paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.1329 Process contact cooling towers 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Existing affected source 

requirements. The owner or operator of 

an existing affected source subject to 

this section who manufactures PET 

using a continuous terephthalic acid 

high viscosity multiple end finisher 

process and who is subject or becomes 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDD, 

shall maintain an ethylene glycol 

concentration in the process contact 

cooling tower at or below 6.0 percent by 

weight averaged on a daily basis over a 

rolling 14-day period of operating 

days. * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Where 40 CFR 60.564(j)(1) requires 

the use of ASTM D2908–74 or 91, 

‘‘Standard Practice for Measuring 

Volatile Organic Matter in Water by 

Aqueous-Injection Gas 

Chromatography,’’ ASTM D2908–91 

(2011), D2908–91 (2005), D2908–91 

(2001), D2908–91 or D2908–74 may be 

used. 

(ii) Where 40 CFR 60.564(j)(1)(i) 

requires the use of ASTM D3370–76 or 

96a, ‘‘Standard Practices for Sampling 

Water,’’ ASTM D3370–10, D3370–08, 

D3370–07, D3370–96a or D3370–76 may 

be used. 

8. Section 63.1331 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (a)(9) and (c) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.1331 Equipment leak provisions. 

(a) * * * 

(9) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. For pressure relief devices, the 

owner or operator must meet the 

requirements of this paragraph. Any 

release to the atmosphere from a 

pressure relief device in organic HAP 

service constitutes a violation of this 

rule. The owner or operator must install, 

maintain and operate release indicators 

as specified in paragraphs (a)(9)(i) and 

(ii) of this section unless the pressure 

relief routes to a closed vent system and 

control device designed and operated in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this subpart. For any pressure relief 

devices, the owner or operator must 

comply with the recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions in this paragraph 

(a) and § 63.1335(e)(9). For any release, 

the owner or operator must submit the 

report specified in § 63.1335(e)(9), as 

described in paragraph (a)(9)(iii) of this 

section. 

(i) A release indicator must be 

properly installed on each pressure 

relief device in such a way that it will 

indicate when an emission release has 

occurred. 

(ii) Each indicator must be equipped 

with an alert system that will notify an 

operator immediately and automatically 

when the pressure relief device is open. 

The alert must be located such that the 

signal is detected and recognized easily 

by an operator. 

(iii) For any instance that the release 

indicator indicates that a pressure relief 

device is open, the owner or operator 

must notify the Administrator that a 

pressure release has occurred and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1309 

submit to the Administrator the report 

specified in § 63.1335(e)(9). This report 

is required even if the owner or operator 

elects to follow the procedures specified 

in § 63.1310(k) to establish an 

affirmative defense. 

* * * * * 

(c)(1) Each affected source producing 

PET using a continuous TPA high 

viscosity multiple end finisher process 

shall monitor for leaks upon startup 

following an outage where changes have 

been made to equipment in gas/vapor or 

light liquid service. This leak check 

shall consist of the introduction of hot 

ethylene glycol vapors into the system 

for a period of no less than 2 hours 

during which time sensory monitoring 

of the equipment shall be conducted. 

(2) A leak is determined to be 

detected if there is evidence of a 

potential leak found by visual, audible 

or olfactory means. 

(3) When a leak is detected, it shall be 

repaired as soon as practical, but not 

later than 15 days after it is detected, 

except as provided in § 63.171. 

(i) The first attempt at repair shall be 

made no later than 5 days after each 

leak is detected. 

(ii) Repaired shall mean that the 

visual, audible, olfactory or other 

indications of a leak have been 

eliminated; that no bubbles are observed 

at potential leak sites during a leak 

check using soap solution; or that the 

system will hold a test pressure. 

(4) When a leak is detected, the 

following information shall be recorded 

and kept for 2 years and reported in the 

next periodic report: 

(i) The instrument and the equipment 

identification number and the operator 

name, initials or identification number. 

(ii) The date the leak was detected 

and the date of first attempt to repair the 

leak. 

(iii) The date of successful repair of 

the leak. 

9. Section 63.1332 is amended by: 

a. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(f)(1); and 

b. Revising paragraph (f)(2) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 63.1332 Emissions averaging provisions. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) Emissions during periods of 

monitoring excursions, as defined in 

§ 63.1334(f). For these periods, the 

calculation of monthly credits and 

debits shall be adjusted as specified in 

paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

10. Section 63.1333 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.1333 Emissions averaging provisions. 

(a) Performance testing shall be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested and in 

accordance with § 63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (d), 

(e)(2), (e)(4), (g) and (h), with the 

exceptions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (5) of this section and the 

additions specified in paragraphs (b) 

through (d) of this section. Upon 

request, the owner or operator shall 

make available to the Administrator 

such records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. Sections 63.1314 

through 63.1330 also contain specific 

testing requirements. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.1334 [Amended] 

11. Section 63.1334 is amended by: 

a. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(f)(1)(v)(B) through (D); 

b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(f)(2)(ii)(B)(2) through (4); 

c. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(f)(5)(ii) through (iv); 

d. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(f)(6)(ii) through (iv); and 

e. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(g). 

12. Section 63.1335 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) 

introductory text, (b)(1)(i) introductory 

text, and (b)(1)(i)(A) and (B); 

b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

((b)(1)(i)(C)); 

c. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii); 

d. Revising paragraph (d)(7)(i); 

e. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(d)(7)(ii) through (iv); 

f. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (e) introductory text, the first 

sentence of paragraph (e)(3) 

introductory text, and paragraph 

(e)(3)(v); 

g. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(3)(viii); 

h. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ix)(B) 

i. Revising the first two sentences of 

paragraph (e)(6) introductory text, 

(e)(6)(iii)(E), (e)(6)(xii)(A)(1), and 

(e)(6)(xii)(D); 

j. Adding paragraphs (e)(9) and (10); 

k. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(i); 

l. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(h)(1)(ii)(C); 

m. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(iii); 

n. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(iii) 

through (iv). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1335 General recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Malfunction recordkeeping and 

reporting. (i) Records of malfunctions. 

The owner or operator shall keep the 

records specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this section. 

(A) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation of process equipment or 

control devices or recovery devices or 

continuous monitoring systems used to 

comply with this subpart, and an 

estimate of the excess emissions 

released. 

(B) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1420(h)(4), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

* * * * * 

(ii) Reports of malfunctions. For the 

purposes of this subpart, reports of 

malfunctions shall be submitted on the 

same schedule as the Periodic Reports 

required under paragraph (e)(6) of this 

section. If a malfunction occurred 

during the reporting period, the report 

must include the number, duration, 

excess emissions estimate and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction 

which occurred during the reporting 

period and which caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report 

must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.1420(h)(4), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(i) Monitoring system malfunctions, 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks 

and zero (low-level) and high-level 

adjustments; 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * In addition to the reports 

and notifications required by subpart A 

of this part as specified in Table 1 of 

this subpart, the owner or operator of an 

affected source shall prepare and submit 

the reports listed in paragraphs (e)(3) 

through (10) of this section, as 

applicable. * * * 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * Owners or operators of 

affected sources requesting an extension 

for compliance; requesting approval to 

use alternative monitoring parameters, 

alternative continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping or alternative controls; 

requesting approval to use engineering 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1310 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

assessment to estimate emissions from a 

batch emissions episode, as described in 

§ 63.1323(b)(6)(i)(C); or wishing to 

establish parameter monitoring levels 

according to the procedures contained 

in § 63.1334(c) or (d), shall submit a 

Precompliance Report according to the 

schedule described in paragraph (e)(3)(i) 

of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(v) The owner or operator shall report 

the intent to use alternative emissions 

standards to comply with the provisions 

of this subpart in the Precompliance 

Report. The Administrator may deem 

alternative emissions standards to be 

equivalent to the standard required by 

the subpart, under the procedures 

outlined in § 63.6(g). 

* * * * * 

(ix) * * * 

(B) Supplements to the Precompliance 

Report may be submitted to request 

approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, as specified in paragraph 

(e)(3)(iii) of this section; to use 

alternative continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph 

(e)(3)(iv) of this section; to use 

alternative controls, as specified in 

paragraph (e)(3)(v) of this section; to use 

engineering assessment to estimate 

emissions from a batch emissions 

episode, as specified in paragraph 

(e)(3)(vi) of this section; to establish 

parameter monitoring levels according 

to the procedures contained in 

§ 63.1334(c) or (d), as specified in 

paragraph (e)(3)(vii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(6) Periodic Reports. For existing and 

new affected sources, the owner or 

operator shall submit Periodic Reports 

as specified in paragraphs (e)(6)(i) 

through (xi) of this section. In addition, 

for equipment leaks subject to § 63.1331, 

with the exception of § 63.1331(c), the 

owner or operator shall submit the 

information specified in § 63.182(d) 

under the conditions listed in 

§ 63.182(d), and for heat exchange 

systems subject to § 63.1328, the owner 

or operator shall submit the information 

specified in § 63.104(f)(2) as part of the 

Periodic Report required by this 

paragraph (e)(6). * * * 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(E) The information in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section for reports of 

malfunctions. 

* * * * * 

(xii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(1) A control or recovery device for a 

particular emission point or process 

section has one or more excursions, as 

defined in § 63.1334(f), for a semiannual 

reporting period; or 

* * * * * 

(D) After quarterly reports have been 

submitted for an emission point for 1 

year without one or more excursions 

occurring (during that year), the owner 

or operator may return to semiannual 

reporting for the emission point or 

process section. 

* * * * * 

(9) Pressure relief device deviation 

report. If any pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service or any piece of 

equipment or closed vent system has 

discharged to the atmosphere, as 

specified in § 63.1331(a)(9), the owner 

or operator must submit to the 

Administrator in the next Periodic 

Report: 

(i) The source, nature and cause of the 

discharge. 

(ii) The date, time and duration of the 

discharge. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

total organic HAP emitted during the 

discharge and the method used for 

determining this quantity. 

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this 

discharge. 

(v) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such discharges. 

(10) Electronic reporting. (i) Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (defined in § 63.2), as 

required in this subpart, the owner or 

operator must transmit the results of the 

performance tests required by this 

subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (see http:// 

www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test 

data must be submitted in the file 

format generated through use of EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

index.html). Only data collected using 

test methods on the ERT Web site are 

subject to this requirement for 

submitting reports electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the information being 

submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit a complete ERT file 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives) to EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to EPA via CDX as described 

earlier in this paragraph. At the 

discretion of the delegated authority, 

you must also submit these reports, 

including the confidential business 

information, to the delegated authority 

in the format specified by the delegated 

authority. 

(ii) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in paragraphs (e)(10)(i) and (ii) of this 

section must be sent to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. The 

Administrator or the delegated authority 

may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by 

commonly used electronic media such 

as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard 

copy). The Administrator retains the 

right to require submittal of reports 

subject to paragraph (e)(10)(i) and (ii) of 

this section in paper format. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unrealistic or impossible 

data during periods of operation (e.g., a 

temperature reading of ¥200 °C on a 

boiler), and will alert the operator by 

alarm or other means. The owner or 

operator shall record the occurrence. All 

instances of the alarm or other alert in 

an operating day constitute a single 

occurrence. 

* * * * * 

(iii) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unchanging data during 

periods of operation, except in 

circumstances where the presence of 

unchanging data is the expected 

operating condition based on past 

experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers), 

and will alert the operator by alarm or 

other means. * * * 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The owner or operator shall retain 

the records specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section, for 

the duration specified in this (h). For 

any calendar week, if compliance with 

paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 

section does not result in retention of a 

record of at least one occurrence or 

measured parameter value, the owner or 

operator shall record and retain at least 

one parameter value during a period of 

operation. 

(iv) For purposes of this paragraph 

(h), an excursion means that the daily 

average (or batch cycle daily average) 

value of monitoring data for a parameter 

is greater than the maximum, or less 

than the minimum established value. 

13. Table 1 to Part JJJ of Subpart 63 

is amended by: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1311 

a. Revising entries 63.6(e), 

63.6(e)(1)(i), and 63.6(e)(1)(ii); 

b. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i) 

through 63.6(e)(3)(ix); 

c. Adding entries 63.6(e)(3) and 

63.6(f)(1); 

d. Revising entry 63.7(e)(1); 

e. Revising entries 63.8(c)(1)(i) and 

63.8(c)(1)(iii); 

f. Removing entries 63.10(d)(5)(i) and 

63.10(d)(5)(ii); 

g. Adding entry 63.10(d)(5); 

h. Removing footnote (a). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART JJJ OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART JJJ AFFECTED SOURCES

Reference Applies to subpart JJJ Explanation 

*******

§ 63.6(e) ......................................... Yes ................................................. Except as otherwise specified for individual paragraphs. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) .................................. No .................................................. See § 63.1310(j)(4) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................. No.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................................... No.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... No.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1333(a). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................. No.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ No.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1335(b)(1)(ii) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

*******

* * * * * 

Subpart MMM—[Amended] 

14. Section 63.1360 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (e)(1), (3), and (4) 

and adding paragraph (k) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1360 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(e) Applicability of this subpart. (1) 

Each provision set forth in this subpart 

shall apply at all times. 

* * * * * 

(3) The owner or operator shall not 

shut down items of equipment that are 

required or utilized for compliance with 

the emissions limitations of this subpart 

during times when emissions (or, where 

applicable, wastewater streams or 

residuals) are being routed to such items 

of equipment, if the shutdown would 

contravene emissions limitations of this 

subpart applicable to such items of 

equipment. 

(4) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator, which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

* * * * * 

(k) Affirmative defense for exceedance 

of emission limit during malfunction. In 

response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in this subpart, the 

owner or operator may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the owner or operator fails 

to meet their burden of proving all of 

the requirements in the affirmative 

defense. The affirmative defense shall 

not be available for claims for injunctive 

relief. 

(1) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, the owner or operator must timely 

meet the notification requirements in 

paragraph (k)(2) of this section, and 

must prove by a preponderance of 

evidence that: 

(i) The excess emissions: 

(A) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner, and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(iv) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1312 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(2) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the affected source 

experiencing an exceedance of its 

emission limit(s) during a malfunction 

shall notify the Administrator by 

telephone or facsimile (FAX) 

transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than two business days after the 

initial occurrence of the malfunction, if 

it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall also submit a written report to the 

Administrator within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of 

the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that it has 

met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

15. Section 63.1361 is amended by: 

a. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition for ‘‘Affirmative defense’’. 

b. Correcting a typographical error in 

the definition of ‘‘Group 1 process vent’’ 

by Removing the word ‘‘hydogen’’ and 

adding in its place the word ‘‘hydrogen’’ 

in the definition of ‘‘Group 1 process 

vent’’ 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 63.1361 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

16. Section 63.1362 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1362 Standards. 

(i) Opening of a safety device. The 

owner or operator that opens a safety 

device, as defined in § 63.1361, is not 

exempt from applicable standards in 

order to avoid unsafe conditions. If 

opening a safety device results in the 

failure to meet any applicable standard, 

the owner or operator must still comply 

with the general duty to minimize 

emissions. If opening a safety device 

results in a deviation or excess 

emissions, such events must be reported 

as specified in § 63.1368(i). If the owner 

or operator attributes the event to a 

malfunction and intends to assert an 

affirmative defense, the owner or 

operator is subject to § 63.1360(k). 

* * * * * 

17. Section 63.1363 is amended by: 

a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (b) introductory text; 

b. Adding paragraph (b)(4); 

c. Revising paragraph (g)(4)(v)(A); 

d. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) 

introductory text and (h)(1)(i); 

e. Adding paragraph (h)(1)(iii); 

f. Adding paragraph (h)(4). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1363 Standards for equipment leaks. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * The owner or operator shall 

comply with the provisions of subpart H 

of this part as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (3) of this section and 

with paragraph (b)(4) of this section for 

pressure relief device monitoring. * * * 

* * * * * 

(4) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. For pressure relief devices, the 

owner or operator must meet the 

requirements of this paragraph. Any 

release to the atmosphere from a 

pressure relief device in organic HAP 

service constitutes a violation of this 

rule. The owner or operator must install, 

maintain, and operate release indicators 

as specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and 

(ii) of this section unless the pressure 

relief routes to a closed vent system and 

control device designed and operated in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this subpart. For any pressure relief 

devices, the owner or operator must 

comply with the recordkeeping 

provisions in paragraph (g) of this 

section and the reporting provisions in 

this paragraph (h) of this section. For 

any release, the owner or operator must 

submit the report specified in paragraph 

(h)(4) of this section, as described in 

paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of this section. 

(i) A release indicator must be 

properly installed on each pressure 

relief device in such a way that it will 

indicate when an emission release has 

occurred. 

(ii) Each indicator must be equipped 

with an alert system that will notify an 

operator immediately and automatically 

when the pressure relief device is open. 

The alert must be located such that the 

signal is detected and recognized easily 

by an operator. 

(iii) For any instance that the release 

indicator indicates that a pressure relief 

device is open, the owner or operator 

must notify the Administrator that a 

pressure release has occurred and 

submit to the Administrator the report 

specified in paragraph (h)(4) of this 

section. This report is required even if 

the owner or operators elects to follow 

the procedures specified in § 63.1360(k) 

to establish an affirmative defense. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(v) * * * 

(A) The owner or operator may 

develop a written procedure that 

identifies the conditions that justify a 

delay of repair. The written procedures 

must be maintained at the plant site. 

Reasons for delay of repair may be 

documented by citing the relevant 

sections of the written procedure. 

(h) * * * 

(1) Each owner or operator of a source 

subject to this section shall submit the 

reports listed in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. 

(i) A Notification of Compliance 

Status report described in paragraph 

(h)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(iii) A pressure relief device deviation 

report described in paragraph (h)(4) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(4) Pressure relief device deviation 

report. If any pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service or any piece of 

equipment or closed vent system has 

discharged to the atmosphere as 

specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section, the owner or operator must 

submit to the Administrator in the next 

Periodic Report: 

(i) The source, nature, and cause of 

the discharge. 

(ii) The date, time, and duration of the 

discharge. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1313 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

total organic HAP emitted during the 

discharge and the method used for 

determining this quantity. 

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this 

discharge. 

(v) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such discharges. 

18. Section 63.1365 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(h)(3). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 63.1365 Test methods and initial 

compliance procedures. 

* * * * * 

(b) Test methods and conditions. 

When testing is conducted to measure 

emissions from an affected source, the 

test methods specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (9) of this section shall be 

used. Compliance and performance tests 

shall be performed under such 

conditions as the Administrator 

specifies to the owner or operator based 

on representative performance of the 

affected source for the period being 

tested and as specified in paragraphs 

(b)(10) and (11) of this section. Upon 

request, the owner or operator shall 

make available to the Administrator 

such records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.1366 [Amended] 

19. Section 63.1366 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(8)(iv). 

20. Section 63.1367 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1367 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Records of malfunctions. (i) The 

owner or operator of an affected source 

subject to this subpart shall maintain 

records of the occurrence and duration 

of each malfunction of operation (i.e., 

process equipment), air pollution 

control equipment, or monitoring 

equipment, and an estimate of the 

excess emissions released. 

(ii) The owner or operator shall 

maintain records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1360(e)(4), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

* * * * * 

21. Section 63.1368 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (i); 

b. Adding paragraph (p). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1368 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(i) Reports of malfunctions. For the 

purposes of this subpart, reports of 

malfunctions shall be submitted on the 

same schedule as the Periodic reports 

required under paragraph (g) of this 

section instead of the schedule specified 

in § 63.10(d)(5)(i) of subpart A of this 

part. If a malfunction occurred during 

the reporting period, the report must 

include the number, duration, excess 

emissions estimate, and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction 

which occurred during the reporting 

period and which caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report 

must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.1360(e)(4), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(p) Electronic reporting. (1) Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (defined in § 63.2) as 

required in this subpart, the owner or 

operator must transmit the results of the 

performance tests required by this 

subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (see http:// 

www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test 

data must be submitted in the file 

format generated through use of EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

index.html). Only data collected using 

test methods on the ERT Web site are 

subject to this requirement for 

submitting reports electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the information being 

submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit a complete ERT file 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives) to EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to EPA via CDX as described 

earlier in this paragraph. At the 

discretion of the delegated authority, 

you must also submit these reports, 

including the confidential business 

information, to the delegated authority 

in the format specified by the delegated 

authority. 

(2) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in this paragraph (p) must be sent to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. The 

Administrator or the delegated authority 

may request a report in any form 

suitable for the specific case (e.g., by 

commonly used electronic media such 

as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard 

copy). The Administrator retains the 

right to require submittal of reports 

subject to this paragraph (p) in paper 

format. 

22. Table 1 to subpart MMM of part 

63 is amended by: 

a. Removing entry 63.6(e); 

b. Adding entries 63.6(e)(1)(i), 

63.6(e)(1)(ii), 63.6(e)(1)(iii), and 

63.6(e)(3); 

c. Removing entry 63.6(f); 

d. Adding entries 63.6(f)(1) and 

63.6(f)(2)–(3); 

e. Revising entry 63.7(e)(1); 

f. Removing entry 63.8(b)(3)–(c)(3); 

g. Adding entries 63.8(b)(3), 

63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(1)(iii), 

and 63.8(c)(2)–(3); 

h. Revising entry 63.8(d)–(f)(3); 

i. Removing entry 63.10(c); 

j. Adding entries 63.10(c)(1)–(8), 

63.10(c)(10)–(11), 63.10(c)(12)–(14), and 

63.10(c)(15); 

k. Revising entry 63.10(d)(5). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMM OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MMM 

Reference to subpart A Applies to subpart MMM Explanation 

*******

63.6(e)(1)(i) .................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1360(e)(4) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................. No.


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1314 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MMM OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MMM—Continued 

Reference to subpart A Applies to subpart MMM Explanation 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................................ Yes.

§ 63.6(e)(3) ..................................... No.

§ 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... No.

§ 63.6(f)(2)–(3) ............................... Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1365(b). 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(b)(3) ..................................... Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................. No.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................. Yes.

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ No.

§ 63.8(c)(2)–(3) ............................... Yes.

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(d)–(f)(3) ............................... Yes ................................................. Except the last sentence of § 63.8(d)(3), which refers to an SSM plan. 

SSM plans are not required. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(8) ............................. Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(10)–(11) ......................... No .................................................. See § 63.1367(a)(3) for malfunction recordkeeping requirements. 

§ 63.10(c)(12)–(14) ......................... Yes.

§ 63.10(c)(15) ................................. No.

*******

§ 63.10(d)(5) ................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1368(i) for malfunction reporting requirements. 

*******

* * * * * 

Subpart PPP—[Amended] 

23. Section 63.1420 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) 

introductory text and (a)(4)(iv); 

b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (d) 

introductory text, and the heading for 

paragraph (e(8); 

c. Revising paragraph (h) and; 

d. Adding paragraph (i). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1420 Applicability and designation of 

affected sources. 

(a) * * * 

(4) The affected source also includes 

the emission points and components 

specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through 

(vi) of this section that are associated 

with a PMPU (or a group of PMPUs) 

making up an affected source, as 

defined in § 63.1423. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Components required by or 

utilized as a method of compliance with 

this subpart which may include control 

techniques and recovery devices. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Components and equipment that 

do not contain organic HAP or that 

contain organic HAP as impurities only 

and are located at a PMPU that is part 

of an affected source. 

* * * * * 

(d) Processes excluded from the 

affected source. The processes specified 

in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 

section are not part of the affected 

source and are not subject to the 

requirements of both this subpart and 

subpart A of this part. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(8) Requirements for flexible process 

units that are not PMPU. * * * 

* * * * * 

(h) Applicability of this subpart. (1) 

The emission limitations set forth in 

this subpart and the emission 

limitations referred to in this subpart 

shall apply at all times except during 

periods of nonoperation of the affected 

source (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of the emissions to 

which this subpart applies. 

(2) The emission limitations set forth 

in 40 CFR part 63, subpart H, as referred 

to in the equipment leak provisions in 

§ 63.1434, shall apply at all times except 

during periods of non-operation of the 

affected source (or specific portion 

thereof) in which the lines are drained 

and depressurized resulting in cessation 

of the emissions to which § 63.1434 

applies. 

(3) The owner or operator shall not 

shut down items of equipment that are 

required or utilized for compliance with 

this subpart during times when 

emissions (or, where applicable, 

wastewater streams or residuals) are 

being routed to such items of equipment 

if the shutdown would contravene 

requirements applicable to such items of 

equipment. 

(4) General duty. At all times, the 

owner or operator must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. Determination of 

whether such operation and 

maintenance procedures are being used 

will be based on information available 

to the Administrator, which may 

include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation 

and maintenance procedures, review of 

operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. 

(i) Affirmative defense for exceedance 

of emission limit during malfunction. In 

response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in this subpart, the 

owner or operator may assert an 

affirmative defense to a claim for civil 

penalties for exceedances of such 

standards that are caused by 

malfunction, as defined at § 63.2. 

Appropriate penalties may be assessed, 

however, if the owner or operator fails 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1315 

to meet their burden of proving all of 

the requirements in the affirmative 

defense. The affirmative defense shall 

not be available for claims for injunctive 

relief. 

(1) To establish the affirmative 

defense in any action to enforce such a 

limit, the owner or operator must timely 

meet the notification requirements in 

paragraph (i)(2) of this section, and must 

prove by a preponderance of evidence 

that: 

(i) The excess emissions: 

(A) Were caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment, process equipment, or a 

process to operate in a normal or usual 

manner; and 

(B) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(C) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(D) Were not part of a recurring 

pattern indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(ii) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when the 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime 

labor were used, to the extent 

practicable to make these repairs; and 

(iii) The frequency, amount and 

duration of the excess emissions 

(including any bypass) were minimized 

to the maximum extent practicable 

during periods of such emissions; and 

(iv) If the excess emissions resulted 

from a bypass of control equipment or 

a process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(v) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality, the 

environment and human health; and 

(vi) All emissions monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(vii) All of the actions in response to 

the excess emissions were documented 

by properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(viii) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(ix) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the excess emissions resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

shall also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of excess emissions that were 

the result of the malfunction. 

(2) Notification. The owner or 

operator of the affected source 

experiencing an exceedance of its 

emission limit(s) during a malfunction 

shall notify the Administrator by 

telephone or facsimile (FAX) 

transmission as soon as possible, but no 

later than two business days after the 

initial occurrence of the malfunction, if 

it wishes to avail itself of an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for that 

malfunction. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

shall also submit a written report to the 

Administrator within 45 days of the 

initial occurrence of the exceedance of 

the standard in this subpart to 

demonstrate, with all necessary 

supporting documentation, that it has 

met the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. The 

owner or operator may seek an 

extension of this deadline for up to 30 

additional days by submitting a written 

request to the Administrator before the 

expiration of the 45 day period. Until a 

request for an extension has been 

approved by the Administrator, the 

owner or operator is subject to the 

requirement to submit such report 

within 45 days of the initial occurrence 

of the exceedance. 

24. Section 63.1423 is amended by: 

a. Removing the phrase ‘‘Start-up, 

shutdown, and malfunction plan 

(subpart F)’’ in paragraph (a); and 

b. Adding the term ‘‘Affirmative 

defense’’ in alphabetical order to 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1423 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

* * * * * 

25. Section 63.1430 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1430 Process vent reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Monitoring data recorded during 

periods of monitoring system 

breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, 

and zero (low-level) and high-level 

adjustments shall not be included in 

computing the daily averages. In 

addition, monitoring data recorded 

during periods of non-operation of the 

process (or specific portion thereof) 

resulting in cessation of organic HAP 

emissions shall not be included in 

computing the daily averages. 

* * * * * 

26. Section 63.1434 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1434 Equipment leak provisions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Requirements for pressure relief 

devices. For pressure relief devices, the 

owner or operator must meet the 

requirements of this paragraph. Any 

release to the atmosphere from a 

pressure relief device in organic HAP 

service constitutes a violation of this 

rule. The owner or operator must install, 

maintain, and operate release indicators 

as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) 

of this section unless the pressure relief 

routes to a closed vent system and 

control device designed and operated in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this subpart. For any pressure relief 

devices, the owner or operator must 

comply with the recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions in § 63.1439(c) and 

(e)(9). For any release, the owner or 

operator must submit the report 

specified in § 63.1439(e)(9), as described 

in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. 

(1) A release indicator must be 

properly installed on each pressure 

relief device in such a way that it will 

indicate when an emission release has 

occurred. 

(2) Each indicator must be equipped 

with an alert system that will notify an 

operator immediately and automatically 

when the pressure relief device is open. 

The alert must be located such that the 

signal is detected and recognized easily 

by an operator. 

(3) For any instance that the release 

indicator indicates that a pressure relief 

device is open, the owner or operator 

must notify the Administrator that a 

pressure release has occurred and 

submit to the Administrator the report 

specified in § 63.1439(e)(9). This report 

is required even if the owner or operator 

elects to follow the procedures specified 

in § 63.1420(k) to establish an 

affirmative defense. 

* * * * * 

27. Section 63.1437 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and the first sentence of (a)(1) 

introductory text to read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1316 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

§ 63.1437 Additional requirements for 

performance testing. 

(a) Performance testing shall be 

conducted in accordance with 

§ 63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (d), (e)(2), (e)(4), (g), 

and (h), with the exceptions specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this 

section and the additions specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

Performance tests shall be conducted 

under such conditions as the 

Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected source for 

the period being tested. Upon request, 

the owner or operator shall make 

available to the Administrator such 

records as may be necessary to 

determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(1) Performance tests shall be 

conducted according to the general 

provisions’ performance testing 

requirements in § 63.7(e)(2), except that 

for all emission sources except process 

vents from batch unit operations, 

performance tests shall be conducted 

during maximum representative 

operating conditions for the process 

achievable during one of the time 

periods described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) 

of this section, without causing any of 

the situations described in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section to 

occur. * * * 

* * * * * 

28. Section 63.1438 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) 

introductory text and (e)(2); 

b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(f)(1)(v)(A) through (C), (f)(3)(ii)(B)(1) 

through (3), and (g). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1438 Parameter monitoring levels and 

excursions. 

(e) * * * 

(1) Each excursion, as defined in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (f)(2)(i)(A), (f)(2)(ii), 

(f)(3)(i), and (f)(4) of this section, 

constitutes a violation of the provisions 

of this subpart in accordance with 

paragraph (e)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(2) Each excursion, as defined in 

paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(iii), 

(f)(2)(i)(B), and (f)(3)(ii) of this section 

constitutes a violation of the operating 

limit. 

* * * * * 

29. Section 63.1439 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

b. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(d)(7)(ii) through (iv); 

c. Revising paragraphs (e) 

introductory text, (e)(4)introductory 

text, and (e)(4)(v); 

d. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(e)(4)(vi); 

e. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(vii)(B); 

f. Revising paragraphs (e)(6)(iii)(E), 

(e)(6)(viii)(A)(1), and (e)(6)(viii)(D); 

g. Adding paragraphs (e)(9) and (10); 

h. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (h)(1)(i); 

i. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(h)(1)(ii)(C); 

j. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(iii); and 

k. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iii) and 

(iv). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 63.1439 General recordkeeping and 

reporting provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Malfunction recordkeeping and 

reporting. (i) Records of malfunctions. 

The owner or operator shall keep the 

records specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. 

(A) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation of process equipment or 

combustion, recovery, or recapture 

devices or continuous monitoring 

systems used to comply with this 

subpart, and an estimate of the excess 

emissions released. 

(B) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.1420(h)(4), including corrective 

actions to restore malfunctioning 

process and air pollution control and 

monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation. 

(ii) Reports of malfunctions. For the 

purposes of this subpart, reports of 

malfunctions shall be submitted on the 

same schedule as the Periodic Reports 

required under paragraph (e)(6) of this 

section. If a malfunction occurred 

during the reporting period, the report 

must include the number, duration, 

excess emissions estimate, and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction 

which occurred during the reporting 

period and which caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. The report 

must also include a description of 

actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected 

source to minimize emissions in 

accordance with § 63.1420(h)(4), 

including actions taken to correct a 

malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(e) Reporting and notification. In 

addition to the reports and notifications 

required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 

as specified in this subpart, the owner 

or operator of an affected source shall 

prepare and submit the reports listed in 

paragraphs (e)(3) through (10) of this 

section, as applicable. All reports 

required by this subpart, and the 

schedule for their submittal, are listed 

in Table 8 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(4) Precompliance Report. The owner 

or operator of an affected source 

requesting an extension for compliance; 

requesting approval to use alternative 

monitoring parameters, alternative 

continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping, or alternative controls; 

or requesting approval to establish 

parameter monitoring levels according 

to the procedures contained in 

§ 63.1438(c) or (d) shall submit a 

Precompliance Report according to the 

schedule described in paragraph (e)(4)(i) 

of this section. The Precompliance 

Report shall contain the information 

specified in paragraphs (e)(4)(ii) through 

(viii) of this section, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(v) The owner or operator shall report 

the intent to use an alternative 

emissions standard to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart in the 

Precompliance Report. The 

Administrator may deem an alternative 

emissions standard to be equivalent to 

the standard required by the subpart, 

under the procedures outlined in the 

General Provisions’ requirements for use 

of an alternative nonopacity emission 

standard, in § 63.6(g). 

* * * * * 

(vii) * * * 

(B) Supplements to the Precompliance 

Report may be submitted to request 

approval to use alternative monitoring 

parameters, as specified in paragraph 

(e)(4)(iii) of this section; to use 

alternative continuous monitoring and 

recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph 

(e)(4)(iv) of this section; or to use 

alternative controls, as specified in 

paragraph (e)(4)(v) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(E) The information in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section for reports of 

malfunctions. 

* * * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(1) A combustion, recovery, or 

recapture device for a particular 

emission point or process section has 

one or more excursions, as defined in 

§ 63.1438(f) for a semiannual reporting 

period; or 

* * * * * 

(D) After quarterly reports have been 

submitted for an emission point for 1 

year without one or more excursions 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 1317 

occurring (during that year), the owner 

or operator may return to semiannual 

reporting for the emission point or 

process section 

* * * * * 

(9) Pressure relief device deviation 

report. If any pressure relief device in 

organic HAP service or any piece of 

equipment or closed vent system has 

discharged to the atmosphere as 

specified in § 63.1434(c), the owner or 

operator must submit to the 

Administrator in the next Periodic 

Report: 

(i) The source, nature, and cause of 

the discharge. 

(ii) The date, time, and duration of the 

discharge. 

(iii) An estimate of the quantity of 

total organic HAP emitted during the 

discharge and the method used for 

determining this quantity. 

(iv) The actions taken to prevent this 

discharge. 

(v) The measures adopted to prevent 

future such discharges. 

(10) Electronic reporting. (i) Within 60 

days after the date of completing each 

performance test (defined in § 63.2) as 

required in this subpart, the owner or 

operator must transmit the results of the 

performance tests required by this 

subpart to EPA’s WebFIRE database by 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (see http:// 

www.epa.gov/cdx). Performance test 

data must be submitted in the file 

format generated through use of EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ 

index.html). Only data collected using 

test methods on the ERT Web site are 

subject to this requirement for 

submitting reports electronically to 

WebFIRE. Owners or operators who 

claim that some of the information being 

submitted for performance tests is 

confidential business information (CBI) 

must submit a complete ERT file 

including information claimed to be CBI 

on a compact disk or other commonly 

used electronic storage media 

(including, but not limited to, flash 

drives) to EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to EPA via CDX as described 

earlier in this paragraph. At the 

discretion of the delegated authority, 

you must also submit these reports, 

including the confidential business 

information, to the delegated authority 

in the format specified by the delegated 

authority. 

(ii) All reports required by this 

subpart not subject to the requirements 

in paragraph (e)(10) of this section must 

be sent to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. 

The Administrator or the delegated 

authority may request a report in any 

form suitable for the specific case (e.g., 

by commonly used electronic media 

such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or 

hard copy). The Administrator retains 

the right to require submittal of reports 

subject to paragraph (e)(10)(i) and (ii) of 

this section in paper format. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unrealistic or impossible 

data during periods of operation (e.g., a 

temperature reading of ¥200 °C on a 

boiler), and will alert the operator by 

alarm or other means. * * * 

* * * * * 

(iii) The monitoring system is capable 

of detecting unchanging data during 

periods of operation, except in 

circumstances where the presence of 

unchanging data are the expected 

operating condition based on past 

experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers), 

and will alert the operator by alarm or 

other means. The owner or operator 

shall record the occurrence. All 

instances of the alarm or other alert in 

an operating day constitute a single 

occurrence. 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The owner or operator shall retain 

the records specified in paragraph (h)(1) 

of this section, for the duration specified 

in this paragraph (h). For any calendar 

week, if compliance with paragraphs 

(h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section does 

not result in retention of a record of at 

least one occurrence or measured 

parameter value, the owner or operator 

shall record and retain at least one 

parameter value during a period of 

operation. 

(iv) For the purposes of this paragraph 

(h), an excursion means that the daily 

average of monitoring data for a 

parameter is greater than the maximum, 

or less than the minimum established 

value. 

30. Table 1 to Subpart PPP of part 63 

is amended by: 

a. Revising entries 63.6(e)(1)(i) and 

63.6(e)(1)(ii); 

b. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3); 

c. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i) 

through 63.6(e)(3)(ix); 

d. Revising entries 63.6(f)(1), 

63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i), 63.8(c)(1)(iii), 

and 63.10(d)(5); 

e. Removing entries 63.10(d)(5)(i) and 

63.10(d)(5)(ii). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART PPP OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPP AFFECTED

SOURCES

Reference Applies to subpart PPP Explanation 

*******

63.6(e)(1)(i) .................................... No .................................................. See § 63.1420(h)(4) for general duty requirement. 

63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................... No. 

* * * * * * * 

63.6(e)(3) ....................................... No. .................................................

63.6(f)(1) ........................................ No. 

* * * * * * * 

63.7(e)(1) ....................................... No .................................................. See §§ 63.1436(h) and 63.1437(a). 

* * * * * * * 

63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................... No. 

* * * * * * * 

63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................... No. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
1318 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF SUBPART PPP OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART PPP AFFECTED

SOURCES—Continued 

Reference Applies to subpart PPP Explanation 

*******

63.10(d)(5) ..................................... No. 

*******

31. Table 2 to Subpart PPP of part 63 

is amended by revising the title to read 

as follows: 

Table 2 of Subpart PPP of Part 63— 

Applicability of HON Provisions to 

Subpart PPP Affected Sources 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–32934 Filed 1–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3