Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 5 (Monday, January 9, 2012)

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1267-1318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32934]

[[Page 1267]]

Vol. 77

Monday,

No. 5

January 9, 2012

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions:
Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide Active Ingredient Production;
and Polyether Polyols Production; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 1268]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 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 Tavara Culpepper, Nick Parsons, (919)
and Resins. (202) 564-0902, 541-5372,
culpepper.tavara@ep parsons.nick@epa.go
a.gov. v.
NESHAP for Pesticide Active Tavara Culpepper, Andrea Siefers,
Ingredient Production. (202) 564-0902, (919) 541-1185,
culpepper.tavara@ep siefers.andrea@epa.
a.gov. gov.
NESHAP for Polyether Polyols Tavara Culpepper, Andrea Siefers,
(202) 564-0902, (919) 541-1185,
culpepper.tavara@ep siefers.andrea@epa.
a.gov. gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OECA stands for the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
\2\ OAQPS 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

[[Page 1270]]

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 best-controlled 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 best-performing 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 technology-based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,

[[Page 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-in-1
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.

[[Page 1272]]

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 325211 1302
Production.....................
Methyl Methacrylate- 325211 1317
Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene
Production \3\.................
Methyl Methacrylate-Butadiene- 325211 1318
Styrene Production.............
Nitrile Resins Production \3\... 325211 1342
Polyethylene Terephthalate 325211 1328
Production.....................
Polystyrene Production.......... 325211 1331
Styrene-Acrylonitrile Production 325211 1338
Pesticide Active Ingredient 325199, 325320 0911
Production.........................
Polyether Polyols Production........ 325199 1625
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.
\3\ There 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

[[Page 1273]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 1274]]

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
end-product 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 MACT-
allowable level for organic HAP emissions could be up to five times the
actual emissions and the MACT-allowable 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 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.

[[Page 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
three-membered 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 non-epoxide HAP than what is required by the NESHAP for
these process vents, the MACT-allowable level for organic non-epoxide
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,

[[Page 1276]]

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 peer-reviewed
by a panel of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 and
described in their peer review report issued in 2010; 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 MACT-allowable 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 MACT-allowable 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

[[Page 1277]]

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 MACT-allowable 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 population-level inhalation risks using the
exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\4\ A census block is generally the smallest geographic area for
which census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
([micro]g/m\3\)) 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
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The IRIS information is available at http://www.epa.gov/IRIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ U.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.
\7\ U.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.
\8\ Only one of these mutagenic compounds, benzo[a]pyrene, is
emitted by any of the sources covered by this proposal.
\9\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 1278]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ These 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 National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data--an
SAB Advisory, available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/
ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 dose-response 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, high-priority 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing
Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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/m\3\) 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

[[Page 1279]]

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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. 1 November,
2006. American Industrial Hygiene Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the source of these data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 site-specific 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 Arrays\15\ for
HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values (i.e.,
occupational and international values) to provide a more complete risk
characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies is
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
\15\ U.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 bio-accumulative 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.

[[Page 1280]]

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 dose-response 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 short-term
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 category-specific 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

[[Page 1281]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Short-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 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 under-predict 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996.
(EPA 453/R-01-003; January 2001; page 85.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 worst-case 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 dose-response 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).
\19\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 1282]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ According 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 effect-specific 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 short-term 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 site-specific 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 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 industry-supported 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.

[[Page 1284]]

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 non-malfunctioning source. The EPA's
approach to malfunctions is consistent with section 112 and is a
reasonable interpretation of the statute.[rparb]
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

[[Page 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

[[Page 1286]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic noncancer
(in 1 million) \2\ Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
-------------------------------- Population at incidence -------------------------------- Maximum off-site acute
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable risk >= 1-in- (cases per Actual Allowable noncancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions 1 million year) emissions emissions
level level level 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.
\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 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 MACT-allowable emissions are approximately equal to those
for actual emissions. For

[[Page 1287]]

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.
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 30
(in 1 million)..........................................
Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide 0
individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more......
Number of facilities at which the ABS source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more.....
Number of facilities at which the ABS source category 4
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more........
Chronic Noncancer Risk:
Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI............ < 1
Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer 0
TOSHI greater than 1....................................
Number of facilities at which the ABS source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-in-1 million, based on
actual emissions. Of the 5 facilities included in this analysis, none
have a facility-wide MIR of 100-in-1 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 facility-wide 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.

[[Page 1288]]

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 SSM-associated 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic noncancer
(in 1 million) \2\ Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
-------------------------------- Population at incidence -------------------------------- Maximum off-site acute
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable risk >= 1-in-1 (cases per Actual Allowable noncancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions million year) emissions emissions
level level level 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.

[[Page 1289]]

\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 dose-response 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 MACT-allowable 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 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.
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 20
(in 1 million)..........................................
Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide 0
individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more......
Number of facilities at which the SAN source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more.....
Number of facilities at which the SAN source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more........
Chronic Noncancer Risk:
Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI............ 2
Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer 1
TOSHI greater than 1....................................
Number of facilities at which the SAN source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-in-1 million, based on
actual emissions. Of the 2 facilities included in this analysis, none
have a facility-wide MIR of 100-in-1 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 facility-wide
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-in-1 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 facility-wide 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 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 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

[[Page 1290]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI
(in 1 million) \2\ Population at Annual cancer \3\ Maximum off-site
Number of facilities \1\ ---------------------------------- risk >= 1-in-1 incidence ---------------------------------- acute noncancer HQ
Actual Allowable million (cases per Actual Allowable \4\
emissions level emissions level year) emissions level 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.
\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 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 dose-response 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 MACT-allowable 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 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.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1291]]

Number of facilities at which the MBS source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more........
Chronic Noncancer Risk:
Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI............ < 1
Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer 0
TOSHI greater than 1....................................
Number of facilities at which the MBS source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-in-1 million, based on
actual emissions. Of the 2 facilities included in this analysis, none
have a facility-wide MIR of 100-in-1 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-in-1 million does not
have MBS 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 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-in-1 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 facility-wide 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

[[Page 1292]]

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic noncancer
(in 1 million) \2\ Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
-------------------------------- Population at incidence -------------------------------- Maximum off-site acute
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable risk >= 1-in-1 (cases per Actual Allowable noncancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions million year) emissions emissions
level level level 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.
\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 dose-response 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 MACT-allowable 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 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.
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 10
(in 1 million)..........................................
Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide 0
individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more......
Number of facilities at which the polystyrene resin 0
source category contributes 50 percent or more to the
facility-wide individual cancer risks of 100-in-1
million or more.........................................
Number of facilities at which the polystyrene resin 1
source category contributes 50 percent or more to the
facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million
or more.................................................
Chronic Noncancer Risk:
Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI............ <1
Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer 0
TOSHI greater than 1....................................
Number of facilities at which the Polystyrene Resin 0
source category contributes 50 percent or more to the
facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 facility-wide 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

[[Page 1293]]

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 facility-wide 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Note that these uncontrolled emissions were included in the
risk assessment for the PET source category.

[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

[[Page 1294]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Memorandum 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.

Table 11--PET Continuous TPA High Viscosity Equipment Leaks Options Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
HAP emissions Capital cost effectiveness
Regulatory alternatives (tpy) ($) Annual cost ($) ($/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-the-floor option, the facility would need to modify its
existing ethylene glycol

[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
HAP emissions Capital cost effectiveness
Regulatory alternatives (tpy) ($) Annual cost ($) ($/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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic noncancer
(in 1 million) \2\ Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
-------------------------------- Population at incidence -------------------------------- Maximum off-site acute
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable risk >= 1-in- (cases per Actual Allowable noncancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions 1 million year) emissions emissions
level level level 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 dose-response 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 MACT-allowable 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 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.
One facility reported emissions of PB-HAP, including cadmium
compounds, lead compounds and POM. Therefore, we compared the facility-
specific

[[Page 1296]]

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 9
(in 1 million)..........................................
Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide 0
individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more......
Number of facilities at which the PET source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more.....
Number of facilities at which the PET source category 6
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more........
Chronic Noncancer Risk:
Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI............ 1
Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer 1
TOSHI greater than 1....................................
Number of facilities at which the PET source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 facility-wide 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
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 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 facility-wide 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

[[Page 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic noncancer
(in 1 million) \2\ Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
-------------------------------- Population at incidence -------------------------------- Maximum off-site acute
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable risk >= 1-in-1 (cases per Actual Allowable noncancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions million year) emissions emissions
level level level 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.
\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 dose-response 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 MACT-allowable 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 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.
Three facilities reported emissions of PB-HAP, including lead
compounds, PCBs and hexachlorobenzene. We typically would compare the
facility-specific 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 air-related
multipathway exposures, so a

[[Page 1298]]

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 20
(in 1 million)..........................................
Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide 0
individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more......
Number of facilities at which the PAI source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more.....
Number of facilities at which the PAI source category 4
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more........
Chronic Noncancer Risk:
Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI............ 2
Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer 1
TOSHI greater than 1....................................
Number of facilities at which the PAI source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-in-1
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 dose-response
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 facility-wide 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 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 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

[[Page 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 VOC- and 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 SSM-
associated 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.

[[Page 1300]]

Table 19--PEPO Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk Maximum chronic noncancer
(in 1 million) \2\ Annual cancer TOSHI \3\
-------------------------------- Population at incidence -------------------------------- Maximum off-site acute
Number of facilities \1\ Actual Allowable risk >= 1-in-1 (cases per Actual Allowable noncancer HQ \4\
emissions emissions million year) emissions emissions
level level level 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.
\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 dose-response 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 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.
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 30
(in 1 million)..........................................
1Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide 0
individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more......
Number of facilities at which the PEPO source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more.....
Number of facilities at which the PEPO source category 14
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more........
Chronic Noncancer Risk:
Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI............ 2
Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer 1
TOSHI greater than 1....................................
Number of facilities at which the PEPO source category 0
contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide
maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 facility-wide
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 dose-response 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 facility-wide 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 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 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 VOC- and 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

[[Page 1302]]

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 SSM-associated
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.

[[Page 1303]]

Table 21--Cost Impacts of the Proposed PRD Monitoring Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total capital Total annual
Source category costs (million costs (million
2010 $) 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 Code description of the method
Revised Emissions. 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.

[[Page 1304]]

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 (ft\3\/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 Enter revised HAP Emissions
Code. 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[supreg] 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[supreg] 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

[[Page 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-for-profit 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

[[Page 1306]]

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.

[[Page 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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 1308]]

(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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1310(f), is PET shall be in
compliance with Sec. 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
(Sec. 63.101)'' in paragraph (a); and
b. Adding the definition for ``Affirmative defense'' in
alphabetical order in paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 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.
* * * * *

Sec. 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:

Sec. 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:

Sec. 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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1335(e)(9). For any release, the owner or
operator must submit the report specified in Sec. 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

[[Page 1309]]

submit to the Administrator the report specified in Sec.
63.1335(e)(9). This report is required even if the owner or operator
elects to follow the procedures specified in Sec. 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 Sec. 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:

Sec. 63.1332 Emissions averaging provisions.

* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Emissions during periods of monitoring excursions, as defined
in Sec. 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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 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.
* * * * *

Sec. 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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 1310]]

assessment to estimate emissions from a batch emissions episode, as
described in Sec. 63.1323(b)(6)(i)(C); or wishing to establish
parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures contained in
Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1331, with the exception of Sec.
63.1331(c), the owner or operator shall submit the information
specified in Sec. 63.182(d) under the conditions listed in Sec.
63.182(d), and for heat exchange systems subject to Sec. 63.1328, the
owner or operator shall submit the information specified in Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 [deg]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:

[[Page 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart JJJ Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(e)................ Yes.............. Except as otherwise
specified for
individual
paragraphs.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).......... No............... See Sec.
63.1310(j)(4) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)......... No...............

* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)............. No...............
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)............. No...............

* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............. No............... See Sec.
63.1333(a).

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

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

* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............ No............... See Sec.
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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 1312]]

(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:

Sec. 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:

Sec. 63.1362 Standards.

(i) Opening of a safety device. The owner or operator that opens a
safety device, as defined in Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 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.

[[Page 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:

Sec. 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.
* * * * *

Sec. 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:

Sec. 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
Sec. 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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference to subpart A subpart MMM Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
63.6(e)(1)(i)................. No............... See Sec.
63.1360(e)(4) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)......... No...............

[[Page 1314]]

Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)........ Yes..............
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)............. No...............
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)............. No...............
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)......... Yes..............

* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............. No............... See Sec.
63.1365(b).

* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(b)(3)............. Yes..............
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).......... No...............
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........ No...............
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)......... Yes..............

* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.8(d)-(f)(3)......... Yes.............. Except the last
sentence of Sec.
63.8(d)(3), which
refers to an SSM
plan. SSM plans are
not required.

* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(8)........ Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(11)...... No............... See Sec.
63.1367(a)(3) for
malfunction
recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(c)(12)-(14)...... Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)........... No...............

* * * * * * *
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............ No............... See Sec. 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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 63.2.
Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if the owner or
operator fails

[[Page 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:

Sec. 63.1423 Definitions.

Sec. 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:

Sec. 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 Sec.
63.1439(c) and (e)(9). For any release, the owner or operator must
submit the report specified in Sec. 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 Sec. 63.1439(e)(9). This report
is required even if the owner or operator elects to follow the
procedures specified in Sec. 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:

[[Page 1316]]

Sec. 63.1437 Additional requirements for performance testing.

(a) Performance testing shall be conducted in accordance with Sec.
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 Sec. 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:

Sec. 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:

Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 [deg]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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart PPP Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
63.6(e)(1)(i)................. No............... See Sec.
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 Sec. Sec.
63.1436(h) and
63.1437(a).

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

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

[[Page 1318]]

* * * * * * *
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