1. Air Toxins New Rule Development
Cleaner Air Oregon
Air Toxins New Rule Development
Topic switch
Birth of a new regulatory program
About Bison and me
Kevin Mathews
March 29, 2017

2. Overview

3. Overview What is Cleaner Air Oregon? Initiated April 2016
Primary focus: new rules
Industrial sources
Based on health risk evaluations
Permitting implementation
DEQ and OHA
Citizen advisory committee
Draft “framework” published March 21
Discovered toxic metallic emissions from 2 colored glass manufacturers
Feb.
Bullseye Glass

4. Overview Rulemaking Milestones March 21: Draft CAO framework published
April 4: Next CAO Advisory Committee meeting
Mid-May: Preliminary draft rule for advisory committee review and comment
June: Advisory committee review of proposed fees and fiscal impacts analysis
July: Publish draft rule for public review and comment
Early 2018: Submit proposed rule to the Oregon EQC

5. Overview Emissions Inventories Milestones
November 28, 2016: Request letter mailed
March 31: Small facilities submit production data
May 1: HAP emission inventories due
September 1: Non-HAP emissions inventories due

6. Presentation Outline Overview Background Applicability Pollutants
Risk Levels
Risk Assessment
Cumulative Risk
Implementation
Other Risks

7. Background Current regulation of air toxics
Federal CAA requires EPA to list all categories and subcategories of major and area sources that emit HAPs
Over 100 source categories identified
Establish National Emissions Standards for HAPs (NESHAPs); a.k.a. Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards
Technology-based

8. Background Risk-based regulation of air toxics
Several states also regulate based on health risk
CAO will be modeled after…
CARB
SCAQMD
Washington DoE
New Jersey DEP
Others

9. Applicability Who will be subject… Limits…
New, modified, & existing facilities
Limits…
Facility-wide limits
Equipment-specific limits for new equipment
Will propose categorical exemptions
Mainly implemented through permitting

10. Pollutants Periodic reporting Permitting
~660 toxic air pollutants (TAPs)
Reporting frequency not proposed
Permitting
~215 TAPs with health risk-based concentrations
California (SCAQMD) regulates 235 TAPS

11. Risk Assessment Background

12. Risk Assessment Background
Health Risk
Risk category
Dose (Concentration)
Exposure

13. Risk Assessment Background
Non-cancer risk
Not acceptable
Risk Acceptability
Acceptable

14. Risk Assessment Background
Non-cancer health risk
Multiple sets of allowable concentration values
Reference Concentrations (RfCs, EPA IRIS)
An estimate…of a continuous inhalation exposure for [a defined] duration…to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.

15. Risk Assessment Background
Non-cancer health risk
Multiple sets of allowable concentration values
Reference Concentrations (RfCs, EPA IRIS)
Reference Exposure Levels (RELs, California OEHHA)
Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs, USDHHS ATSDR)
Risk-based Concentrations (RBCs, CAO framework)

16. Risk Assessment Background
Non-cancer health risk
Individual TAPs:
Compare project emission rate to allowable concentration  Hazard Quotient (HQ)
HQ = (actual concentration) / (RBC)
Total TAPs
Add all HQ’s to get Hazard Index (HI)
HI = Σ HQs

17. Risk Assessment Background
Cancer risk – dose – potency or risk factor

18. Risk Assessment Background
Cancer health risk
Calculate allowable inhalation concentrations from Unit Risk Factor (URF)* and allowable risk
Risk (per million) = URF (mg/m3)-1 * Conc. (mg/m3) ↓
Conc. (mg/m3) = [Risk (per million)] / [URF (mg/m3)-1]
* EPA term. California uses “potency factor.” More complex, but same concept.

19. Risk Assessment Background
Risk – Concentration – Emissions
Risk
Concentration
Emission Rate
Air Dispersion Model*
*Generic models for screening look-up tables or site-specific models

20. Allowable Risk Levels

21. Allowable Risk Levels Risk levels for… New, single unit
New, single unit with TBACT
New and existing facility
Total industrial area impact

22. Allowable Risk Levels New, single unit
1 in 1 million cancer risk (1/mm)
Hazard Index (HI) = (HI 1)

23. Allowable Risk Levels New, single unit with TBACT
Apply Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (TBACT)
Not defined (cost considerations?)
Implies TBACT will not be required for all new sources
5/mm
HI 1

24. Allowable Risk Levels New and Existing Facilities 10/mm, HI 1
If between [10/mm, HI 1] and [25/mm, HI 3] require:
Additional community engagement
Risk reduction plan (RRP)
If over 25/mm, HI 3 require:
Accelerated risk reduction schedule

25. Allowable Risk Levels Total industrial area impact alternatives
Alt 1: Set risk limit between:
20/mm — 80/mm
HI 2 — HI 4
Halt or restrict industrial expansion if limit exceeded
State will perform these analyses
Alt 2: Handle outside this program

26. Risk Assessment

27. Risk Assessment Health risk-based concentrations (RBCs)*
Set based on toxicological data from “authoritative bodies”
Carcinogenic TAPs
Chronic (annual) risk
Non-carcinogenic TAPs
Chronic & acute (24-hr)
ODEQ ATSAC
EPA IRIS
CA OEHHA
OHA
USDHHS ATSDR
*WA: acceptable source impact level

28. Risk Assessment
RBCs
Carcinogen RBCs will include age-adjustment factors
RBCs reviewed and updated every 3 years
Based on revised toxicity data
Changes will require rule change
Process for proposing interim changes

29. Risk Assessment De minimis criteria
Conservative, simple analysis method
De minimis risk levels at 0.5/mm, HI 0.5
CAO framework refers both to facility-level de minimis risk and de minimis emission levels

30. Risk Assessment Screening analysis
Establish Reference Emission Rates (RERs)*
Pollutant-specific
Maximum emission rate that would not exceed RBC
Develop using conservative, generic dispersion models
Implied HQ – HI screening approach
(Actual emission rate) / (RER)

31. Risk Assessment Screening overestimation assumptions
70-yr exposure (chronic)
All carcinogens cause same type of cancer
Additive health effects, non-carcinogens
Continuous maximum emissions of all TAPs
Conservative dose-response information
Emissions estimate and modeling inacuracies

32. Risk Assessment Health Risk Assessment (HRA)
Need to perform comprehensive HRA if screening analyses don't demonstrate acceptable risk

33. Implementation

34. Implementation Phasing Initially issue separate air toxics permits
Incorporate air toxics permits into ACDPs and operating permits at renewal
Prioritize high-risk areas indicated by toxics emissions inventories

35. Implementation Non-Permitted Sources
First focus on multiple-source areas
Information sources include:
NAICS/SIC code data
Hazardous waste generators
EPA's TRI
State Fire Marshal
Water discharge permits
OSHA investigation reports

36. Implementation Facilities with excess risk…
Develop risk reduction plans
Provide public review & comment opportunity
Hold public meetings
Initial after plan approval
Every 12 months

37. Implementation Facilities with excess risk… Community engagement plans
Identify community groups and potentially sensitive populations
Tailor notifications and engagement tactics
Establish complaint phone number
Establish communications forum
Notify public of potential health risks
Notify public of new-facility applications with risk levels above some thresholds

38. Implementation Agency plans (if funded) Hire positions to…
Coordinate agency outreach
Educate communities on health risk topics
Provide continuing environmental justice staff training
Create plain language document explaining permits & permitting process

39. Implementation Agency plans (if funded)
Post permits and reports on DEQ website
Create best-practices for agency community engagement
Coordinate public engagement where cumulative risk exceeds acceptable levels

40. Compliance
Inspections
Testing
Monitoring
Recordkeeping
Reporting

41. Other Risks Estimates become facts
“Garbage in, gospel out”
Emission factors, modeling, low emission rates, non-detect concentrations
Area evaluations beyond your control
Public relations challenges
Potential litigation
Civil penalties
Expensive emissions controls
Expensive testing and/or monitoring

42. Kevin Mathews
Bison Engineering