While KRC vigorously opposed the efforts by a handful of regulated companies to end the program, KRC recognizes as do all of the other stakeholders involved in development of the STAR program that there are technical issues of compliance and implementation, and policy questions that will arise and will justify further evaluation. For KRC, the question has been and remains whether the program is sufficiently protective of public health from the individual and cumulative risks posed by the emission of air toxics from all sources.
Just as those subject to or potentially subject to the program seek greater certainty concerning the definition and application of T-BAT and of other threshold definitions, those of us who represent the population outside of the plant boundaries have concerns that I would hope could be further explored in the coming year through the advisory group process. Among these concerns are:
* Whether the range of air toxics covered by the STAR program is sufficiently inclusive in addressing and limiting emission from all sources of chemicals and other pollutants that are of potential health concern.
* Whether the health endpoints of the current program are sufficiently sensitive to prevent all adverse health outcomes associated with chronic, low-level exposure to multiple air toxics. Specifically, should the current air toxics program be modified to include evaluation the emission of toxics in terms of mutagenicity, teratogenicity, neurotoxicity, endocrine system disruption, reproductive dysfunction, and in utero exposures through fine particulates and chemicals.
* Whether the point of compliance should be moved to the fenceline, and whether that location is sufficiently protective of workers on the worksite outside of a building but on the plant property; and whether the acquisition of land in order to move the point of compliance is appropriate.
* Whether the breakpoint for approval of modifications by the Board should remain at 25: million or should be lowered.
* Whether the upper level of the hazard quotient for non-cancer effects should remain at 3.0 or should be lowered to 1.0 HQ.
* Whether the upper bound limit for carcinogens should remain at 100 in a million or should be lowered to 50 in a million or below.
* Whether the adjustment factors over roadways and industrial areas should be retained, or whether they are underprotective of workers and the motoring public.
* Whether the public participation provisions are sufficiently informative and inclusive of the public, or whether more inclusive public participation models such as that used for RCRA TSD facilities, which include informal pre-application public meetings and local repositories of permitting files, should be employed.
* Whether it is appropriate to allow the limitation of hours of operation of a source to be used as a ?technology in order to meet goals.
KRC looks forward to working with all stakeholders on the implementation issues that will arise as sources of emission of air toxics undertake the inventory and modeling activity necessary to support their individual determinations of compliance or to define their baseline for taking future actions to become compliant. As we move forward, KRC hopes that these policy issues can be revisited in order that we might be assured that the program is fully protective of the right of the most vulnerable among us to breathe clean air free of avoidable pollution.