Federal Register: Part II [40 CFR Part 63]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Veterans Affairs Department

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AG96

FRL ID: [FRL-7418-3]

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 14, 2003.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing, they should do so by January 27, 2003. If requested, a public hearing will be held approximately 15 days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for metal can surface coating operations pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA estimates that there are approximately 142 major source facilities in the metal can surface coating source category that emit hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as xylene, hexane, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE) and other glycol ethers, isophorone, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, napthalene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), cumene, and toluene. As proposed, the standards are estimated to reduce HAP emissions by 6,160 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (6,800 tons per year (tpy)) or by 71 percent. The reduction in HAP emissions would be achieved by requiring all major sources of HAP emissions that have metal can surface coating operations to meet the HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT).

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by email to: aandrdocket@epa.gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect[reg] file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A9841. No confidential business information (CBI) should be submitted by email. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Mr. Paul Alm[oacute]dovar, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (C40402), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter.

Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C53903), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 5417946 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing.

Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Eck at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.

Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by EPA in the development of the proposed rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to the rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 2607548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed rule will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the Administrator, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 5415384.

Regulated Entities. The proposed source category definition includes facilities that apply surface coatings to metal cans and ends (including decorative tins) or metal crowns and closures. In general, facilities that apply surface coatings to metal cans are
[[Page 2111]]
covered under the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in Table 1. However, facilities classified under other NAICS codes may be subject to the proposed rule if they meet the applicability criteria.

The table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding subcategories and entities likely to be regulated by today's action. To determine whether your coating operation is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.3481 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of today's action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Table 1.Subcategories and Entities Potentially Regulated by the Proposed Standards
Examples of Potentially Subcategory NAICS Regulated Entities One and twopiece draw and iron 332431 Twopiece beverage can (D&I) can body coatings. facility
Sheetcoatings..................... 332431 Threepiece food can 332115 facility, twopiece D&I 332116 facility, onepiece 332812 aerosol can facility, 332999 etc.
Threepiece can assembly coatings. 332431 Can assembly facility End lining coatings............... 332431 End manufacturing 332812 facilities

Background Information Document and Economic Impact Analysis. The Background Information Document (BID) and the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for the proposed rule may be obtained from the TTN WWW; the metal can manufacturing (surface coating) docket (A9841); the EPA Library (26701), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 5412777; or the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone (703) 4874650. Please refer to ``Background Information DocumentNational Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Metal Can Manufacturing (Surface Coating) Industry'' (EPA453/R02008) and the ``Economic Impact Analysis of Metal Can MACT Standards'' (EPA452/R02005).

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?

B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?

C. What impacts do cure HAP have on the NESHAP?

D. What are the health effects associated with HAP emissions from metal can surface coating operations?

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by the proposed rule?

B. What is the relationship to other rules?

C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the regulated pollutants?

D. What is the affected source?

E. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards?

F. When must I comply with the proposed rule?

G. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

H. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

I. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?

III. Rationale for Selecting Proposed Standards

A. How did we select the source category and subcategories?

B. How did we select the regulated pollutants?

C. How did we select the affected source?

D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards for new or reconstructed affected sources and existing affected sources?

E. How did we select the format of the standards?

F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements?

G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?

H. How did we select the test methods for determining compliance with the emission limits using addon control devices?
I. How did we select notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air impacts?

B. What are the cost impacts?

C. What are the economic impacts?

D. What are the nonair health, environmental, and energy impacts?

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The metal can surface coating source category was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) under the Surface Coating Processes industry group. Major sources of HAP are those that emit or have the potential to emit equal to or greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP emissions from both new or reconstructed and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. That level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT.

The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the
[[Page 2112]]
bettercontrolled and loweremitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new or reconstructed sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new or reconstructed sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limit achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).

In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Impacts Do Cure HAP Have on the NESHAP?

Chemical reactions occurring during many metal can surface coating and curing operations may create compounds that are then emitted into the atmosphere. Those types of compounds are normally referred to as ``cure volatiles'' or ``cure HAP'' and may include formaldehyde and methanol (listed as HAP under section 112(b) of the CAA). In determining the MACT, we did not quantify emissions of cure HAP because there is not an EPAapproved test method for measuring those compounds. Therefore, the proposed rule would not require affected sources to account for and control emissions of cure HAP.
D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP Emissions From Metal Can Surface Coating Operations?

The primary HAP emitted from metal can surface coating operations include EGBE and other glycol ethers, xylenes, hexane, MEK, and MIBK. Those compounds account for 95 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from that source category. Other HAP emitted include isophorone, ethyl benzene, toluene, trichloroethylene, formaldehyde, and napthalene. The HAP that would be controlled with the proposed rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. Those adverse health effects include chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation of the lungs, eyes, and mucus membranes and effects on the central nervous system), acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects on the central nervous system), and possibly cancer.

We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities covered by the proposed emission standards for that category and on the people living around the facilities that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from those facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding those facilities. However, to the extent that adverse effects do occur, the proposed rule would reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the Proposed Rule?

The proposed rule would apply to you if you own or operate a metal can surface coating operation that uses at least 5,700 liters (1,500 gallons (gal)) of coatings per year and is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions, whether or not you manufacture the metal can substrate. The surface coating operations themselves are not required to be major sources of HAP emissions in order for the surface coating operations at a major source facility to be covered by the proposed rule. As long as some part of the total facility is considered a major source (e.g., the metal can substrate manufacturing process), the surface coating operations would be subject to the standards.

A metal can surface coating facility is any facility that coats or prints metal cans or ends (including decorative tins) or metal crowns or closures for any type of can during any stage of the can manufacturing process. It includes the coating/printing of metal sheets for subsequent processing into cans or can parts, but not the coating of metal coils for cans or can parts. (Coil coating for cans and can parts is included in the metal coil surface coating source category.) Note that the coating/printing of pails and drums falls in the miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating source category. As explained later, we have established four subcategories in the metal can surface coating industry, including: (1) One and twopiece D&I can body coating, (2) sheetcoating, (3) threepiece can body assembly coating, and (4) end lining. Some metal can surface coating facilities include coating operations in more than one subcategory. In those cases, the facilities would be subject to more than one emission limit.

You would not be subject to the proposed rule if your coating operation is located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through the permitting authority.

B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules?

Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject to other rules. We specifically request comments on how monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements can be consolidated for sources that are subject to more than one rule.

National Emission Standards for Metal Coil Surface Coating. Facilities engaged in surface coating performed on a continuous metal substrate greater than 0.006 inches thick would be subject to the metal coil surface coating NESHAP (67 FR 39794, June 10, 2002).

National Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating. Surface coating of any metal parts and products not covered in any other surface coating source category, such as metal can surface coating or metal coil surface coating, would be subject to the future miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating NESHAP, as proposed August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52780).
C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Regulated Pollutants?

HAP Emission Sources. The primary HAP emission sources in metal can surface coating operations are coating application lines, drying/curing ovens, mixing and/or thinning areas, and cleaning equipment. Coating application lines and drying/curing ovens are the largest sources of HAP emissions. Recent reformulation efforts involving the primary coatings used in metal can surface coating operations are likely to continue as a result of the proposed rule and will serve to reduce HAP emissions from these sources. Mixing and/or thinning areas and cleaning equipment are smaller HAP emission sources and work practice standards would be used to limit the HAP emissions from these sources.

Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the
[[Page 2113]]
primary organic HAP (including cure HAP) emitted from metal can surface coating operations include EGBE and other glycol ethers, xylenes, hexane, MEK, and MIBK. Other significant organic HAP identified include isophorone, ethyl benzene, toluene, trichloroethylene, napthalene, and formaldehyde. Organic HAP emissions would be regulated by the proposed metal can surface coating rule.

Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported during the development of the proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP, including chromium and manganese compounds, are contained in some of the coatings used by that source category and may be emitted if they are sprayapplied. Inorganic HAP emissions would not be regulated by the proposed metal can surface coating rule. (See section III.B of this preamble for further discussion of inorganic HAP emissions from surface coating operations.) D. What Is the Affected Source?

We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. The proposed standards for metal can surface coating define the affected source for each subcategory as the collection of all operations within a facility associated with (1) one and twopiece D&I can body coating, (2) sheetcoating, (3) threepiece can body assembly coating, or (4) end lining. Those operations include the following: Preparation of a coating for application (e.g., mixing with thinners); process equipment involving storage, transfer, handling, and application of coatings; and associated curing, and drying equipment.

The affected source does not include research or laboratory equipment or janitorial, building, or facility maintenance operations. E. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Work Practice Standards?

Emission Limits. We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each new or reconstructed affected source using the emission limits in Table 2 of this preamble. The proposed emission limits for each existing affected source are given in Table 3 of this preamble. You can choose from several compliance options in the proposed rule to achieve the emission limit that applies to your affected source. You could comply by applying materials (coatings and thinners) that meet the emission limit, either individually or collectively. You could also use a capture system and addon control equipment to meet the emission limit. You could also comply by using a combination of both approaches. If you use a capture system and addon control equipment, there are alternative control efficiency or outlet concentration limits that you may use to simplify and reduce your recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The alternative emission limits for affected sources using the control efficiency/outlet concentration compliance option are provided in Table 4 of this preamble.
Table 2.Emission Limits for New or Reconstructed Affected Sources then, you must meet the If you apply surface coatings following organic HAP to metal cans or metal can for all coatings emission limit in parts in this subcategory . . of this type . . kilograms HAP/liter . . solids (pound HAP/gal solids) \1\: 1. One and twopiece D&I can a. twopiece 0.04 (0.31) body coating. beverage cans 0.06 (0.50) all coatings. 0.08 (0.65) b. twopiece
food cansall
coatings.
c. onepiece
aerosol cans
all coatings.
2. Sheetcoating.............. sheetcoating.... 0.02 (0.17) 3. Threepiece can assembly.. a. inside spray. 0.12 (1.03) b. aseptic side 1.48 (12.37) seam stripes on 0.72 (5.96) food cans. 1.18 (9.84) c. nonaseptic 1.46 (12.14) side seam
stripes on food
cans.
d. side seam
stripes on
general line
nonfood cans.
e. side seam
stripes on
aerosol cans.
4. End lining................ a. aseptic end 0.06 (0.54) seal compounds. 0.00 (0.00) b. nonaseptic
end seal
compounds.
\1\ If you apply surface coatings of more than one type within any one subcategory, you may calculate an overall subcategory emission limit (OSEL) according to 40 CFR 63.3551(i).
Table 3.Emission Limits for Existing Affected Sources then, you must meet the If you apply surface coatings following organic HAP to metal cans or metal can for all coatings emission limit in parts in this subcategory . . of this type . . kilogram HAP/liter . . solids (pound HAP/gal solids) \1\: 1. One and two piece D&I a. twopiece 0.07 (0.59) can body coating. beverage cans 0.06 (0.51) all coatings. ....................... b. twopiece 0.12 (0.99) food cansall
coatings.
c. onepiece
aerosol cans
all coatings.
2. Sheetcoating.............. sheetcoating.... 0.03 (0.26) 3. Threepiece can assembly.. a. inside spray. 0.29 (2.43) b. aseptic side 1.94 (16.16) seam stripes on 0.79 (6.57) food cans. 1.18 (9.84) c. nonaseptic 1.46 (12.14) side seam
stripes on food
cans.
d. side seam
stripes on
general line
nonfood cans.
e. side seam
stripes on
aerosol cans.
[[Page 2114]]
4. End lining................ a. aseptic end 0.06 (0.54) seal compounds. 0.00 (0.00) b. nonaseptic
end seal
compounds.
\1\ If you apply surface coatings of more than one type within any one subcategory you may calculate an OSEL according to 40 CFR 63.3551(i).

Table 4.Emission Limits for Affected Sources Using the Control Efficiency/Outlet Concentration Compliance Option If you use the control efficiency/
outlet concentration option to comply Then you must comply with one with the emission limitations for any of the following by using an coating operation(s) emissions control system to 1. In a new or reconstructed affected a. reduce emissions of total source. HAP, measured as total hydrocarbons (THC) (as carbon),\1\ by 97 percent; or b. limit emissions of total HAP, measured as THC (as carbon) \1\ to 20 parts per million by volume, dry (ppmvd) at the control device outlet and use a permanent total enclosure.
2. In an existing affected source...... a. reduce emissions of total HAP, measured as THC (as carbon),\1\ by 95 percent; or b. limit emissions of total HAP, measured as THC (as carbon),\1\ to 20 ppmvd at the control device outlet and use a PTE.
\1\ You may choose to subtract methane from THC as carbon measurements.

Operating Limits. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and addon control device (other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquidliquid material balance), the proposed operating limits would apply to you. Those limits are sitespecific parameter limits you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems that are not permanent total enclosures (PTE), you would establish average volumetric flow rates or duct static pressure limits for each capture device (or enclosure) in each capture system. For capture systems that are PTE, you would establish limits on average facial velocity or pressure drop across openings in the enclosure.

For thermal oxidizers, you would monitor the combustion temperature. For catalytic oxidizers, you would monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed or you would monitor the temperature before the catalyst bed and implement a sitespecific inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer. For carbon adsorbers for which you do not conduct a liquidliquid material balance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. For condensers, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature from the condenser. For concentrators, you would monitor the temperature of the desorption concentrate stream and the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator.

All sitespecific parameter limits that you establish must reflect operation of the capture system and control devices during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limits during representative operating conditions.

Work Practice Standards. In lieu of emission standards, section 112(h) of the CAA allows work practice standards or other requirements to be established when a pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance or capture system, or when measurement is not practicable because of technological and economic limitations. Many metal can surface coating facilities use work practice measures to reduce HAP emissions from mixing, cleaning, storage, and waste handling areas as part of their standard operating procedures. They use those measures to decrease solvent usage and minimize exposure to workers. However, we do not have data to accurately quantify the emissions reductions achievable by the work practice measures, and it is not feasible to measure emissions or enforce a numerical standard for emissions from those operations.

Based on information received from that industry during the development of NESHAP and information available from several similar coating industries for which NESHAP have already been promulgated (aerospace manufacturing and rework, magnetic tape manufacturing, shipbuilding and ship repair, and wood furniture manufacturing), we identified a variety of work practice measures for cleaning, storage, mixing, and waste handling. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and addon control device, you would be required to develop and implement a work practice plan that would specify practices and procedures to ensure that, at a minimum, the elements specified below are implemented: (1) Storing all organicHAPcontaining liquids and waste materials in closed containers, (2) minimizing spills of all organicHAPcontaining materials, (3) using closed containers or pipes to transport all organicHAPcontaining materials, (4) keeping mixing vessels for organicHAPcontaining materials closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents, and (5) minimizing organic HAP emissions during all cleaning operations.

If your affected source has an existing documented plan that incorporates steps taken to minimize emissions from the aforementioned sources, then your existing plan could be used to satisfy the requirement for a work practice plan.

Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction. If you use a capture system and addon control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) during
[[Page 2115]]
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and addon control device.

General Provisions. The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) also would apply to you as indicated in the proposed standards. The General Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliancerelated activities such as notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed standards refer to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that are relevant. However, unless specifically overridden in the proposed standards, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply to you. F. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?

Existing affected sources must comply within 3 years of [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. New or reconstructed affected sources must comply immediately upon initial startup or on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], whichever is later. A metal can surface coating affected source is existing if its construction or reconstruction of the facility commenced on or before January 15, 2003. An affected source is new if construction commenced after January 15, 2003. A metal can surface coating affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of reconstruction in 40 CFR 63.2 and reconstruction is commenced after January 15, 2003. The effective date is [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
G. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

Initial Compliance. Compliance with the emission limits is based on a 12month rolling average. Therefore, for new or reconstructed affected sources using the compliant materials option or the emission rate without addon controls option, the proposed initial compliance period begins on the first day of the first month following initial startup of the affected source or the effective date, whichever is later, and ends on the last day of the 12th month following initial startup or the effective date, whichever is later. For new or reconstructed affected sources that use a capture system and control device, the initial compliance period begins on the first day of the first month following the initial performance test and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the initial performance test. For all new or reconstructed affected sources, any partial month data between initial startup or initial performance test and initial compliance period must be added to the first month data. For existing affected sources, the proposed initial compliance period begins on the first day of the month in which the compliance date falls and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the compliance date.

Being in compliance means that the owner or operator of the affected source meets the requirements to achieve the proposed emission limitations by the end of the initial compliance period. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator would use the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance with the 12month rolling average for that period. If the affected source does not meet the applicable limits and other requirements, it is out of compliance for the entire initial compliance period. We welcome specific comments on the compliance dates and the data collection activities required for the initial compliance period.

Emission Limits. There are several proposed options for complying with the proposed emission limits, and the testing and initial compliance requirements vary accordingly.

Option 1: Compliance Based on the Compliant Material Option. If you demonstrate compliance based on the compliant material option, you would determine the mass of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners used each month during the initial compliance period and the volume fraction of coating solids in all coatings used each month during the initial compliance period. To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings and thinners and the volume fraction of coating solids, you could use either manufacturer's data or test results using the test methods listed below. You may use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with 40 CFR 63.7(f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test method results (either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results would prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes. [sbull] For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.
[sbull] The proposed rule allows you to use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP. If you choose that option, then use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine nonaqueous volatile matter.
[sbull] For volume fraction of coating solids, use either information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, ASTM Method D269786(1998), or ASTM Method D609397.

To demonstrate initial compliance based on the compliant materials option, you would be required to demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each coating meets the applicable emission limits and that you use no organicHAPcontaining thinners.

Option 2: Compliance Based on the Emission Rate Without AddOn Controls Option. If you demonstrate compliance based on the emission rate without addon controls option, you would determine the mass of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners used in each coating type segment each month during the initial compliance period and the volume fraction of coating solids in all coatings in each coating type segment used each month during the initial compliance period.

To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings and thinners and the volume fraction of coating solids, you could use either manufacturer's data or test results using the test methods listed below. You may use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with 40 CFR 63.7(f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test method results (either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results would prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes.
[sbull] For organic HAP content, use Method 311.
[sbull] The proposed rule allows you to use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP. If you choose that option, use Method 24 to determine nonaqueous volatile matter.
[sbull] For volume fraction of coating solids, use either information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, ASTM Method D269786(1998), or ASTM Method D609397.

To demonstrate initial compliance based on the emission rate without addon controls option, you would be required to demonstrate that the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners in each coating type segment divided by the total volume of coating solids in that coating type segment meets the applicable emission limit. For the emission rate without addon
[[Page 2116]]
controls option, you would be required to perform the following. [sbull] Determine the quantity of each coating and thinner used in each coating type segment.
[sbull] Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating and thinner in each coating type segment.
[sbull] Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating in each coating type segment.
[sbull] Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all materials in each coating type segment and total volume of coating solids in each coating type segment for each month of the initial compliance period. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266.
[sbull] Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP for the materials used in each coating type segment to the total volume of coating solids used in the segment.
[sbull] Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status.

Alternatively, if you apply coatings in more than one coating type segment within a subcategory, you may calculate an overall HAP emission limit for the subcategory and demonstrate compliance by including all coatings and thinners in all coating type segments in the subcategory in calculating the ratio of total mass of organic HAP to total volume of coating solids. If you use that approach, you must use the subcategory limit throughout the 12month initial compliance period and may not switch between compliance with limits for individual coating type segments and an overall limit. You may not include coatings in different subcategories in determining your overall HAP limit by that approach.

Option 3: Compliance Based on the Emission Rate With AddOn Controls Option. If you use a capture system and addon control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid liquid material balance, your testing and initial compliance requirements are as follows.
[sbull] Conduct an initial performance test to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis.
[sbull] Determine the mass of organic HAP in each material and the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating used each month of the initial compliance period.
[sbull] Calculate the organic HAP emissions from the controlled coating operations using the capture and control efficiencies determined during the performance test and the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations.
[sbull] Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP emissions to the total volume of coating solids used each month of the initial compliance period.
[sbull] Record the calculations and results and include them in the Notification of Compliance Status.

If you use a capture system and addon control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances, you would determine both the efficiency of the capture system and the emissions reduction efficiency of the control device. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a PTE using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, or use one of the protocols in 40 CFR 63.3565 to measure capture efficiency. If you have a PTE and all the materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, then you would assume 100 percent capture.

To determine the emissions reduction efficiency of the control device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting at least 1 hour, using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A:
[sbull] Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites; [sbull] Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas volumetric flow rate;
[sbull] Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.101981; [sbull] Method 4 to determine stack moisture; and
[sbull] Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter concentration.

Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be used.

If you use a solvent recovery system, you could determine the overall control efficiency using a liquidliquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you would be required to measure the amount of all materials used in the affected source during each month of the initial compliance period and determine the volatile matter contained in these materials. You would also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system each month of the initial compliance period. Then you would compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency and apply this efficiency to the ratio of organic HAP to coating solids for the materials used. You would record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status.

Operating Limits. As mentioned above, you would establish operating limits as part of the initial performance test of an emission capture and control system. The operating limits are the values of certain parameters measured for capture systems and control devices during the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits. The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of emission control systems commonly used in the industry.

You would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to the manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) meet the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3568 of the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States.

If you use a thermal oxidizer, you would continuously monitor the appropriate temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. The temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the average temperature measured during the performance test, and for each consecutive 3hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above that limit.

If you use a catalytic oxidizer you may choose from two methods to determine operating limits. In the first method, you would continuously monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed and record it at least every 15 minutes. The operating limits would be the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3hour period the
[[Page 2117]]
average temperature and the average temperature difference would have to be at or above those limits. In the alternative method, you would continuously monitor the temperature immediately before the catalyst bed and record it at least every 15 minutes. The operating limit would be the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above that limit. As part of the alternative method, you must also develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer.

If you use a carbon adsorber and do not conduct liquidliquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration. The operating limits would be the carbon bed temperature (not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption (to be met as a minimum).

If you use a condenser, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature to ensure that the air stream is being cooled to a low enough temperature. The operating limit would be the average condenser outlet gas temperature measured during the performance test, and for each consecutive 3hour period the average temperature would have to be at or below this limit.

If you use a concentrator, you would monitor the desorption concentrate stream gas temperature and the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator. The operating limits would be the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature (to be met as a minimum) and the dilute stream pressure drop (not to be exceeded).

For each capture system that is not a PTE, you would establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit would be the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure during the performance test to be met as a minimum. For each capture system that is a PTE, the operating limit would require the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings to be at least 200 feet per minute or the pressure drop across the enclosure to be at least 0.007 inch water.

Work Practice Standards. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and implement on an ongoing basis a work practice plan for minimizing organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, material handling, and waste handling operations. That plan would include a description of all steps taken to minimize emissions from those sources (e.g., using closed storage containers, practices to minimize emissions during filling and transfer of contents from containers, using spill minimization techniques, etc.). You would have to make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it.

Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

Option 4: Compliance Based on the Control Efficiency/Outlet Concentration Option. If you use a capture system and addon control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquidliquid material balance, you may meet either of the applicable alternative limits summarized in Table 4 of this preamble instead of the organic HAP emission rate limits summarized in Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble. Prior to the initial performance test, you would be required to install control device parameter monitoring equipment to be used to demonstrate compliance with the capture and control efficiencies (or the capture efficiency of the capture system and the oxidizer outlet concentration) and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis. During the initial compliance test, you would use the control device parameter monitoring equipment to establish parameter values that represent your operating requirements for the control systems. You would record the initial performance test results and include them in the Notification of Compliance Status.

If you use a capture system and addon control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquidliquid material balances, you would verify the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent and determine the emissions reduction efficiency of the control device. To verify the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a PTE using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, or use one of the protocols in Sec. 63.3565 to measure capture efficiency. If you have a PTE and all the materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, then you would assume 100 percent capture.

If you use a solvent recovery system, you could determine the overall control efficiency using a liquidliquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you would be required to measure the amount of all materials used in the affected source during each month of the initial compliance period and determine the volatile matter contained in these materials. You would also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system each month of the initial compliance period. Then you would compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency, and apply this efficiency to the ratio of organic HAP to coating solids for the materials used. You would record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status.

[[Page 2118]]

You would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to the manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the CPMS meet the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3568 of the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States.

If you use a catalytic oxidizer you may choose from two methods to determine operating limits. In the first method, you would continuously monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed and record it at least every 15 minutes. The operating limits would be the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3hour period the average temperature and the average temperature difference would have to be at or above these limits. In the alternative method, you would continuously monitor the temperature immediately before the catalyst bed and record it at least every 15 minutes. The operating limit would be the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above this limit. As part of the alternative method, you must also develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer.

For each capture system that is not a PTE, you would establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit would be the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure during the performance test, to be met as a minimum. For each capture system that is a PTE, the operating limit would require the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings to be at least 200 feet per minute or the pressure drop across the enclosure to be at least 0.007 inches water.

Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction. You would be required to develop and operate your capture system and control device according to a SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

H. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

Option 1: Compliance Based on the Compliant Material Option. If you demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limits based on the compliant material option, you would demonstrate continuous compliance if, for each 12month compliance period, the organic HAP content of each coating used does not exceed the applicable emission limit and you use no thinner that contains organic HAP.

Option 2: Compliance Based on the Emission Rate Without AddOn Controls Option. If you demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limits based on the emission rate without addon controls option, you would demonstrate continuous compliance if, for each rolling 12month compliance period, the ratio of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners in each coating type segment to coating solids in that coating type segment is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit. You would follow the same procedures for calculating the organic HAP to coating solids ratio that you used for the initial compliance period. If you use an alternative calculated overall HAP emission limit for all coating type segments within a subcategory, you would use the same procedures that you used for the initial compliance period. Whichever approach you use must be used consistently throughout each 12month compliance period.

Option 3: Compliance Based on the Emission Rate With AddOn Controls Option. For each coating operation on which you use a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquidliquid material balance, you would use the continuous parameter monitoring results for the month in determining the mass of organic HAP emissions. If the monitoring results indicate no deviations from the operating limits and there were no bypasses of the control device, you would assume the capture system and control device are achieving the same percent emissions reduction efficiency as they did during the most recent performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. You would then apply that percent reduction to the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations to determine the monthly emission rate from those operations. If there were any deviations from the operating limits during the month or any bypasses of the control device, you would account for them in the calculation of the monthly emission rate by assuming the capture system and control device were achieving zero emissions reduction during the periods of deviation. Then, you would determine the annual average emission rate by calculating the ratio for the most recent 12month period.

For each coating operation on which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquidliquid material balance each month, you would use the liquid
[[Page 2119]]
liquid material balance to determine control efficiency. To determine the overall control efficiency, you must measure the amount of all materials used during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, calculate the overall control efficiency, and apply it to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions. Then, you would determine the annual average emission rate by taking the average of the monthly ratios for the most recent 12month period.

Operating Limits. If you use a capture system and control device, the proposed rule would require you to achieve on a continuous basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test. If the continuous monitoring shows that the capture system and control device is operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, you have deviated from the established operating limits.

If you operate a capture system and control device that allow emissions to bypass the control device, you would have to demonstrate that organic HAP emissions from each emission point within the affected source are being routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control device. You may choose from the following four monitoring procedures:
[sbull] Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device; [sbull] Carseal or lockandkey valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating;
[sbull] Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or [sbull] Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when flow is diverted from the control device.

If the bypass monitoring procedures indicate that emissions are not routed to the control device, you have deviated from the emission limits.

Work Practice Standards. If you use an emission capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to implement on an ongoing basis the work practice plan you developed during the initial compliance period. If you did not develop a plan for reducing organic HAP emissions or you do not implement the plan, that would be a deviation from the work practice standards.

Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to an SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

Option 4: Compliance Based on the Control Efficiency/Outlet Concentration Option. If you use a capture system and addon control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquidliquid material balance, your testing and continuous compliance requirements are the same as those in Option 3. For addon control systems, you would be required to install control device parameter monitoring equipment to be used to demonstrate compliance with the operating requirements for addon control systems in today's proposed rule. If you operate a CPMS, it would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes and you would need to have at least three data points per hour to have a valid hour of data. You would have to operate the CPMS at all times the surface coating operation and control systems are operating. You would also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the data collected with the CPMS, you would calculate and record the average values of each operating parameter according to the specified averaging times.
I. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?

You are required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in the proposed rule. The General Provisions notification requirements include: Initial notifications, notification of performance test if you are complying using a capture s

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr. Paul Alm[oacute]dovar, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emissions Standards Division (C53903), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541 0283; facsimile number (919) 5415689; electronic mail (email) address: almodovar.paul@.epa.gov.