[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13664-13683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5168-8]
RIN 2060-AD95
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the
Printing and Publishing Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed standards would reduce emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from existing and new printing operations that are
major sources of HAP emissions. A major source is defined in section
112(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (Act) as a source that
emits, or has the potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more of any individual HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. Some of these pollutants are emitted from
publication rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and wide-
web flexographic printing. These operations are covered in the proposed
rule. In these printing operations, a variety of HAP are used as
solvents and components in inks and other materials applied by
printers. The HAP emitted by the facilities covered by this proposed
rule include toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, methanol, methyl ethyl
ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. All
of these pollutants can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects
following exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose,
throat and skin irritation; and blood cell, heart, liver and kidney
damage. The proposed rule is estimated to reduce emissions of HAP by
6,700 Mg per year. The emissions reductions achieved by these standards
when combined with the emissions reductions achieved by similar
standards, will achieve the primary goal of the Clean Air Act, which is
to ``enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote
the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its
population.''
The proposed rule implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments), which requires the Administrator
to regulate emissions of HAP listed in section 112(d) of the 1990
Amendments. The intent of this rule is to protect the public health by
requiring the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP from new
and existing major sources, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, any nonair quality, health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 30, 1995.
Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than April 13, 1995. If a hearing is held, it will take
place on April 28, 1995, beginning at 10 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket (Mail Code 6102), Attention:
Docket No. A-92-42, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy
also be sent to the contact person listed below.
The docket is located at the above address in room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday; telephone number (202) 260-7548, FAX (202)
260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the hearing will be held at
the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Persons interested in speaking at a public hearing
should contact Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, (MD-
13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5580. Persons
interested in attending the hearing should contact Ms. Kim Teal to
verify that it will be held.
Additional Information. For information on accessing the U.S. EPA
Technology Transfer Network electronic bulletin board and obtaining
copies of the Proposed Regulatory Text, Background Information Document
or Economic Impact Analysis, please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed regulation, contact Mr. David Salman at (919) 541-0859,
Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Technology Transfer Network. The Technology
Transfer Network (TTN) is one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The
TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control. The service is free [[Page 13665]] except for
the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5472 for up to a 14,000 bps
modem. If more information on TTN is needed call the HELP line at (919)
541-5384.
Proposed Regulatory Text. The proposed regulatory text is not
included in this Federal Register notice, but is available in Docket
No. A-92-42, or by written or telephone request from the Air and
Radiation Docket. This notice and the proposed regulatory language are
also available for downloading TTN under Clean Air Act, Recently Signed
Rules.
Background Information Document. The Background Information
Document (BID) for the proposed standards may be obtained from the
docket; the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777; or the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Printing
and Publishing Industry--Background Information for Proposed
Standards'' (EPA-453/R-95-002a). The BID is also available for
downloading on the TTN.
Economic Impact Analysis. The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for
the proposed standards may be obtained from the docket, the U. S. EPA
Library, or the NTIS. Please refer to ``Economic Impact Analysis for
the Printing and Publishing NESHAP'' (EPA-452/D-95-001). The EIA is
also available for downloading on the TTN.
Preamble Outline. The information presented in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Background
A. Regulatory Background and Purpose
B. Common Sense Initiative
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Applicability
B. Proposed Standards for Affected Sources
C. Compliance Dates
D. Compliance Extensions
E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring
F. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the
Proposed Rule
A. Emission Reductions
B. Secondary Environmental Impacts
C. Energy Impacts
D. Cost Impacts
E. Economic Impacts
IV. Process Descriptions and Control Technologies
A. Process Descriptions
B. Control Techniques
V. Rationale for the Proposed Rule
A. Regulatory Development Process for NESHAP
B. Determining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
``Floors''
C. Selection of Pollutant and Source Category(ies)
D. Selection of Emission Points Covered by the Proposed Rule
E. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Rule
F. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Rule
G. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements
H. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
I. Selection of Compliance Deadlines
J. Operating Permit Program
K. Pollution Prevention Considerations
L. Solicitation of Comments
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Clean Air Act Section 117
H. Regulatory Review
VII. Statutory Authority
I. Background.
The proposed rule addresses facilities which apply ink and other
materials to any substrate, except fabric, using rotogravure or wide-
web flexographic methods. These facilities print products such as
magazines, newspapers, supplements, packaging and wallpaper on
substrates such as paper, plastic, metal foil, and vinyl.
A. Regulatory Background and Purpose.
The Act requires, under section 112, that EPA evaluate and control
emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is to be achieved through
promulgation of emission standards under sections 112(d) and (f), and
of work practice standards under section 112(h) where appropriate, for
categories of sources that emit HAP. Pursuant to section 112(c) of the
Act, EPA published in the Federal Register the initial list of source
categories that emit HAP on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). This list
includes major and area sources of HAP for which the EPA intends to
issue regulations between November 1992 and November 2000.
The Act was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (the Act,
section 101(b)(1)). As such, this proposed regulation would protect the
public health by reducing emissions of HAP from publication rotogravure
and product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic
printing.
The HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) emitted by printing facilities
that would be covered by this proposed rule include toluene, xylene,
ethylbenzene, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. All of these pollutants can cause
reversible or irreversible toxic effects following exposure. The
potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat and skin irritation;
and blood cell, heart, liver and kidney damage. These adverse health
effects are associated with a wide range of ambient concentrations and
exposure times and are influenced by source-specific characteristics
such as emission rates and local meteorological conditions. Health
impacts are also dependent on multiple factors that affect human
variability such as genetics, age, health status (e.g., the presence of
pre-existing disease) and lifestyle.
The proposed standards will reduce HAP emissions from publication
rotogravure printing facilities by 4,750 Mg/yr (5,220 tpy) from a
baseline level of 17,500 Mg/yr (19,200 tpy). The proposed standards
will reduce HAP emissions from product and packaging rotogravure and
wide web flexographic printing facilities by 1,940 Mg/yr (2,140 tpy)
from a baseline level of 4,200 Mg/yr (4,620 tpy).
There are no significant economic impacts associated with the
proposed standards. There are no firms or facilities at risk of closure
as a result of the proposed standards and there will not be a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
B. Common Sense Initiative
On October 17, 1994, the Administrator established the Common Sense
Initiative (CSI) Council in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (U.S.C. App. 2, Section 9(c)) requirements. The CSI
addresses six industrial sectors. The Printing and Publishing industry
is one of these sectors.
The following are the six elements of the CSI program, as stated in
the ``Advisory Committee Charter.''
1. Regulation. Review existing regulations for opportunities to get
better environmental results at less cost. Improve new rules through
increased coordination.
2. Pollution Prevention. Actively promote pollution prevention as
the standard business practice and a central ethic of environmental
protection.
3. Recordkeeping and Reporting. Make it easier to provide, use, and
[[Page 13666]] publicly disseminate relevant pollution and
environmental information.
4. Compliance and Enforcement. Find innovative ways to assist
companies that seek to comply and exceed legal requirements while
consistently enforcing the law for those that do not achieve
compliance.
5. Permitting. Improve permitting so that it works more
efficiently, encourages innovation, and creates more opportunities for
public participation.
6. Environmental Technology. Give industry the incentives and
flexibility to develop innovative technologies that meet and exceed
environmental standards while cutting costs.
The Agency intends to work with the Printing CSI sector team and
consider its consensus recommendations concerning the proposed
standards. Even though the data collection and analysis efforts for the
proposed standards were completed before the CSI program was announced,
many aspects of the CSI are reflected in the proposed standards.
The alternatives considered in the development of this regulation,
including those alternatives selected as standards for new and existing
printing facilities are based on process and emissions data received
from over 600 printing facilities. The EPA met with industry and trade
groups on numerous occasions to discuss these data. In addition,
facilities and State regulatory authorities had the opportunity to
comment on draft versions of the proposed regulation and to provide
additional information. Two trade organizations provided extensive
comments; these comments were considered, and in some cases, today's
proposed standards reflect these comments. Of major concern to industry
were the opportunity to comply through pollution prevention by using
low HAP content materials.
The regulation allows sources flexibility to select from various
options for compliance. Sources may reduce HAP usage and emissions
through conversions to waterborne, lower HAP solvent-borne or
ultraviolet/electron beam cure materials. Alternatively, sources may
install or upgrade existing capture and control devices to meet the
proposed standard. Finally sources have the option to comply by a
combination of lower HAP materials and capture and control. Facilities
may select the most cost-effective option based on facility specific
considerations.
The proposed standards give existing facilities 3 years from the
date of promulgation to comply. This is the maximum amount of time
allowed under the Clean Air Act. This timeframe will provide the
greatest opportunity for developing and adopting low HAP content
materials, and provide sufficient time for facilities that choose to
install or upgrade capture and control equipment.
Included in the proposed rule are methods for determining initial
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time.
However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the requirements in
the rule. The Agency has also attempted to maintain consistency with
existing regulations, or referencing the applicable sections, depending
on which method would be least confusing for a given situation.
Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs, as
well as representatives from State regulatory agencies are included in
the regulatory development process as members of the Work Group. The
Work Group must review and concur with the regulation before proposal
and promulgation. Therefore, the EPA believes that the implications to
other EPA offices and programs have been adequately considered during
the development of these standards.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
Table 1 provides an overview of the proposed rule, including
applicability; the standards for each affected source; test methods and
procedures; and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
Table 1.--Summary of Subpart KK of 40 CFR Part 63--National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing
Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected source and requirement Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printing and Publishing Industry:
Applicability....................... This rule applies to facilities engaged in rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printing that are major sources as defined in 40 CFR
part 63. (63.821).
Estimated Number of Facilities...... Approximately 200 facilities are expected to be affected by the rule.
Applicable SIC codes include 2295, 2392, 2647, 2649, 2651, 2671,
2673, 2674, 2711, 2721, 2754, 2759, 3497, and 3996.
Permit Requirements................. Major sources are required to obtain operating permits in State where
facility is located according to 40 CFR part 70 and applicable State
regulations. (63.821(d)).
All Affected Sources:
Standards........................... Comply with Secs. 63.4 through 63.6 of the General Provisions of 40
CFR part 63, subpart A, except for Sec. 63.6(h). (63.823).
Compliance Dates.................... Within three years of the effective date for existing sources and upon
startup for new sources. (63.826).
Test Methods and Procedures......... See individual affected sources.
Monitoring Requirements............. See individual affected sources.
Recordkeeping Requirements.......... Comply with Sec. 63.10(b) and (c) of the General Provisions. (63.829).
Reporting Requirements.............. Initial notification, notification of performance tests, notification
of compliance status, performance test reports, startup, shutdown and
malfunction reports, summary reports, and HAP use reports as
described in Secs. 63.9-63.10. (63.830).
Publication Rotogravure Facilities:
Standards........................... Control of 92 percent of organic HAP or equivalent. (Organic HAP
emissions limited to no greater than 8 percent of the mass of
volatile matter, including water, used on a plantwide basis.)
(63.824(b)).
Performance Test Period and Tests... 1. Test Period. Each and every month. (63.824(b)).
2. Performance Test. Initial performance test for all control devices
to demonstrate compliance with overall control efficiency
requirement. (63.824(b))
[[Page 13667]]
Test Methods and Procedures......... 1. Organic HAP content determination. (63.827(b)(1)).
2. Volatile matter content determination. (63.827(c)(1)).
3. Overall control efficiency using liquid-liquid mass balance for
solvent recovery systems. (63.824(b)(1)(i).
4. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency
test with continuous emission monitors. (63.824(b)(1)(ii) and
63.824(b)(2)(ii)).
5. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency
test and incinerator destruction efficiency test. (63.824(b)(2)(i).
Monitoring Requirements............. 1. Hourly recording of flow rate from press to control device.
(63.828(a)(1).
2. Quarterly audit of continuous emission monitors. (63.828(a)(2)(i)).
3. Monitoring of capture system operating parameter. (63.828(a)(5)).
Product and Packaging Rotogravure
Presses and Wide-web Flexographic
Presses, or Groups of Presses
Controlled by a Common Solvent Recovery
System:
Standards........................... Control of 95 percent of organic HAP, or organic HAP emissions limited
to no greater than 0.20 kg HAP per kg of solids applied, for each
press, or group of presses controlled by a common solvent recovery
system, or organic HAP emissions limited to no greater than 0.04 kg
HAP per kg inks and other materials applied, for each press.
(63.825(b)).
Performance Test Period and Tests... 1. Test Period.
Uncontrolled Presses. Each and every month.
Presses controlled with solvent recovery systems. Each and every
month.
Presses controlled with incinerators monitoring operating parameters.
Every three hour period.
Presses controlled with incinerators using continuous emissions
monitors. Each and every month. (63.825(b) and (c)).
2. Performance Test. Initial performance test for all control devices
to demonstrate compliance with organic HAP emission rate. (63.825(g)
and (h)).
Test Methods and Procedures......... 1. Organic HAP content determination. (63.827(b)(2)).
2. Volatile matter and solids content determination. (63.827(c)(2)).
3. Overall control efficiency using liquid-liquid mass balance for
solvent recovery systems. (63.825(g).
4. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency
test with continuous emission monitors. (63.825(g)(2) and
63.825(h)(2)).
5. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency
test and incinerator destruction efficiency test. (63.825(h)).
Monitoring Requirements............. 1. Hourly recording of flow rate from press to control device.
(63.828(a)(1)).
2. Quarterly audit of continuous emission monitors. (63.828(a)(2)(i)).
3. Quarterly calibration of incinerator monitoring thermocouple(s).
(63.828(2)(ii)).
4. Operation of continuous emission monitors. (63.828(a)(3)).
5. Measurement of incinerator operating parameters. (63.828(a)(4)).
6. Monitoring of capture system operating parameter. (63.828(a)(5)).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Applicability
The proposed rule would apply to each new and existing publication
rotogravure or product and packaging rotogravure and wide web
flexographic printing facility that is a major source, as defined under
section 112(a) of the Act. A major source is one that emits or has the
potential to emit, considering controls, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) or more
of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of any combination of HAP for
all activities conducted at the facility. Publication rotogravure and
product and packaging rotogravure and wide web flexographic printing
operations at any major source that conducts other work would be
subject to the proposed standards, regardless of the relative
proportion of printing and non-printing work at the facility. Research
or laboratory facilities are not subject to the provisions of the
standards unless they are collocated with production lines.
The proposed rule uses the definition of research and laboratory
facilities from section 112(c)(7) of the Act. This section provides
that ``research or laboratory facility'' means any stationary source
whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new
processes and products, where such source is operated under the close
supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged in the
manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de
minimis manner.
Research activities include those activities that are employed to
develop a new rotogravure or flexographic ink, coating or other
material; a new substrate or end product; and may also include
activities devoted to optimizing the manufacture of the product. Once a
facility determines that the manufacture of this product is viable, the
EPA believes that additional activities are likely to be beyond the
research phase.
As noted in Sec. 63.821(a)(1), the proposed printing and publishing
rule would apply to facilities that are major sources as defined in 40
CFR 63.2. An important consideration in the definition of ``major
source'' is a given plant site's ``potential to emit.'' The ``potential
to emit'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.2 as follows: `` `Potential to emit'
means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant
under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational
limitation on the capacity of the stationary source to emit a
pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions
on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted,
stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the
limitation or the effect it [[Page 13668]] would have on emissions is
Federally enforceable.''
A key aspect of the potential to emit definition is that
restrictions must be Federally enforceable. Examples of restrictions
that would be considered Federally enforceable are listed in a
definition in 40 CFR 63.2.
The EPA believes that there are printing and publishing facilities
whose actual emissions of HAP are substantially less than ``major''
amounts (i.e., more than 10 tons per year of any single HAP, or more
than 25 tons per year from the sum of all HAP emitted). Many of these
facilities, however, would be considered ``major sources'' that are
subject to the proposed rule because there is no Federally enforceable
restriction in place that limits their potential to emit HAP. The EPA
believes that the this rule should provide a mechanism for such
facilities to accept and document such restrictions.
The EPA proposes, in Sec. 63.821(a)(2) through (3) of the proposed
rule, that if owners or operators commit to using no more than 9.1 Mg
(10 tons) per 12 month period of each HAP and less than 22.7 Mg (25
tons) per 12 month period of any combination of HAP at the entire
facility, including materials used for source categories or purposes
other than printing and publishing, then the facility can be considered
an area source. Each facility for which the owner or operator commits
to the criteria stated in Sec. 63.821(a)(2) would be subject only to
the recordkeeping provisions in Sec. 63.829(d) and the reporting
provisions in Sec. 63.830(d) of this subpart as long as the commitment
is met for each 12 month period. If the commitment is not met for any
12 month period then the facility would be in violation of its
commitment and would be considered a major source of HAP beginning the
first month after the end of the first 12 month period in which either
of the HAP use thresholds was exceeded. As a major source of HAP, each
such facility would be subject to the provisions of this subpart as
noted in Sec. 63.821(a)(1) and would no longer be eligible to use the
provisions of Sec. 63.821(a)(2).
The EPA believes that there are sources using more than 10 tons of
an individual HAP or more than 25 tons of total HAP per 12 month period
that may emit less than ``major'' amounts (e.g., sources using capture
and control equipment that reduces HAP emissions), and for which the
owner or operator may be willing to accept case-by-case operating
restrictions that would ensure that the potential to emit does not
exceed the major source threshold. The EPA is considering adding
language to the final rule that would provide a mechanism for such
sources. The EPA requests comment on: (1) Whether such language should
be added; (2) the type of reporting and process required to establish
the case-by-case commitment (in particular, how to establish throughput
and content limitations and performance criteria for the capture and
control equipment that would ensure area source status); and (3) the
types of records that should be maintained to document compliance with
the restrictions. In addition, the EPA requests comment on whether the
level of recordkeeping and reporting should vary, depending on the
level of emissions (as reflected by the throughput and content of the
materials used, and performance of the capture and control equipment).
In general, rotogravure and wide web flexographic printing
facilities are covered by the SIC codes listed in Table 2. However,
facilities classified under other SIC codes may be subject to the
proposed standards if the facility meets the definition of a major
source and conducts rotogravure or wide web flexographic printing.
Table 2.--Rotogravure and Wide Web Flexographic Printing SIC Codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC
Code Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2295.. Vinyl Coated or Laminated Fabric.
2392.. House Furnishings, including Shower Curtains.
2647.. Sanitary Paper Products.
2649.. Wallcoverings.
2651.. Folding Paperboard Boxes.
2671.. Coated and Laminated Paper and Plastic Film for Packaging.
2673.. Plastic Bags and Liners, Coated and Laminated.
2674.. Uncoated Paper Bags and Sacks and Multiwall Shipping Sacks and
Bags.
2711.. Newspapers.
2721.. Periodicals.
2754.. Commercial Printing, Gravure.
2759.. Commercial Printing, NEC.
3497.. Laminated Aluminum Foil, Flexible Packaging.
3996.. Hard Surface Floor Coverings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information obtained through an information collection
request and information provided by the Gravure Association of America
(GAA), there are an estimated 200 facilities that will be subject to
the proposed standards. The combined HAP emissions from these
facilities are estimated to be over 21,800 Mg/yr (24,000 tpy).
Affected Sources
The proposed rule would limit organic HAP emissions that result
from publication rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and
wide-web flexographic printing. The standard applies to HAP present in
inks, ink extenders, solvents, coatings, varnishes, primers, adhesives,
and other materials applied with rotogravure and flexographic plates.
Printed items include magazines, advertising inserts, catalogs,
flexible packaging, corrugated boxes, paper towels, newspapers, wall
coverings, floor coverings, shower curtains, etc.
Sources in the publication rotogravure segment of the printing and
publishing industry include but are not limited to ink and solvent
storage tanks, ink mixing, printing, press and parts cleaning, proof
and production presses and solvent recovery. Sources in the product/
package rotogravure and wide-web flexography segments include the
printing presses.
Various organic HAP are used in the printing industry. Organic HAP
used include toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl
isobutyl ketone, methanol, hexane, dibutylphthalate, toluene
diisocyanate, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. These are the HAP
expected to be emitted by the industry, however, the proposed standards
apply to emissions of all organic HAP listed in section 112(b).
B. Proposed Standards for Affected Sources
In addition to the standards for affected sources as discussed
below, the affected sources would be subject to the General Provisions
which were promulgated in the Federal Register March 16, 1994 (59 FR
12408) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. The General Provisions
stipulate that all affected sources subject to the proposed rule are
also subject to, as appropriate, 40 CFR 63.4, 63.5, and 63.6.
The proposed rule requires each owner or operator who uses a
control device or equipment to control HAP emissions to prepare an
operation and maintenance plan in accordance with Sec. 63.6. In
addition to the information required in Sec. 63.6, the proposed rule
requires that the owner or operator of the control device or equipment
include the following information: (1) The operation and maintenance
criteria for each air pollution control device or equipment, including
a standardized checklist to document the operation and maintenance of
the equipment; (2) a systematic procedure for identifying malfunctions
and for reporting them [[Page 13669]] immediately to supervisory
personnel; and (3) procedures to be followed to ensure that equipment
or process malfunctions due to poor maintenance or other preventable
conditions do not occur.
The General Provisions also state that an owner or operator who
uses an air pollution control device or equipment not listed in the
proposed rule must submit to the Administrator for approval a
description of the device, test data verifying the performance of the
device or equipment for HAP and/or VOC emissions, appropriate operating
parameters that would be monitored to establish compliance with the
proposed standards, and a copy of the inspection and maintenance plan
required under Sec. 63.6. The authority to approve an alternate air
pollution control device is retained by the Administrator and is not
delegated.
Finally, Sec. 63.6(g) allows an owner or operator of an affected
source to use alternative means of compliance. This allows the
development and use of new technology not known or not demonstrated at
the time the rule was promulgated.
The affected sources for the proposed standards are defined as
follows: (1) Each publication rotogravure facility (all publication
rotogravure presses plus all associated operations including but not
limited to ink and solvent storage tanks, ink mixing, printing, press
and parts cleaning, proof and production presses and solvent recovery);
and (2) each product or packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
press or group of presses controlled by a common solvent recovery
system. The following paragraphs summarize the proposed standards for
each affected source.
1. Publication Rotogravure Presses
The proposed standards for publication rotogravure facilities would
apply to all new and existing affected sources. The proposed standards
allow the use of control devices provided each facility achieves an
overall control efficiency, taking into account capture and control
device efficiency of 92 percent, when the organic HAP content of
solvent borne inks and other materials used is equivalent to the
volatile matter content. When non-HAP VOC or water is present in the
inks or other materials applied, each control device must achieve a
control efficiency such that the sum of the organic HAP recovered or
destroyed, plus the water used, plus the VOC used, minus the organic
HAP used makes up a minimum of 92 percent of the sum of the VOC used
plus the water used. (Organic HAP emitted is less than 8 percent of the
total volatile matter.)
Compliance with the proposed standard would be demonstrated by a
monthly mass balance when a solvent recovery system is used. Compliance
for control devices other than solvent recovery systems would be shown
on a continuous basis based on a specific operating parameter or
parameters, such as temperature for incinerators.
2. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexographic Presses
The proposed standards for package and product rotogravure and
wide-web flexographic presses would apply to all new and existing
affected sources. The proposed standards allow the use of low HAP
materials, control devices, or a combination of low HAP materials and
control devices. Presses applying any combination of inks, coatings,
primers, adhesives, solvents, extenders and other materials such that
the monthly mass weighted organic HAP contents of these materials is
equal to or less than 0.20 kg per kg of solids applied, or equal to or
less than 0.04 kg per kg of materials applied would be in compliance.
The proposed standards allow the use of control devices, provided that
each control device used for the control of HAP achieves an overall
control efficiency, taking into account capture and control device
efficiency of 95 percent. Presses would also be allowed to comply with
the proposed standards by using control systems provided that the HAP
emissions are equal to or less than 0.20 kg per kg of solids applied.
In cases where a solvent recovery system is used to control emissions
from more than one press, the group of commonly controlled presses can
be considered a single affected source for the purpose of complying
with the overall control device efficiency standard or the overall
organic HAP emission rate standard.
Compliance with the proposed standard would be demonstrated either
by a monthly mass balance or through the use of continuous emission
monitors when a solvent recovery system is used. Compliance for control
devices other than solvent recovery systems would be shown on a
continuous basis based on a specific operating parameter or parameters,
such as temperature for incinerators. Compliance with the proposed
organic HAP content level standards would be shown on a monthly basis
for compliant materials. Sources demonstrating compliance by a
combination of means would demonstrate control device efficiency as
described above and demonstrate mass average organic HAP content on a
monthly basis.
C. Compliance Dates
The proposed rule would require all existing sources to comply no
later than three years after the effective date of the standards. In
addition, the proposed rule adopts the compliance dates specified in
Sec. 63.6(b) and Sec. 63.6(c). New sources must comply with the
standard upon startup or the effective date of this regulation,
whichever is later.
D. Compliance Extensions
Because of the length of time necessary to properly specify, order
and install additional capture and control equipment some existing
facilities may need to request a compliance extension. Similarly, some
existing facilities choosing to adapt to lower HAP ink (and other press
material) formulations may have to select and test substitutes for a
large number of specific applications. These existing facilities may
need to request a compliance extension.
Section 63.6(i) of 40 CFR part 63 provides the requirements for
requesting an extension of compliance with a relevant standard
established under part 63. Specifically, Sec. 63.6(i)(4) allows the
issuance of a permit granting an extension of up to one year to comply
with the standard, if such additional period is necessary for the
installation of controls. Section 63.6(i)(4)(i)(B) requires requests
for compliance extensions to be submitted no later than 12 months
before the affected source's compliance date.
E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring
In addition to the specific testing and monitoring requirements
specified below for each affected source, the proposed rule adopts the
testing requirements specified in Sec. 63.7.
1. Test Methods and Procedures
a. Publication Rotogravure. For facilities using solvent recovery
systems, the overall control efficiency would be determined using a
mass balance over the period of each calendar month. Owners or
operators would be required to measure the amount of all materials used
during the month and to determine the organic HAP and volatile matter
content of these materials. Owners or operators would also be required
to measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent
recovery system during the month and to calculate the overall HAP
control efficiency. The organic HAP content would be determined by
proposed EPA Method 311, or from manufacturers data when these data are
equivalent to those obtained from proposed EPA Method 311. When it is
not possible to [[Page 13670]] determine the organic HAP content using
proposed EPA Method 311, the owner or operator shall submit to the
Administrator an alternative technique for determining the organic HAP
content. The volatile matter content of the materials used shall be
determined by manufacturers formulation data or by Method 24A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A.
For facilities using incinerators, owners or operators must
determine the incinerator destruction efficiency and the capture
efficiency. Incinerator destruction efficiency would be determined
using EPA Method 1 or 1A, EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C or 2D, EPA Methods 3 and
4, and EPA Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Capture
efficiency would be confirmed using Procedure T to verify the presence
of a permanent total enclosure or determined using the capture
efficiency protocol specified in 40 CFR 52.741 (a)(4)(iii).
b. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography. Owners
or operators may comply by means of use of materials meeting the
organic HAP threshold requirements or through use of control equipment,
or through a combination of low organic HAP materials and control
equipment. The proposed standards for organic HAP emissions would
require compliance with an organic HAP content threshold based on
solids content (kg of organic HAP per kg of solids applied), an organic
HAP threshold based on material (kg of organic HAP per kg of materials
applied), an overall organic HAP control efficiency (percent), or an
organic HAP emission rate (kg of organic HAP emitted per kg of solids
applied).
The organic HAP content of inks, coatings, primers, adhesives,
solvents and other materials applied on the press would be determined
by proposed EPA Method 311, or from manufacturers data when these data
are equivalent to those obtained from proposed EPA Method 311. When it
is not possible to determine the organic HAP content using proposed EPA
Method 311, the owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator an
alternative technique for determining the organic HAP content.
The facility may rely on manufacturer's data to determine the
organic HAP content when these data are equivalent to those obtained
from proposed EPA Method 311. The mass of each ink, coating, primer,
adhesive, solvent and other material applied would be determined using
company records. If diluent solvents or other ingredients are added to
a material prior to application, then the total organic HAP fractions
and mass must be adjusted appropriately to account for such additions.
These values would be required for each monthly period; however, only
changes in formulation would require re-determination of total organic
HAP weight fraction. The proposed standards would then require the
owner or operator to calculate the average mass of organic HAP in
materials applied per mass of solids applied.
If an owner or operator is seeking to comply by using materials
with a weighted average HAP content below the organic HAP content
threshold requirement or the low solids organic HAP threshold
requirement, the owner or operator would need to determine the organic
HAP content and solids content. If no changes in formulation as applied
occurred, then a re-calculation of the organic HAP level would not be
required.
If a control device is used, the proposed standards require the
owner or operator to demonstrate compliance with the overall control
efficiency requirement of at least 95 percent. Alternately, the owner
or operator may determine the overall control efficiency of the
equipment and the HAP content and solids content of the materials
applied. To comply by this combination of means, the owner or operator
would have to demonstrate a HAP emissions limitation of 0.20 kg HAP per
kg of solids applied.
For a solvent recovery system, overall control efficiency would be
determined using a liquid-liquid mass balance, or by conducting an
initial performance test of capture efficiency and using continuous
emissions monitors. The liquid-liquid mass balance determination would
be made every month. Owners or operators would be required to measure
the amount of all materials applied during the month and to determine
the volatile matter content of these materials. Owners or operators
measuring overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid mass balance
would also be required to measure the amount of volatile matter
recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month and to
calculate the overall HAP control efficiency.
Owners or operators using solvent recovery systems may also
demonstrate compliance by conducting an initial performance test of
capture efficiency and operating continuous emissions monitors to
determine the total volatile matter content at both the inlet to and
the outlet from the carbon adsorber such that the percent efficiency of
the carbon adsorber can be calculated for each calendar month. The
owner or operator must verify the presence of a permanent total
enclosure using Procedure T, or determine the capture efficiency using
the protocol specified in 40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii). The overall organic
HAP control efficiency must be calculated as the product of the capture
efficiency and the carbon adsorber efficiency.
For control devices other than carbon adsorbers, the overall
control efficiency would be based on capture efficiency and destruction
efficiency. Capture efficiency would be determined based on the
procedure specified in 40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii), unless the operation
is performed within a permanent total enclosure. An enclosure that
meets the requirements of a permanent total enclosure as specified by
Procedure T of 40 CFR 52.741 would have a capture efficiency of 100
percent.
The destruction efficiency of a control device other than a carbon
adsorber would be determined using EPA Method 1 or 1A, EPA Method 2,
2A, 2C or 2D, EPA Methods 3 and 4, and EPA Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A. The owner or operator would record such process
conditions as may be necessary to determine the conditions of the
performance test.
To determine the value of an incinerator operating parameter that
will demonstrate continuing compliance, the time weighted average of
the values recorded during the performance test shall be computed. For
a thermal incinerator, the owner or operator shall establish as the
operating parameter the minimum combustion temperature. For a catalytic
incinerator, the owner or operator shall establish as the operating
parameters the minimum gas temperatures both upstream and downstream of
the catalyst bed. These minimum temperatures are the operating
parameters used to demonstrate continuing compliance.
The affected source is in compliance if the overall HAP control
efficiency is at least 95 percent. Alternately, the source can comply
on the basis of HAP emission limitation. The facility would be required
to determine the organic HAP content and solids content of inks,
coatings, primers, adhesives, solvents and other materials applied on
the press. The mass of each ink, coating, primer, adhesive, solvent and
other material applied would be determined using company records. If
diluent solvents or other ingredients are added to a material prior to
application, then the total organic HAP content, solids content and
mass must be adjusted appropriately to account for such additions.
[[Page 13671]]
The organic HAP content would be determined from proposed EPA
Method 311 or, when this is not possible the owner or operator shall
submit to the Administrator, an alternative technique for determining
the organic HAP content. Manufacturer's formulation data may be used
provided that the data are equivalent to those obtained using proposed
EPA Method 311. The volatile matter and solids content of the materials
used shall be determined by manufacturers formulation data or by Method
24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
These values would be required for each monthly period. The
proposed standards would then require the owner or operator to
calculate the average mass of organic HAP in materials applied per mass
of solids applied. The overall control efficiency as determined above
would be used to determine the HAP emission limitation. To comply by
this combination of means, the owner or operator would have to
demonstrate a HAP emissions limitation of 0.20 kg HAP per kg of solids
applied.
2. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring is required by the proposed standards to determine
whether a source is in compliance. For owners or operators using
thermal or catalytic incinerators, this can be accomplished by
measuring site-specific operating parameters, the values of which are
established by the owner or operator during the initial compliance
test. The operating parameter value is defined as the minimum or
maximum value established for a control device or process parameter
that, if achieved by itself or in combination with other operating
parameter values, determines that an owner or operator is complying
with the applicable emission limitation or standards. This type of
monitoring would be required for those emission points for which the
standards are expressed as a percent control, or for affected sources
using control devices to achieve an organic HAP emission limit. In
addition, the owner or operator is expected to install and operate the
monitoring equipment properly.
The proposed rule would require temperature to be monitored, using
a continuous recorder, for incinerators. For catalytic incinerators,
temperature monitors would be placed immediately before and after the
catalyst bed. For other incinerators, the temperature monitor would be
placed in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the
firebox and before any substantial heat exchange occurs. All monitoring
equipment would be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated
according to manufacturer's specifications.
The proposed standards would require each owner or operator to
establish a range of values for each of these monitored parameters
during the initial performance test. As long as the control device is
operated within the established ranges, the proposed emission standards
are considered to be met. Consequently, exceedances of these parameters
would be considered a violation of the standards since operating the
control device outside of the established ranges may reduce the
efficiency of the control device.
Owners or operators of publication rotogravure sources operating
solvent recovery systems would be required to conduct monthly mass
balances as described in the section II.E.1 of the preamble. Owners or
operators of other sources operating solvent recovery systems would be
required either to conduct monthly mass balances as described in the
previous section or to operate continuous emission monitors. The
continuous emission monitors would be used to determine the total
volatile matter concentration at both the inlet to and the outlet from
the carbon adsorber, such that the percent efficiency of the carbon
adsorber can be calculated for each calendar month.
Owners or operators of package or product rotogravure or
flexographic printing facilities complying by means of use of materials
meeting the applicable HAP content threshold standards would
demonstrate compliance through recordkeeping as described in section
II.E.1 of the preamble.
Under 40 CFR 63.6(g), an owner or operator of an affected source
may request the use of alternative methods of emission reduction for
complying with design, equipment, work practice, or operational
emission standards, or combination thereof, established under this
part. Under the proposed rule, an owner or operator of an affected
source may also use control devices other than those specifically
identified in the proposed rule as a means for achieving compliance
with any portion of the rule. If devices other than those identified
are used, the proposed standards would require the owner or operator to
submit the parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for
approval. The authority to approve the use of alternate control devices
and the parameters to be monitored is retained by the Administrator and
is not delegated.
Section 114(a)(3) of the Act requires enhanced monitoring and
compliance certifications of all major stationary sources. The annual
compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been
continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of
detecting deviations from each applicable emission limitations or
standard with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision,
reliability, frequency, and timeliness to determine if compliance is
continuous during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation
satisfies the requirements of enhanced monitoring.
F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The proposed rule proposes to adopt the requirements contained in
40 CFR 63.9 and 40 CFR 63.10. The proposed rule, however, contains
additional or clarifying elements and changes certain time periods
allowed for submitting or responding to certain reports and requests
required in Sec. 63.10. These elements and changes are summarized below
for each of the operations for which standards are being proposed.
1. Recordkeeping Requirements
a. Publication Rotogravure. Records must be maintained of the
organic HAP and volatile matter content, as received, and the monthly
usage of all inks, solvents, varnishes, adhesives and other materials
applied on publication rotogravure presses. Where incinerators are
used, records must be maintained of the overall control efficiency and
all test results, data, and calculations used in determining the
overall control efficiency.
Where solvent recovery systems are used, records must be maintained
of the overall control efficiency, all test results, data, and
calculations used in determining the overall control efficiency, and
the monthly material balances used to demonstrate compliance.
b. Packaging and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography.
Records must be maintained of the organic HAP, volatile matter and
solids content, as received, and the monthly usage of all inks,
solvents, varnishes, primers, adhesives and other materials applied on
packaging and product rotogravure presses and wide-web flexographic
presses. Each owner or operator would be required to keep records of
the equipment monitoring parameter measurements specified in the
proposed rule. For an incinerator other than a catalytic incinerator,
continuous records must be maintained of the firebox temperature (or
temperature in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox). For
a catalytic incinerator, continuous records must be maintained
[[Page 13672]] of the gas stream temperature immediately before and
after the catalyst bed. For both types of incinerators, records must be
maintained of the overall control efficiency and all test results,
data, and calculations used in determining the overall control
efficiency.
For carbon adsorbers, records must be maintained of the overall
control efficiency, all test results, data, and calculations used in
determining the overall control efficiency.
2. Reporting Requirements
The proposed rule would require four basic types of reports: (1)
Initial notification, (2) notification of compliance status, (3)
periodic reports, and (4) other reports. In addition, the proposed rule
would require that the results of any performance test required under
Sec. 63.7 be reported no later than 60 days after the completion of the
test. A permit application as required under 40 CFR part 70 may be used
in lieu of the initial notification provided the same information is
contained in the permit application as required for the initial
notification.
As stated above, the proposed standards adopt the reporting
requirements contained in Sec. 63.9(a) through Sec. 63.9(e) and
Sec. 63.9(h) through Sec. 63.9(j) and 63.10 (a), (b), (d), and (f).
However, the time period allowed for the Administrator to notify the
owner or operator in writing of approval or disapproval of the request
for an adjustment to a particular time period or postmark deadline
submitted under Sec. 63.9(i) has been changed to within 30 calendar
days of receiving sufficient information to evaluate the request,
rather than 15 calendar days as provided for in Sec. 63.9(i)(3).
Sections 63.9 and 63.10 identify the type of generic information to
be included in the initial notification, notification of compliance
status, and other reports and, therefore, this information is not
repeated in this preamble. The following paragraphs summarize the
additional information specific to the printing and publishing rule
that should be included in the notification of compliance status and
the type of information to be included in the periodic reports.
a. Publication Rotogravure. The notification of compliance status
should identify the control devices that were used to demonstrate that
the facility was in compliance. Specific reporting requirements are
dependent on how an owner or operator chooses to comply with the
regulation. If solvent recovery systems are used and liquid-liquid
material balances are conducted, semiannual reports would be required
that contain information on all months when the material balances were
not in compliance with the standards.
If incinerators are used, semiannual reports would be required that
contain information on all days when any 3-hour average temperature was
below the average temperature established during the most recent
performance test during which compliance was demonstrated. The first
three hour period will commence when the affected source begins
operation or restarts following a shutdown period. Subsequent three
hour periods commence every three hours of operation. When an affected
source shuts down during a three hour period, the average temperature
for the period between the commencement of the three hour period and
shut down would be used for the purpose of compliance demonstration.
If incinerators are used, or if solvent recovery systems are used
but liquid-liquid material balances are not conducted, semi-annual
reports would be required that contain information on all days when for
any three hour period, the average value of the site-specific operating
parameter used to monitor capture system performance was greater than
or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established
for the capture system.
If a semiannual report is required for the period covered by the
first semiannual report of the reporting year, a semiannual report
would be submitted for the following semiannual period even if no
exceedances occurred in that period. If no exceedances occur during the
entire reporting year, each owner and operator would submit annual
statements indicating that each affected facility has been in
compliance.
b. Packaging and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography. The
notification of compliance status should identify whether low-HAP
materials or control devices were used to demonstrate that the facility
was in compliance, and, for control devices and capture systems, what
operating parameters were identified for continuous monitoring in order
to ensure compliance with the proposed standards. Specific reporting
requirements are dependent upon how an owner or operator chooses to
comply with the regulation.
Owners and operators complying using low-HAP materials would be
required to report each exceedance of the organic HAP content level or
the low solids organic HAP content level. These reports would be
submitted on a semiannual basis.
If incinerators are used, semiannual reports would be required that
contain information on all days when any 3-hour average temperature was
below the average temperature established during the most recent
performance test during which compliance was demonstrated. The first
three hour period will commence when the affected source begins
operation or restarts following a shutdown period. Subsequent three
hour periods commence every three hours of operation. When an affected
source shuts down during a three hour period, the average temperature
for the period between the commencement of the three hour period and
shut down would be used for the purpose of compliance demonstration.
If solvent recovery systems are used, and the owner or operator
chooses to demonstrate compliance by means of a liquid-liquid mass
balance, semiannual reports would be required that contain information
on all months when the material balances were not in compliance with
the standards.
Owners or operators of affected sources complying with the HAP
emission limitation using a combination on control devices and low HAP
materials would be required to submit semiannual reports containing
information on control device exceedances as described above, in
addition to reports of exceedances of monthly calculated HAP emission
limitations.
If incinerators are used, or if solvent recovery systems are used
but liquid-liquid material balances are not conducted, semi-annual
reports would be required that contain information on all days when for
any three hour period, the average value of the site-specific operating
parameter used to monitor capture system performance was greater than
or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established
for the capture system.
If a semiannual report is required for the period covered by the
first semiannual report of the reporting year, a semiannual report
would be submitted for the following semiannual period even if no
exceedances occurred in that period. If no exceedances occur during the
entire reporting year, each owner and operator would submit annual
statements indicating that each affected facility has been in
compliance. [[Page 13673]]
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the
Proposed Standards
A. Emission Reductions
1. Existing Facilities
For the existing publication rotogravure printing industry (27
facilities), the nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be
17,500 Mg/yr (19,200 tpy). Implementation of the proposed regulation
would reduce these emissions by 4,750 Mg/yr (5,220 tpy), or 27 percent.
For the existing product and packaging rotogravure and wide web
flexographic printing industry (approximately 1,200 facilities), the
nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 4,200 Mg/yr
(4,620 tpy). Implementation of the proposed regulation would reduce
these emissions by 1,940 Mg/yr (2,140 tpy), or 46 percent.
2. New Facilities
It is expected that any new facilities would be designed to meet
the proposed standards because of other federal, state and local
environmental and occupational safety regulations. No net emission
reduction from new facilities is expected as a result of the proposed
regulation.
B. Secondary Environmental Impacts
Secondary environmental impacts are considered to be any air,
water, or solid waste impacts, positive or negative, associated with
the implementation of the proposed standards. These impacts are
exclusive of the direct organic HAP air emission reductions discussed
in the previous section.
Most of the organic HAP are VOC. Capture and control of HAP which
is presently emitted will result in a decrease in VOC emissions. It is
expected that some product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic facilities will comply with the proposed standard by
substituting non-HAP materials for HAP presently in use. In some cases,
the non-HAP materials will be VOC, however, in other cases, non-VOC (e.
g. water) materials will be used.
The use of newly installed or upgraded control devices will result
in greater electricity consumption. Increases in emissions of sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide from electric utilities
could result. In the product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printing segments, some plants will comply by installing
or upgrading incinerators. Supplemental fuel, typically natural gas,
will be used, particularly for thermal incinerators. Combustion of this
fuel will result in additional carbon dioxide emissions and may result
in additional emissions of nitrogen oxides.
Facilities converting to waterborne materials as a means or partial
means of compliance may have reduced RCRA hazardous waste disposal if
the status of the waste ink changes from hazardous to nonhazardous. An
increase in wastewater discharge may occur if waste ink and waterborne
washup materials are discharged to publicly owned treatment works
(POTW). There is no assurance that facilities converting to low-HAP
formulations will adopt waterborne, rather than non-HAP VOC based
materials. While EPA expects wastewater and solid waste impacts in
general to be insignificant, it is aware of a frequent practice in the
printing and publishing industry of using shop towels for cleaning.
This generates a waste load which may be sent to industrial laundries
(and ultimately to POTW) in the case of cloth towels, or to landfills
in the case of disposable towels. EPA invites submission of comments
and data on how effluent from industrial laundries may be affected by
this regulation.
New and upgraded catalytic incinerators will require catalyst.
Catalyst life is estimated to be in excess of ten years. Spent catalyst
will represent a small amount of solid waste and in some cases the
spent catalyst will be regenerated by the manufacturer for reuse.
Activated carbon used in solvent recovery systems is returned to the
manufacturer at the end of its useful life and converted to other
salable products. No solid waste impact is expected from this source.
C. Energy Impacts
The operation of new and upgraded control devices will require
additional energy. Capture and control of increased volumes of solvent
laden air will require additional fan horsepower. Operation of
incinerators, particularly thermal incinerators will require
supplemental fuel (typically natural gas). Operation of solvent
recovery systems will require steam regeneration of the activated
carbon; boilers are typically fired with natural gas or fuel oil.
The total additional electrical energy required to meet the
proposed standard is estimated to be 55 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)
per year. This includes 32 million kWh for publication rotogravure, 20
million kWh for product and packaging rotogravure and 3.0 million kWh
for wide web flexography. Fuel requirements total 1.0 trillion Btu per
year. This includes 580 billion Btu for publication rotogravure, 370
billion Btu for product and packaging rotogravure and 58 billion Btu
for wide web flexography.
D. Cost Impacts
The total capital and annualized costs (1993 dollars) attributable
to compliance with the proposed standards have been estimated for
existing sources. It is expected that new facilities would meet the
proposed regulations as a result of other federal, state and local
environmental and occupational safety regulations.
1. Capital Costs
Capital costs would be incurred in upgrading existing capture and
control systems at those facilities presently operating control devices
that do not meet the proposed standards. Facilities which do not
presently operate control devices would be expected to capitalize a
period of downtime necessary to convert to low-HAP materials. Total
capital costs are estimated at $133 million. These costs include $92
million at publication rotogravure facilities for improved capture and
upgrades to solvent recovery systems to handle increased volumes of
pressroom air.
Capital costs at product and packaging rotogravure facilities are
estimated at $34 million. These costs include improved capture and
upgrades to control devices for facilities presently operating control
devices. For facilities not presently operating control devices the
costs are based on capitalized downtime.
Capital costs at wide-web flexographic facilities are estimated at
$7.2 million. These costs include improved capture and upgrades to
control devices for facilities presently operating control devices.
2. Annual Costs
Annual costs of the proposed standards have been estimated at $42
million per year. These costs include capital recovery over a ten year
period, operating costs for the newly installed and upgraded capture
and control systems, and costs for recordkeeping, reporting and
monitoring. These are net costs after taking into account the costs
presently being incurred for the baseline control level. The annual
costs include $21 million per year for publication rotogravure, $17
million per year for product and packaging rotogravure and $3.6 million
per year for wide-web flexography.
E. Economic Impacts
The preliminary economic impact analysis for the selected
regulatory alternative shows that the estimated [[Page 13674]] price
increases for printing products produced by the affected industries is
an average of 1.34 percent for those using publication and product/
packaging rotogravure presses, and less than 0.01 percent on average
for those using wide-web flexographic presses. The estimated decreases
in the quantity of printing production is an average of 3.85 percent
and 0.53 percent, respectively. No firms or facilities are at risk of
closures as a result of the standard.
For more information, consult the background information document.
IV. Process Descriptions and Control Technologies
A. Process Descriptions
1. Rotogravure Printing
Nearly all gravure printing is done by rotogravure. Gravure
printing is a printing process in which an image (type and art) is
etched or engraved below the surface of a plate or cylinder. On a
gravure plate or cylinder, the printing image consists of millions of
minute cells. Rotogravure requires very fluid inks which will flow from
the cells to the substrate at high press speeds. In addition to inks,
other materials including adhesives, primers, coatings and varnishes
may be applied with rotogravure cylinders. These materials dry by
evaporation as the substrate passes through hot air dryers.
Different colored inks, or other materials are applied in
succession as the web passes from station to station. A separate
cylinder, ink supply and dryer are required for each station. After the
ink is applied at each station, the web is dried before being printed
by the next station. Solvent borne or waterborne ink systems can be
used but these ink systems are not interchangeable. Both the printing
cylinders and the drying systems are specific to the ink system in use.
The evaporated components of the ink and other materials may contain
HAP to varying extents. Rotogravure can be divided into the publication
and product/packaging segments. Because of the expense and complexity
of rotogravure cylinder engraving, it is particularly suited to long
run printing jobs.
a. Publication Rotogravure. Publication rotogravure printing
focuses on magazine, catalog and advertising insert printing. All U. S.
publication rotogravure plants presently use toluene/xylene based ink
systems, and operate solvent recovery systems based on carbon
adsorption with steam regeneration. Recovered solvent is sold back to
the ink manufacturers. Press capture systems vary depending on the age
of the press. Typically, four stations are required to print each side
of the web. Publication rotogravure presses in operation in the U. S.
have up to 16 stations. It is generally believed in the industry that
publication rotogravure equipment is capable of higher quality printing
than competing processes.
The primary solvent in publication rotogravure ink is toluene, a
HAP. At some plants xylenes and ethyl benzene, also HAP, and non-HAP
aliphatic solvents are present in the solvent blend and are used,
emitted, recovered and handled in the same manner as toluene. The
plants purchase ink containing solvent and add additional solvent to
obtain the desired viscosity.
HAP emissions result from incomplete recovery of captured HAP, and
from incomplete capture. Activated carbon solvent recovery systems are
suitable for control of toluene and similar aromatic solvents. High
control efficiencies can be achieved, however some solvent is
unavoidably emitted as a result of thermodynamic limitations (the
toluene-carbon/toluene-air equilibrium) and flow irregularities (e.g.
channelling through the carbon bed). Some HAP is not captured in the
dryer exhaust. This includes HAP which evaporates from the ink
fountains into the pressroom, HAP which is evaporated from the web in
the dryers but is then swept out of the dryer as the web travels
towards the succeeding press station, HAP which remains in the web
after the last dryer which evaporates during additional processing
(slitting, folding, stitching, etc.) and HAP which leaves the plant
trapped in the magazine, catalog or advertising insert.
b. Packaging and Product Rotogravure. The rotogravure printing
operation is, in many cases, a relatively small part of the total
package or product production process. This section briefly describes
the various types of packages and products that include rotogravure
printing in their manufacture, and notes what production steps are
required in addition to the rotogravure printing step.
Folding Cartons. Folding carton packages are used for a wide
variety of products including wet and dry foods, beverages, bakery
items, and candy. They are also used for nonfood products such as
detergents, hardware, paper goods, cosmetics, medical products, tobacco
products, and sporting goods.
The folding carton is made from one of several grades of
paperboard. It may be printed, laminated or coated, or may be shipped
unprinted to be used with another label or wrapper. Besides printing,
operations in the manufacture of folding cartons include creasing,
trimming, die-cutting, coating, and gluing. The cartons are shipped
flat, to be assembled and filled by the customer.
Flexible Packaging. Flexible packaging materials start out as rolls
of paper or foil, or beads of plastic resin, and are ``converted'' into
a package or roll of packaging material. Flexible package manufacturers
are sometimes referred to as ``converters''. Converters produce a wide
range of non-rigid packages made of paper, plastic film, foil
laminates, and combinations of these substrates.
One portion of the flexible packaging industry provides fully
printed packaging materials (designated ``preformed specialty bags'')
to contract packagers. Another portion provides combination or
laminated materials (converted wrap) for printing and/or final packing
by captive packaging operations.
Labels and Wrappers. Labels and wrappers include roll and sheet
labels applied to cans, unprinted cartons, composite cans, bottles and
other containers, tags, and self-adhesive label products. Paper is the
common substrate, but laminates and foil are also used. The industry
makes a distinction between labels and wrappers, which are package
components, from a product that becomes the entire package and should
be called a flexible package.
Gift Wraps. About 90 percent of all gift wraps are printed. They
are produced by greeting card companies and by label and flexible
packaging firms. Rotogravure printing is particularly suitable for
producing the continuous patterns used on gift wrap.
Wallcoverings. The wallcovering industry is a traditional user of
rotogravure. The principal types of wallcoverings are prepasted paper,
prepasted paper-backed vinyl, fabric-backed vinyl, and specialty items
(e.g., metallics, grass cloth, rice paper). The steps in manufacturing
wallcoverings include printing the paper and laminating it to the
backing sheet.
Vinyl Printing. These products consist of auto upholstery,
furniture upholstery, tablecloths, decorative trim, and shower
curtains. Rotogravure dominates this product area because of the
complex repeat patterns (e.g., woodgrain), and the requirement, in many
cases, for overcoating that is readily applied using a rotogravure
cylinder. Printing is performed on unsupported vinyl, supported vinyl
(backed with fabric or paper), and paper substrate that is then coated
with vinyl. [[Page 13675]]
Decorative Laminates. These products consist of solid, thermoset
laminates used in furniture and construction, and other laminates,
principally wood grain veneers, widely used in furniture.
Floor Coverings. Rotogravure presses are used to decorate and apply
texture and finish to sheet vinyl floor coverings. Rotary screen
printing is sometimes used in combination with gravure. Rotogravure is
also used to print transfer papers used to decorate vinyl tile.
Tissue Products. Some type of printing process is used to apply
color patterns to paper towels, bathroom tissue, and napkins. The older
paper mills producing tissue products were typically equipped with
rotogravure presses.
Product and packaging rotogravure differs from publication
rotogravure with respect to the materials used, the applicable control
devices, and the decreased importance of the actual printing process in
an overall manufacturing process. Packaging and product rotogravure
printing uses a wide variety of different ink systems, including the
aromatic HAP based ink systems common to publication rotogravure,
solvent based non-HAP ink systems, and waterborne ink systems. Numerous
specially mixed colors are applied at various times in this industry
segment, in contrast to the publication segment which primarily applies
four basic colors. In addition, a wider range of materials are applied
with rotogravure cylinders in this segment of the industry. A variety
of coatings, adhesives and primers are applied at print stations on
rotogravure presses. Because of the variety of materials applied, the
approach to HAP and VOC control in packaging and product rotogravure
facilities varies. In addition to the activated carbon based solvent
recovery systems used by the publication segment, packaging and product
gravure facilities also use a variety of thermal and catalytic
oxidizers. Many facilities operate without significant HAP use and do
not have control devices.
In product and packaging rotogravure facilities, HAP is contained
in both the printing inks and in other materials (adhesives, coatings)
that are applied as part of a continuous manufacturing process. The
predominant type of ink is based on nitrocellulose resin, with some
polyamide inks. Solvent systems include aromatic, aliphatic and
oxygenated hydrocarbon solvent inks, and water-based inks.
2. Wide-Web Flexography
Flexographic printing is considered to be the application of words,
designs and pictures to a substrate by means of a printing technique in
which the pattern to be applied is raised above the printing plate and
the image carrier is made of rubber or other elastomeric materials. For
the purposes of the proposed regulation, flexographic presses capable
of printing substrates of 18 inches in width or greater are wide-web
flexographic presses. Because of the ease of plate making and press set
up, flexographic printing is more suited to short production runs than
gravure.
Flexographic inks must be very fluid to print properly.
Flexographic inks include both waterborne and solvent based systems.
Solvents used must be compatible with the rubber or polymeric plates;
thus, aromatic solvents are not used. Some of the components of solvent
based flexographic ink include ethyl, n-propyl and i-propyl alcohols;
glycol ethers, aliphatic hydrocarbons, and esters.
Wide web flexographic presses are used to print flexible and rigid
packaging; newspapers, magazines, and directories; paper towels,
tissues etc; and printed vinyl shower curtains and wallpaper.
Substrates include polyolefins, polystyrene, polyesters, glassine,
tissue, sulfite, kraft and other paper stocks, aluminum foil,
paperboard and corrugated cardboard.
Flexographic presses can be divided into three main types depending
on the relative relationship of the print stations. Stack presses have
individual print stations oriented vertically with the unwind and
rewind sections on the same side of the print stations. Stack presses
are easily accessible for rapid changeovers between press runs. Common
impression presses have the print stations around the circumference of
a single large impression cylinder. The web is constantly supported
between print stations, which is an advantage for printing on
stretchable materials. In-line presses have the print stations in a
horizontal row (the geometry is similar to rotogravure presses). Most
flexographic printing (including all flexographic newspaper and
corrugated carton printing) is done with waterborne inks. Waterborne
inks which contain no HAP are available for some applications. Some
waterborne inks contain relatively low proportions of HAP, principally
ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. Most solvent based flexographic inks
contain little or no HAP. Capture and control devices used with solvent
based inks are usually designed, permitted and operated for VOC
control.
B. Control Techniques
There are two approaches to limitation of HAP in the printing and
publishing industry. The first approach is to improve capture and
control systems or to add control devices where none are in use.
Capture and control can be addressed separately, although in many
cases, improved capture is achieved through an increase in the amount
of air handled. This can necessitate upgrades to existing control
devices. The second approach, focusing on pollution prevention, is to
substitute low HAP or HAP-free materials for materials (inks, coatings,
varnishes, adhesives, primers, etc.) presently in use.
1. Capture Systems
Capture systems are designed to collect solvent laden air and
direct it to a control device. In rotogravure and flexographic
printing, solvent is removed from the printed substrate by evaporation
in a dryer. The exhaust from the dryer can be ducted to a control
device. Additional systems are often used to collect solvents which
evaporate from other parts of the printing press, as well as those
which escape from the dryer. In addition, pressroom ventilation air can
be exhausted to a control device.
Differences in capture efficiency contribute much more to the
variation in overall efficiencies than the choice of control device.
Reported capture efficiencies ranged from estimates of less than 50
percent to the 100 percent capture which is assumed for systems meeting
the requirements of permanent total enclosures. Capture systems can be
improved through collection of additional solvent laden air from the
press area and through construction of additional hooding and press
enclosures. A capture efficiency of 100 percent can be assumed for
presses that meet the requirements of a permanent total enclosure.
a. Publication Rotogravure. Within the publication rotogravure
industry, all presses have dryer exhaust gases routed to the solvent
recovery system. Additional capture systems include dryer hood systems,
partial upper deck enclosures, full upper deck enclosures, enclosed
presses, permanent total enclosures, room enclosures, rooms operated
under negative pressure and floor sweeps. Typically, solvent laden air
captured from several presses is combined and treated with a common
solvent recovery system. The individual presses may have different
capture devices, and different capture efficiencies. [[Page 13676]]
b. Product and Package Gravure. In the product and package gravure
industry, many facilities use low VOC (and low-HAP) inks and coatings.
Dryer exhausts from these facilities may be captured and vented to the
atmosphere without the use of a control device. Where solvent based
inks are in use, more elaborate capture and control systems may be
present. Capture systems in use at product and packaging gravure
facilities include combinations of dryer exhausts, floor sweeps,
collection ducting, hoods, press enclosures, permanent total
enclosures, room enclosures, negative pressure pressrooms, partial
enclosures and ink pan covers. With the exception of permanent total
enclosures, none of these technologies has a precise definition with
regard to capture efficiency. In many cases terms are used
interchangeably. Where control devices are in use, solvent laden air
from several presses may be combined and ducted to a common control
device.
c. Wide-web Flexographic Printing. Capture systems in use at
flexographic printing facilities include combinations of dryer
exhausts, floor sweeps, hoods, and permanent total enclosures. Many
facilities, including most sheetfed corrugated box facilities have no
capture systems and rely on pressroom exhaust to the atmosphere to
dilute the small amount of HAP present in the ink.
2. Control Devices.
a. Carbon adsorbers. Adsorption systems are used to remove organic
compounds from gas streams when strict limits on the outlet
concentration must be met, or when recovery of the compound is desired.
Adsorption is effective on inlet concentrations ranging from a few
parts per billion to several thousand parts per million, and flow rates
of several hundred to several hundred thousand cubic feet per minute.
Carbon adsorbers typically have a removal efficiency of 95 to 99
percent.
Once the carbon reaches saturation, it can be regenerated with
steam within the adsorber vessel. This allows for the recovery of the
organic compounds for reuse.
b. Incinerators. Two basic types of incinerators, thermal and
catalytic, are used by package and product rotogravure and flexographic
printers to remove organic contaminants. Each type is discussed below.
(1) Thermal incinerators. Thermal incinerators can be generally
used on air streams with a wide concentration range of organics. These
control devices have minimal dependence on the characteristics of the
organic contaminants, so they can be used to control a wide variety of
emission streams. Thermal incinerators can achieve removal efficiencies
of 98 percent and higher.
The basic operation of thermal incinerators involves raising the
inlet air stream to the incineration temperature of the contaminants
and maintaining the temperature for a specific residence time. The
waste heat content of the incinerator exhaust stream is used to preheat
the inlet air stream. An auxiliary fuel is then typically required to
raise the air stream temperature to the incineration temperature.
(2) Catalytic incinerators. Catalytic incinerators are similar to
thermal incinerators except that they use a catalyst (a substance that
accelerates the rate of oxidation without undergoing a chemical change
itself) to assist in the oxidation of organic compounds to carbon
dioxide and water. The removal efficiency of catalytic incinerators can
be as high as 98 percent. Catalytic incinerators typically operate at
lower temperatures than thermal incinerators to achieve equivalent
efficiencies. For this reason, auxiliary fuel requirements and
operating costs are lower for catalytic incinerators than thermal
incinerators when used to control relatively dilute air streams.
V. Rationale for the Proposed Rule
A. Regulatory Development Process for NESHAP
During development of a NESHAP, the EPA collects information about
the industry, including information on emission source characteristics,
control technologies, data from HAP emission tests at well-controlled
facilities, and information on the cost, energy, and other
environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The EPA uses this
information in the development of possible regulatory approaches.
If the source category contains major sources, then a MACT standard
is required. Section 112(d)(3) of the Act defines the minimum
stringency requirements of the MACT standard for new and existing
sources. This level of control is referred to as the MACT ``floor,''
which needs to be determined as a starting point for developing the
regulatory alternatives.
Once the floor has been determined for new and existing sources for
a category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT standards
that are no less stringent than the floor level. Such standards must
then be met by all sources within the category or subcategory. However,
in establishing standards, the Administrator may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategory
(section 112(d)(1) of the Act). Thus, for example, the Administrator
could establish two classes of sources within a category or subcategory
based on size and establish a different emission standard for each
class as long as each standard is at least as stringent as the floor.
The Act also contains provisions for regulating area sources. However,
except for certain recordkeeping requirements contained in the General
Provisions, these are not relevant to the proposed standards for
printing and publishing sources, which apply only to major sources.
The next step in establishing a MACT standard is the development
and analysis of regulatory alternatives. First, information about the
industry is analyzed to develop model plant populations for projecting
national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels, costs, and
energy and secondary environmental impacts. Several regulatory
alternatives (which may be different levels of emission control,
different applicability criteria, or both, and one of which is the MACT
floor) are then evaluated to determine the most appropriate regulatory
alternative to reflect the MACT level.
In addition, although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of
numerical emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes
necessary. Section 112(h) of the Act provides that if it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard, then a design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standard may be established.
For example, in some cases source testing may be impossible or at least
not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.
In the EPA's decision-making process, the regulatory alternatives
considered for new versus existing sources may be different and each
alternative must be technically achievable. In selecting a regulatory
alternative to represent MACT, the EPA considers the achievable
reduction in HAP emissions (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), the cost of control, and economic, energy, and other
nonair quality health and environmental impacts. The overall objective
is the achievement of the maximum degree of emission reduction without
unreasonable economic or other impacts.
The selected regulatory alternative is then translated into a
proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the MACT decision
typically includes sections addressing applicability, standards, test
methods and compliance [[Page 13677]] demonstration, monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping. The preamble to the proposed regulation,
published in the Federal Register, provides an explanation of the
rationale for the decision. The public is invited to comment on the
proposed regulation during the public comment period. Following an
evaluation of these comments, the EPA reaches a decision and
promulgates the final standards.
B. Determining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) ``Floors''
Once the EPA has identified the specific major source categories or
subcategories that it intends to regulate under section 112, MACT
standards are set at a level at least as stringent as the ``floor.''
Congress has provided directives to guide the EPA in the process of
determining the regulatory floor.
Congress specified that the EPA must establish standards which
require ``the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous
air pollutants * * * that the Administrator * * * determines is
achievable * * *'' (section 112(d)(2) of the Act). In addition,
Congress limited the Agency's discretion by defining the minimum
baseline (floor) at which standards may be set, as follows:
(1) For new sources, the standards for a source category or
subcategory ``shall not be less stringent than the emission control
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as
determined by the Administrator,''; and
(2) For existing sources, the standards ``may be less stringent
than standards for new sources * * * but shall not be less stringent,
and may be more stringent than: (A) the average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for
which the Administrator has emissions information) * * * or (B) the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources *
* * for categories or subcategories * * * with fewer than 30 sources''
(section 112(d)(3) of the Act).
C. Selection of Pollutants and Source Category(ies)
Section 112(b) of the Act lists the HAP to be regulated with
standards established under section 112. Section 112(d), as amended,
requires the EPA to promulgate emission standards for each category or
subcategory of major sources and area sources of the HAP listed in
section 112(b). For the purpose of developing these standards, the EPA
may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or subcategory. The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP
emissions from both new and existing sources pursuant to section 112(c)
of the Act.
The initial source category list (57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992),
required by section 112(c) of the Act, identifies source categories for
which NESHAP are to be established. This list includes all major source
categories of HAP known to the EPA at this time, and all area source
categories for which a finding of adverse effects warranting regulation
has been made.
The source category list identifies ``Printing/Publishing (Surface
Coating)'' as a source category because it contains major sources which
have the potential to emit at least 10 tons of any one HAP or at least
25 tons of any combination of HAP annually.
The printing and publishing industry encompasses printing by a
variety of graphic arts techniques applied to a variety of substrates.
Printing operations are included as one or more steps in the overall
manufacturing process for a wide variety of end products. Packaging and
product printing often makes up only a small part of the value of the
end product. For purposes of this rule, the EPA has defined the source
category as consisting of all facilities engaged in publication
rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printing.
D. Selection of Emission Points Covered by the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would limit organic HAP emissions that result
from publication rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and
wide-web flexographic printing. The standard applies to HAP present in
inks, ink extenders, solvents, coatings, varnishes, primers, adhesives,
and other materials applied on publication rotogravure and product and
packaging and wide-web flexographic presses. Emission points in the
publication rotogravure segment of the printing and publishing industry
include but are not limited to ink and solvent storage tanks, ink
mixing, printing, press and parts cleaning, proof and production
presses and solvent recovery. Within the product/package rotogravure
and wide-web flexography industry the standard applies to inks and all
other materials applied with rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
printing presses.
A discussion of the rationale for including or excluding basic
processes from this proposed rule is given below.
1. Operations for Which Standards Are Being Proposed
EPA is proposing organic HAP emission standards for rotogravure and
wide-web flexographic printing operations. Within the publication
rotogravure segment of the industry, all organic HAP emitting
operations are covered by the standard. Current industry practices
instituted for compliance with applicable regulations pertaining to VOC
emissions include accounting for solvent use on a facility-wide or
control system wide basis determined by a periodic liquid-liquid mass
balance. Organic HAP emissions at points other than production printing
presses are relatively minor compared to press emissions. These
operations, including ink storage and mixing, parts cleaning and proof
presses can be controlled or uncontrolled provided that the overall
facility or control system meets the proposed standard. Based on
information provided by all U.S. publication rotogravure facilities,
there are readily available techniques to achieve substantial organic
HAP emissions reduction from the presses. Adequate information is
available to establish MACT for these facilities.
Within the product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printing segment of the industry, emission of organic HAP
from rotogravure and flexographic presses is covered.
Based on the information obtained from the industry in response to
information collection requests, in addition to information provided
voluntarily and during meetings with industry trade organizations,
there are several readily available techniques (including carbon
adsorption and thermal and catalytic incineration) to achieve
substantial emission reductions in these operations. While inks and
other materials containing organic HAP are being used at many
facilities, alternative formulations containing no organic HAP, or very
low concentrations of organic HAP are available for many specific
applications. Adequate information exists for establishing MACT for
capture and control devices and for alternate low-HAP formulations.
2. Excluded Operations
a. Inorganic HAP Emissions. Inorganic HAP are present in pigments
and film forming components of some inks. These components make up less
than 1 percent of the total HAP content of the materials. These
components remain on the substrate for the life of the publication,
product or package and are not expected to be emitted to the air.
b. Non-press Operations at Product and Packaging Rotogravure and
Wide-web Flexographic Printing Facilities. Operations related to press
and parts cleaning, proof presses, ink mixing and
[[Page 13678]] storage, film lamination and flexographic platemaking
have the potential to emit organic HAP. Organic HAP emissions from
these operations make up only a small fraction of HAP emissions from
the presses. Very few data are available regarding the extent of
emissions from these sources and applicable control techniques.
Adequate information is not available to establish MACT for these
potential emission points.
EPA is not proposing regulations at this time pertaining to off-
line rotogravure coating because these emission points will be covered
in a future standard for ``Paper and Other Web Coating''.
c. Narrow-web Flexography. Thousands of narrow web flexographic
printing facilities exist which primarily print tags and labels. No
major sources of this type have been identified based on a search of
the Toxic Release Inventory System, and it is unlikely that there are
any such facilities. Very few data are available regarding the extent
of emissions from these sources and applicable control techniques.
Narrow web flexographic printing facilities are typically very small
and predominantly use low HAP, low VOC inks. Adequate information is
not available to establish MACT for these potential emission points.
E. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Rule
Section 112 of the Act defines a major source as any stationary
source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area
and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit
considering controls, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) or more of any one HAP or 22.7
Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of any combination of HAP. The Act states that
new major sources must achieve the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT), which is the level of emission control already
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The Act
further states that emission standards promulgated for existing sources
may be less stringent than standards for new sources; however,
standards for existing sources must not be less stringent than the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of the existing sources.
For all operations being covered by the proposed rule, the EPA has
determined that, taking into account nonair quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy impacts, MACT is equal to the MACT
floors for both existing and new sources. In addition, MACT for new
sources was found to be equal to MACT for existing sources. The EPA has
determined that no further emission reductions can be achieved for new
sources through the use of demonstrated technology than the level of
reduction represented by MACT for existing sources.
To evaluate the regulatory alternatives, model plants were
developed based on market segment (publication rotogravure, package and
product rotogravure and wide-web flexography), and size. These
characteristics were examined to determine whether any technological
justification existed to differentiate the proposed standards by market
segment or size. Based on this examination, the EPA has decided that
different market segments operate in different ways and that there is
justification to differentiate between the two market segments
identified on the basis of these characteristics. No compelling reasons
were identified as to why a facility of one size could not incorporate
the technology used by a facility of another size.
1. Publication Rotogravure.
Data were obtained from all of the 27 U. S. publication rotogravure
facilities. All of the control systems employ activated carbon based
solvent recovery systems. All facilities calculate overall efficiencies
on the basis of liquid-liquid mass balances. All facilities use toluene
based ink systems, although some facilities have replaced a portion of
the toluene with non-HAP organic solvents. Waterborne ink systems are
not technically feasible at this time for the high quality, high speed
printing which these facilities produce.
The average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 5
facilities was 92 percent. This limitation is based on the level of
control achieved in each of twelve monthly material balances at the 5
plants with the best annual solvent recovery rates. The solvent
recovery data were analyzed on a plantwide basis. Some facilities
operated more than one solvent recovery system and it was not possible
to reliably isolate the individual systems. Annual average emission
limitations were higher, and facilities meeting the standard each and
every month will achieve annual emissions limitations of 92 percent or
greater.
To achieve 92 percent solvent recovery each month, a facility may
need a permanent total enclosure and an efficient solvent recovery
system. No more efficient alternative technologies are available.
Higher solvent recovery rates may not be achievable on a consistent
basis due to month-to-month variations in solvent accounting and due to
solvent retention in the printed substrate. Therefore the floor for new
sources was determined to be the same as the floor for existing sources
and no more stringent regulatory alternatives were found to exist.
2. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography
Data were obtained from approximately 103 product and package
rotogravure printing facilities, and approximately 500 wide-web
flexographic facilities. Industry representatives believe that there
are approximately 400 product and package rotogravure facilities
operating in the U.S. There are approximately 800 wide-web flexographic
printing facilities in the United States. Different types of
incinerators and solvent recovery systems were operated by 146 of the
reporting facilities. The balance of the facilities had no control
device. In all cases where control devices were in operation, they were
designed and operated to control VOC emissions. It is assumed that the
performance of these control devices with respect to VOC and organic
HAP is equivalent.
The same types of control devices and capture systems were
generally applicable even though the materials applied, products,
substrates, and web widths of the controlled presses varied
considerably. The overall control efficiency data for the facilities
with the greatest emissions limitations were generally provided based
on tests conducted to comply with permit conditions. Where permanent
total enclosures were in place, capture efficiencies of 100 percent
were assumed and tests across control devices were conducted. The
emissions limitation achieved by the average of the best controlled 12
percent of the facilities was 95 percent.
To achieve 95 percent control of organic HAP a facility may need to
operate a permanent total enclosure and an efficient control device. At
present there are no technologies which can consistently achieve a
greater overall control efficiency than this. For this reason, the
floor for new sources was determined to be equal to the floor for
existing sources and no more stringent regulatory alternatives were
found to exist.
F. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Rule
Emission standards for control of HAP have been prescribed in
accordance with section 112(d) of the Act. Where control devices are in
place, emissions standards are proposed on the basis of
[[Page 13679]] overall efficiency, taking into account both capture and
control device efficiencies.
To encourage the use of non-HAP materials in the publication
rotogravure industry as an alternative to toluene (and ethylbenzene and
xylene) based materials, an alternate means of compliance allows credit
for 100 percent recovery of that portion of the solvent which is
replaced with non-HAP compounds. Thus, a facility achieving 90 percent
overall efficiency, using a solvent system which is 70 percent toluene
and 30 percent non-HAP solvent would comply on the basis of an
equivalent emissions limitation of 93 percent.
Based on the potential HAP content of the materials applied by the
best controlled 12 percent of the product and package rotogravure and
wide-web flexographic printing facilities, alternate standards were
proposed yielding equivalent emissions limitations. Sources applying
materials containing 0.20 kg organic HAP or less per kg of solids
applied on package and product rotogravure and wide-web flexographic
presses will not be required to operate a control device to comply with
the standard. Facilities operating systems with overall efficiencies
less than 95 percent would be able to comply by limiting the HAP
content of the inks, coatings, primers, adhesives, solvents, and other
materials applied such that the HAP emissions from the affected source
are 0.20 kg per kg of solids applied or less.
Certain press lines are used to apply low solids materials which
contain relatively low proportion of organic HAP relative to the mass
of material applied. Sources applying materials containing 0.04 kg
organic HAP per kg of material applied will not be required to operate
a control device to comply with the standard.
G. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements
1. Emission Test Methods
In addition to the specific test methods described below for
affected sources, the proposed rule adopts the provisions specified in
40 CFR 63.7.
a. Publication Rotogravure. Where a carbon adsorber is used, the
EPA is proposing to use a mass balance procedure for determining the
overall control efficiency. The proposed rule contains procedures as
specified in 40 CFR 60.433 for using a mass balance approach that would
calculate the amount of organic HAP and VOC applied and the amount
recovered. This information would then be used to calculate the overall
control efficiency of the carbon adsorber.
In determining compliance with the alternate standard for sources
that have substituted non-HAP VOC for a portion of the HAP in their
ink, the EPA is proposing that Method 24A be used for determining the
volatile matter content. This is a long-standing method for such
determinations. This determination may be conducted by the manufacturer
and provided to the owner or operator. The EPA is proposing that the
organic HAP content level be determined by proposed EPA Method 311.
This method was proposed (see Solicitation of Comments) as part of the
NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations on December 6, 1994
(59 FR 62652). The EPA requests comment on the suitability of Method
311 for determination of HAP used in the printing industry.
b. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography. If
control devices (e.g., incinerators, carbon adsorbers) are used the
proposed standards require them to achieve an overall control
efficiency of at least 95 percent, or a HAP emission limitation of no
more than 0.20 kg HAP per kg solids applied. It is necessary,
therefore, to identify the capture efficiency of the capture system,
the destruction or recovery efficiency of the control device, and,
where feasible, operational parameters that would be monitored to
ensure continuous compliance. The proposed standards also include
provisions for determining the capture and removal efficiencies. The
test methods and procedures being proposed for determining the capture
and removal efficiencies are those that are typical for control
devices.
The EPA is proposing that capture efficiency be determined by one
of two methods depending on whether or not the capture system is a
permanent total enclosure or not. A permanent total enclosure would be
verified according to the provisions specified in 40 CFR 52.741,
appendix B, Procedure T (and, thus would have a capture efficiency of
100 percent). The capture efficiency of all other systems would be
determined according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR
52.741(a)(4)(iii).
The EPA is proposing that the removal efficiency of a control
device be determined based on three runs, each run lasting one hour.
Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, would be
used for selection of the sampling sites, and the gas volumetric flow
rate would be determined using Methods 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, as appropriate. Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, would then be used to measure either the organic
concentration or the total organic HAP concentration before and after
the control device. Alternatively, any other test method or data that
has been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301
of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, may be used.
Owners or operators complying with the standard on the basis of
average HAP content of materials applied on the press would be required
to determine the HAP content of each material applied. The EPA is
proposing that the organic HAP content level be determined by proposed
EPA Method 311. This method was proposed (see Solicitation of Comments)
as part of the NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations on
December 6, 1994 (59 FR 62652).
2. Monitoring Requirements
In accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of section 114 of the Act,
monitoring of stationary sources is required to determine the
compliance status of the sources, and whether compliance is continuous
or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of detecting
deviations from each applicable emission limitations or standard with
sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision, reliability,
frequency, and timeliness to determine if compliance is continuous
during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation satisfies
the requirements of enhanced monitoring.
For affected sources complying with the proposed standards through
the use of control devices, initial compliance is determined through
the initial compliance test, and ongoing compliance through continuous
monitoring. The EPA has proposed the parameters to be monitored for
certain types of control devices now used in the industry. The values
of these parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed
standards are set by the owner or operator during the initial
compliance test. If future monitoring indicates that control equipment
is operating outside of the range of values established during the
initial performance test, then the owner or operator is out of
compliance with the proposed standards, except as specified for
malfunctions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
Owners or operators using incinerators, and owners or operators
using solvent recovery systems and demonstrating compliance with
continuous emissions monitoring must identify the operating parameter
to be monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency measured during
the initial [[Page 13680]] compliance test is maintained, and conduct
monitoring of this parameter in accordance with the plan submitted with
the compliance status report. If future monitoring indicates that
capture system is operating outside of the range of values established
during the initial performance test, then the owner or operator is out
of compliance with the proposed standards, except as specified for
malfunctions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
a. Publication Rotogravure Sources Using Solvent Recovery Systems.
Publication rotogravure facilities operating solvent recovery systems
would be required to demonstrate continuing compliance by conducting a
liquid-liquid mass balance each and every month.
b. Other Sources Complying by Means of a Control Device. Product
and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic sources complying
by means of a solvent recovery system would be required to demonstrate
continuing compliance either through the use of continuous emission
monitors or by conducting a liquid-liquid mass balance each and every
month.
Sources complying through the use of a thermal incinerator would be
required to install, calibrate, operate and maintain a temperature
monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to monitor the
temperature in the combustion chamber downstream of the combustion
zone. Sources complying through the use of a catalytic incinerator
would be required to install, calibrate, operate and maintain a
temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder to
monitor the temperatures at the inlet to the catalyst bed and the
outlet from the catalyst bed.
The rationale for selecting the control device parameters for
thermal and catalytic incinerators in this proposed rule is long
standing, and for more information see the proposal notice for the
SOCMI reactor processes NSPS (55 FR 26966 through 26969, June 29,
1990). The EPA is, therefore, simply proposing to adopt the same
monitoring parameters as have been required for previous standards.
H. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
1. Recordkeeping
In addition to the specific recordkeeping requirements described
below for each affected source, the proposed rule adopts the provisions
specified in Sec. 63.10 (a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(5-8), (c)(10-15), (d)(1-
2), (d)(4-5), and (f). These were the only paragraphs from Sec. 63.10
that were considered to be applicable to the proposed rule.
Each owner or operator would be required to maintain records of
each applicability determination as described above in section II. A.,
each continuous monitoring system operated as described above in
section V. G., and each liquid-liquid mass balance as described above
in section V.
G. These Records Would Be Maintained in Accordance With the
Requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)
As called for by the General Provisions, each owner or operator of
an affected source would be required to develop a start-up, shut-down,
and malfunction plan, and keep it on record to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator for the life of the
affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to
the provisions of the proposed rule.
If an owner or operator of a product or packaging rotogravure or
wide-web flexographic source elects to comply on the basis of use of
low HAP materials, or on the basis on HAP emission limitation, the EPA
is proposing that records of the monthly mass-weighted average organic
HAP content for all inks, coatings, primers, adhesives, solvents and
other materials applied on the press be kept as well as all of the data
and calculations used to calculate these values. This would include the
mass and organic HAP content as applied of each material. This level of
information is required for an inspector to determine whether the
facility was in compliance and whether the proper data and calculations
were being used.
If a thermal or catalytic incinerator is used, each owner or
operator would be required to keep a record of the control device
operating parameters being monitored. Since for some control devices
compliance with the proposed standards is dependent on the control
device being operated properly, these records are necessary to
determine compliance. Specifically, a source would be out of compliance
if the recorded parameters were out of range. Thus, the EPA is
requiring these records for compliance determinations.
2. Reporting Requirements
In addition to the specific reporting requirements described below
for each affected source, the proposed rule adopts the provisions
specified in Sec. 63.9(a) through Sec. 63.9(e) and Sec. 63.9(g) through
Sec. 63.9(j) and Sec. 63.10 (a), (b), (d), and (f).
The proposed rule would require an owner or operator to submit the
following five types of reports:
(1) Initial notification,
(2) notification of performance tests and continuous emission
monitor evaluation periods,
(3) notification of compliance status,
(4) periodic reports, and
(5) other reports.
The purpose and contents of each of these reports are described in
this section. The wording of the proposed rule requires all reports to
be submitted to the ``Administrator.'' The term Administrator refers
either to the Administrator of the EPA, an EPA regional office, a state
agency, or another authority that has been delegated the authority to
implement this rule. In most cases, reports will be sent to state
agencies. Addresses are provided in the General Provisions of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A.
Records of reported information and other information necessary to
document compliance with the regulation are required to be kept for 5
years. As required under the General Provisions, the two most recent
years must be kept on-site; the other three years may be kept off-site.
Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and
monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the equipment.
a. Initial Notification. The proposed standards would require
owners or operators who are subject to this subpart to submit an
initial notification. As outlined in the General Provisions under
Sec. 63.9, this report serves two basic purposes: (1) Notifies the EPA
that an existing facility is subject to the proposed standards and (2)
notifies the EPA of the construction of a new facility. A respondent
must also report any facility modifications as defined in Sec. 63.5.
This report will include the mass of HAP used at the facility during
the previous twelve months, as well as the mass of HAP expected to be
used at the facility during the next twelve months.
This report will establish an early dialogue between the source and
the regulatory agency, allowing both to plan for compliance activities.
The notice is due no later than 120 days after the effective date of
the proposed standards. Under the proposed rule, the initial
notification is not required from any source that has submitted a
permit application under title V of the Act, provided that the permit
application has been submitted by the same due dates as for the initial
notification and that the state to which the permit application has
been submitted has a permit program in place and has received
delegation of authority from the EPA.
b. Notification of Performance Tests and Continuous Emission
Monitor [[Page 13681]] Evaluation Periods. As adopted through the
General Provisions, Sec. 63.7 and Sec. 63.9(g), owners or operators
would be required to notify the Administrator in advance of conducting
performance tests of control devices and evaluating continuous
emissions monitors.
c. Notification of Compliance Status. As adopted through the
General Provisions, owners or operators who are subject to this subpart
would be required to submit a notification of compliance status. This
report contains the information necessary to demonstrate that
compliance has been achieved, such as the results of performance tests,
and average organic HAP contents, as well as the methods that will be
used for determining continuing compliance as outlined under Sec. 63.9.
Another type of information to be included in the notification of
compliance status is the specific range of each monitored parameter for
each affected source, the rationale for why this range indicates
compliance with the emission standard, and whether each source has
operated within its designated operating parameters. The report would
be due within 60 days after the final compliance date as specified in
the General Provisions.
d. Periodic Reports. The EPA is proposing to adopt a standard basis
for submitting periodic reports for each of the operations for which
standards are being proposed. Semiannual reports would be required
whenever an operation was found to be in non-compliance or whenever a
monitored parameter exceeded its value. For example, for a publication
rotogravure source, a semiannual report would be triggered for any
monthly period covered by the semiannual report in which the overall
efficiency of the solvent recovery system failed to meet the standard.
Semiannual reports would also be required whenever a change
occurred at a facility that might affect a source's compliance status
or that introduces a new element to the operation that was required to
be reported in the notification of compliance status. For example,
conversion of a press requiring a control device to operate with low-
HAP materials would require monthly averaging of materials applied to
maintain compliance. This change in compliance status would trigger a
semiannual report. For operations that did not experience any
exceedances or changes, the EPA is proposing that annual reports be
submitted to this effect.
The EPA is proposing to adopt the above schedule of reporting
because it provides a fair balance between the need to know certain
information in a timely fashion and reduces the burden to industry and
provides consistency within this regulation. The following paragraphs
discuss in more detail the specific types of information to be included
in these various periodic reports. The information being requested is
that which the EPA believes is necessary in the enforcement of the
proposed rule.
(1) Sources Operating Solvent Recovery Systems. A semiannual report
would be required whenever a monthly liquid-liquid mass balance failed
to meet the standard. Owners or operators choosing to demonstrate
compliance using CEM would be required to submit a semiannual report
for any semiannual period in which the calculated average efficiency,
including capture efficiency and control device efficiency failed to
meet the standard during any three hour period.
(2) Sources Operating Thermal and Catalytic Incinerators. A
semiannual report would be required for any semiannual period when a
monitored temperature parameter, averaged over a three hour period,
falls outside its appropriate range during any three hour period. A
semiannual report would be required for any semiannual period when a
monitored site-specific capture system parameter, averaged over a three
hour period, falls outside its appropriate range during any three hour
period.
(3) Package and Product Rotogravure and Flexographic Sources
Complying by Means of Low-HAP Materials. A semiannual report would be
required for any semiannual period in which the materials applied, when
averaged over a monthly period, exceed the standard for organic HAP
content based on solids applied or on materials applied during any
month.
e. Other Reports. The only ``other reports'' in the proposed rule
are those that are required under the General Provisions, subpart A of
40 CFR part 63. Of particular note is the report required in response
to periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. When the procedures
used during such periods are completely consistent with the plan, a
report stating such is to be delivered or postmarked by the thirtieth
(30th) day following the end of each calendar half. If the procedures
are not completely consistent with the plan, an owner or operator is to
report the actions taken within 2 working days after commencing actions
inconsistent with the plan, followed by a letter within 7 working days
after the end of the event.
I. Selection of Compliance Deadline
The proposed standards would require the owner or operator of an
existing rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing operation to
comply with these standards within three years after they are
promulgated in the Federal Register. Section 63.7(a)(2) of the General
Provisions then allows a source 180 days after the compliance date to
demonstrate compliance through an initial performance test. A shorter
compliance time was not selected because the proposed timeframe is
necessary for those sources that will be required to install new
capture and/or control devices to purchase and install the equipment.
The proposed timeframe will also provide the greatest opportunity for
developing and adopting low HAP content materials. Administrative
procedures are established in Sec. 63.6(i) to implement compliance
extensions for existing sources that are unable to install controls by
the required compliance dates.
Owners or operators of new sources that commence construction after
the standards are proposed but before the standards are promulgated
will have to comply immediately upon startup, unless the promulgated
regulation is more strict than the proposed regulation. In accordance
with Section 112(i)(2) of the Act, if the promulgated standards are
more stringent than the proposed standards, the compliance date for
construction after proposal but before promulgation will be 3 years
after the promulgation date, provided the owner or operator complies
with the standards as proposed until the compliance date. The owner or
operator would then be required to conduct a performance test within
120 days after the compliance date. All other new sources will have to
comply with the proposed standards immediately upon startup.
J. Operating Permit Program
Under 40 CFR part 70, all major sources of HAP will be required to
obtain an operating permit. Emission limits, monitoring, and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements are typically scattered among numerous
provisions of State implementation plans (SIP's) or Federal
regulations. As discussed in the rule for the operating permit program,
this new permit program would include in a single document all of the
requirements that pertain to a single source. Once a state's permit
program has been approved, each printing and publishing facility that
is a major source within that state [[Page 13682]] must apply for and
obtain an operating permit. If the state wherein the printing and
publishing facility is located does not have an approved permitting
program, the owner or operator of a printing and publishing facility
must submit a part 71 permit application if requested under 40 CFR part
71.
K. Pollution Prevention Considerations
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 establishes the following
management hierarchy as national policy:
1. Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever
feasible;
2. Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
3. Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated
in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and
4. Disposal or other release into the environment should be
employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an
environmentally safe manner.
The Pollution Prevention Act considers ``source reduction'' a
fundamental aspect of pollution prevention. Source reduction is any
practice that reduces the amount of any hazardous substance entering
the waste stream or otherwise released into the environment prior to
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, or disposal. Practices such as
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal are not considered
pollution prevention measures under the Pollution Prevention Act.
The proposed rule provides strong incentives for pollution
prevention. Within the publication rotogravure segment, substitution of
non-HAP materials for organic HAP is encouraged by allowing sources to
claim credit for recovery of 100 percent of non-HAP volatile matter
(including water) used in the calculation of equivalent overall organic
HAP control efficiency.
Within the product and package rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic segments, use of non-HAP materials is encouraged by
expressing the overall organic HAP limitation in terms of kg of organic
HAP emitted per kg of solids applied. Use of low HAP materials
decreases the required overall control efficiency. If materials
averaging less than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied are used,
no control device is required. This provision makes the use of
waterborne materials without control devices feasible for most
applications.
L. Solicitation of Comments
The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any
aspect of the proposed standards, and on any statement in the preamble
or the referenced supporting documents. In particular, the
Administrator solicits comments on (1) The suitability of EPA Method
311 for determination of HAP in ink and other printing materials; (2)
the mechanism by which owners or operators may accept case-by-case
operating restrictions that would ensure that the potential to emit of
their facility does not exceed the major source threshold; and (3) the
effect of this regulation on effluent from industrial laundries.
The EPA Method 311 was proposed as part of the NESHAP for Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations on December 6, 1994 (59 FR 62652).
The comment period for the Wood Furniture NESHAP and Method 311 was
scheduled to close on February 21, 1995. On February 22, 1995 (60 FR
35), the comment period for the proposed Wood Furniture NESHAP was
extended to March 23, 1995 and the comment period for the proposed
Method 311 was extended to April 24, 1995. Persons who submit comments
on the suitability of Method 311 for determination of HAP in ink and
other printing materials in response to the proposed Printing and
Publishing Industry NESHAP should consider also submitting comments in
response to the proposed Method 311. For information on the address and
docket number for submitting comments on the proposed Method 311, see
the February 22, 1995 Federal Register notice.
The proposed standards were developed on the basis of information
available. The Administrator is specifically requesting factual
information that may support either the approach taken in the proposed
standards or an alternate approach. To receive proper consideration,
documentation or data should be provided.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act.
Persons wishing to make an oral presentation on the proposed standards
for printing and publishing should contact the EPA at the address given
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral presentations will be
limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a written
statement before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing. Written
statements should be addressed to the Air and Radiation Docket address
given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble, and should refer to
Docket No. A-92-42.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements
will be available for public inspection and copying during normal
working hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket in Washington, D.C.
(see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
B. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of
this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1)
To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate documents so
that they can intelligently and effectively participate in the
rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial
review (except for interagency review materials) (section 307(d)(7)(A)
of the Act).
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, OMB has notified EPA
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB
for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
[[Page 13683]]
D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership under Executive Order
12875
In compliance with Executive Order 12875 we have involved state,
local, and tribal governments in the development of this rule. State
and local air pollution control associations participated in work group
meetings and made comments which were incorporated in the proposed
rule.
E. 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. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1739.01) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401 M
Street SW., (2136), Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 251 hours per respondent for the first year after
the date of promulgation of the rule, including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA.'' The final rule will respond to
any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or RFA, Public Law 96-354,
September 19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special
consideration to the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA
specifies that a final regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared
if a proposed regulation will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. To determine whether a final RFA
is required, a screening analysis, otherwise known as an initial RFA,
is necessary.
Regulatory impacts are considered significant if:
(1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production by
more than 5 percent, or
(2) Annual compliance costs as a percent of sales are at least 20
percent higher for small entities, or
(3) Capital cost of compliance represent a significant portion of
capital available to small entities, or
(4) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in
closures of small entities.
A ``substantial number'' of small entities is generally considered
to be more than 20 percent of the small entities in the affected
industry.
In addition to the requirement above, the Agency requires a final
RFA if any small business impacts are attributed to a regulatory action
for any action initiated after April 1992. In this case, the regulatory
action began before April 1992, so the former RFA requirements are
pertinent.
Consistent with Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards,
a firm is classified as a small entity if it has less than 500
employees for most of the affected industries at the 4-digit SIC code
level, 750 for 3 affected industries at that level (2656--sanitary food
containers, 2657--folding paperboard boxes, and 3221--glass
containers), and 1,000 for 1 affected industry (3411--metal cans); and
is unaffiliated with a larger entity.
Using the information above, none of the firms in the publication
gravure sector are small. For the packaging and product gravure sector,
29 out of 60 firms, or 48.3 percent are classified as small. For the
flexographic sector, virtually all of the affected firms are small.
Data were available to examine all four of the criteria.
For the first criterion, the maximum increase in the total cost of
production from compliance with the standard is, on average, 1.4
percent for affected small entities. This is not a significant
increase. For the second, annual compliance costs as a percentage of
sales were calculated to be 9 percent higher for small entities, and
this is not significant. For the third criterion, the increase in costs
from compliance as a percentage of assets and as a percentage of equity
was negligible (less than 1 percent). For the fourth and final
criterion, no small firms are at risk of closure due to the standard.
In conclusion, and pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The basis for the certification is that the
economic impacts for small entities do not meet or exceed the criteria
in the Guidelines to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as shown
above. Further information on the initial RFA is available in the
background information document.
G. Clean Air Act Section 117
In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
The Administrator welcomes comment on all aspects of the proposed
regulation, including health, economic, technological, or other
aspects.
H. Regulatory Review
In accordance with sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the Act,
this regulation will be reviewed within 8 years from the date of
promulgation. This review may include an assessment of such factors as
evaluation of the residual health risk, any overlap with other
programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability,
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
VII. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42
U.S.C., 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard for
printing and publishing industry.
Dated: March 1, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-5983 Filed 3-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P