[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56493-56496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27142]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[Docket No. A-99-31; FRL-6459-3]
List of Source Categories
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of a complete petition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces that EPA has created a two-piece beer
and beverage can coating (two-piece can) subcategory within the Metal
Can (Surface Coating) source category. This notice also announces the
receipt of a complete petition from the Can Manufacturers' Institute
(CMI) requesting EPA to remove the two-piece can subcategory from the
List of Source Categories (Source Category List). The Source Category
List was developed pursuant to section 112(c)(1) of the Amendments to
the 1990 Clean Air Act (Act) and published in the Federal Register on
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).
We have determined that the original petition submittal by CMI,
dated November 4, 1996, plus the supplemental materials provided by CMI
through April 21, 1999, will support an assessment of the human health
impacts associated with hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from
two-piece can coating operations. In addition, the data submitted by
CMI will support an assessment of the environmental impacts associated
with HAP emissions from the two-piece can coating subcategory.
Consequently, we have concluded that CMI's petition is complete as of
April 21, 1999, the date
[[Page 56494]]
of the last supplement, and is ready for public comment and the
technical review phase of our delist petition evaluation process.
This notice invites the public to provide additional information,
beyond that filed in the petition, on sources, emissions, exposure,
health effects and environmental impacts associated with HAP emissions
from two-piece can coating operations that may be relevant to our
technical review.
DATES: Comments and additional data will be accepted if received on or
before November 19, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Documents. A copy of the complete petition is contained in a
docket available at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Office, 401 M Street SW, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket number for this action is A-99-31. You
may inspect the petition and copy it for offsite review between 8:30
a.m. and 5:30 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
Comments and Data Submissions. Comments and additional data should
be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: The Docket Clerk, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Office, 401 M Street SW, Room M-1500
(Mail Code 6102), Waterside Mall, Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Rimer, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone (919) 541-2962, electronic mail address: [email protected].
I. Introduction
A. What Are Hazardous Air Pollutants?
Hazardous air pollutants include a wide variety of organic and
inorganic substances released from large and small industrial
operations, fossil fuel combustion, gasoline and diesel-powered
vehicles, and many other sources. The HAPs have been associated with a
wide variety of adverse health effects, including cancer, neurological
effects, reproductive effects, and developmental effects. The health
effects associated with the various HAPs may differ depending upon the
toxicity of the individual HAP and the particular circumstances of
exposure, such as the amount of chemical present, the length of time a
person is exposed, and the stage in life of the person when the
exposure occurs. The list of HAPs can be found in section 112(b)(1) of
the Act. The HAPs list provides the basis for research, regulation, and
other related EPA activities under section 112 of the Act.
B. What Is the Source Category List?
Section 112(c) of the Act requires the EPA to publish a list of all
categories and subcategories of major and area sources of HAPs which
will be subject to regulation. A ``major source'' is any stationary
source (including all emission points and units located within a
contiguous area and under common control) of air pollution that has the
potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons or more per year of
any HAP, or 25 or more tons per year of any combinations of HAPs. An
``area source'' is a stationary source that emits HAPs in amounts less
than 10 or 25 tons per year. For an area source category to be listed,
the EPA must determine that the source category presents a threat to
human health or to the environment. Under section 112(d), the Act
requires EPA to establish national emission standards for source
categories based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for
major source categories and to set either MACT or generally available
control technology (GACT) standards for area source categories.
The EPA published the initial Source Category List in the Federal
Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576); you can find the most recent
update to the Source Category List in the February 12, 1998 Federal
Register (63 FR 7155).
C. What Is a Source Category Delist Petition?
A source category delist petition is a formal request to the EPA
from an individual or group to remove a specific source category from
the Source Category List. The removal of a source category from the
list eliminates it from consideration in EPA's program to promulgate
MACT standards.
Any group or person may petition the EPA to delete a source
category from the Source Category List. The Administrator must grant or
deny a petition within 12 months of receiving a complete petition.
Section 112(c)(9)(B) provides that the Administrator may delete a
source category from the Source Category List if she determines that no
source in the category:
1. Emits carcinogens in amounts that may result in a lifetime risk
of cancer exceeding one in a million to the individual most exposed;
2. Emits noncarcinogens in amounts that exceed an ample margin of
safety to protect the public health; and
3. Emits HAPs in amounts that will result in adverse environmental
effects.
The EPA will not grant a petition to delete a source category or
subcategory from the Source Category List pursuant to section
112(c)(9)(B) unless EPA makes an initial determination that each of the
statutory criteria appear to be met for each HAP emitted by each
individual source within the category or subcategory.
D. What Is a Subcategory?
A subcategory is a group of similar sources within a given source
category. As part of the regulatory development process, EPA evaluates
the similarities and differences between industry segments or groups of
facilities comprising a source category. Different source categories
may be evaluated and subcategorized in different ways.
In establishing subcategories, EPA considers factors such as
process operations (type of process, raw materials, chemistry/
formulation data, associated equipment, and final products); emission
characteristics (amount and type of HAP); control device applicability;
and opportunities for pollution prevention. The EPA may also look at
existing regulations or guidance from States and other regulatory
agencies in determining subcategories.
The Act does not expressly establish a process for deletion of a
subcategory from the Source Category List. However, EPA construes the
Act to permit petitions to delete a specified subcategory in those
instances where EPA has previously created such a subcategory within
the applicable source category.
E. How Does EPA Review a Petition To Delist a Source Category or
Subcategory?
The petition review process proceeds in two phases: a completeness
determination and a technical review. During the completeness
determination, we conduct a broad review of the petition to determine
whether or not all the necessary subject areas are addressed and
whether reasonable information and analyses are presented for each of
these subject areas. Once the petition is determined to be complete, we
place a notice of receipt of a complete petition in the Federal
Register and commence the technical review phase of our decision-making
process.
That Federal Register notice announcing receipt of a complete
petition also announces a public comment period on the petition. The
technical review involves a more thorough scientific review of the
petition to determine whether the data,
[[Page 56495]]
analyses, interpretations, and conclusions in the petition are
appropriate and technically sound. The technical review will also
determine whether or not the petition appears to satisfy the necessary
requirements of section 112(c)(9)(B) and to provide adequate support
for a decision to delist the source category or subcategory. All
comments and data submitted during the public comment period are
considered during the technical review.
The Agency considers the following information relevant to the
evaluation of any petition:
1. Identification of sources included in the source category;
2. Estimation of emissions from identified sources;
3. Estimation of ambient levels, either modeled or measured, of the
emitted HAPs;
4. Assessment of the toxicity of chemicals being released; and
5. Evaluation of the impact to humans, plants, and animals from
such emissions (e.g., cancer, noncancer effects, ecological effects).
F. How Is the Decision To Delist a Source Category or Sub-Category
Made?
The decision to either grant or deny a petition to delist a
category or subcategory is made after a comprehensive technical review
of both the petition and the information received from the public to
determine whether the petition appears to satisfy the requirements of
section 112(c)(9)(B) of the Act.
The EPA may modify the Source Category List without rulemaking in
instances where we conclude that a category or subcategory did not
originally meet or no longer meets the quantitative emission criteria
for inclusion on the list. However, in instances where we delete a
category or subcategory based on the risk criteria set forth in section
112(c)(9)(B), we have determined that it is appropriate to utilize
rulemaking procedures. Thus, if the Administrator decides to grant a
petition to delist a category or subcategory under this provision, EPA
will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.
That notice will propose to remove the source category or subcategory
from the Source Category List and present the reasoning for doing so.
However, if the Administrator decides to deny a petition under
section 112(c)(9)(B), an explanation of the reasons for denial will be
published instead. A notice of denial constitutes final Agency action
of nationwide scope and applicability and is subject to judicial review
as provided in section 307(b) of the Act.
II. Decision To Subcategorize
On November 4, 1996, we received a request from CMI to create a
two-piece beer and beverage can subcategory within the Metal Can
(Surface Coating) source category. We reviewed the request to
subcategorize and conducted our own analysis of existing metal can
manufacturing and surface coating operations. Based on the information
presented by CMI and on our analysis of the source category, we
determined that designating two-piece beer and beverage cans as a
subcategory was appropriate under the authority described below and for
the following reasons.
In general, we make the decision to establish subcategories within
a source category as part of the process of developing a MACT standard
applicable to that category. In establishing subcategories, we
typically consider factors such as process operations, emission
characteristics, control device applicability, and opportunities for
pollution prevention. For the two-piece aluminum beer and beverage can
subcategory of the metal can industry, the distinction is based
primarily on differences in the process operations (e.g., types of
coatings, inks and solvents used); associated process equipment; and
process configurations (e.g., overall process line size and facility
layout).
A two-piece beer and beverage can subcategory is consistent with
existing new source performance standards and control technology
guideline approaches. Subpart WW of 40 CFR part 63 addresses volatile
organic compound emissions (many of which are also listed as HAP) and
is specifically titled: ``Standards of Performance for the Beverage Can
Surface Coating Industry'' and defines beverage can as ``any two-piece
steel or aluminum container in which soft drinks or beer, including
malt liquor, are packaged'' and two-piece can as ``any beverage can
that consists of a body manufactured from a single piece of steel and
aluminum.''
Metal can surface coating operations are differentiated by the type
of product(s) stored inside the can which determine the types of
coatings applied to the interior/exterior surfaces of the can. The
manufacturing and coating processes equipment configuration within the
metal can industry segments are different in terms of configuration,
size, and complexity than other types of can manufacturing. None of the
61 two-piece beverage can facilities located in the U.S. produce other
types of cans. There are six facilities that have an ``ends'' (e.g.,
can tops with push/pull tab) line as part of the on-site manufacturing
operations, and there are three ``ends'' only facilities that produce
ends for two-piece beer and beverage cans. Can ``ends'' are not
included in this subcategory and will be addressed separately.
Our analysis of existing metal can manufacturing and surface
coating operations resulted in the decision to establish a subcategory
for two-piece aluminum beer and beverage cans. This subcategory
includes all coating; cleaning; and associated (i.e., storage, mixing,
transfer, handling, surface preparation (can washers), and wastewater)
operations related to can bodies, except ends.
As provided by section 112(e)(4), our decision to create the
specified subcategory is not a final Agency action and as such is not
reviewable at this time. The decision to create the specified
subcategory will be final and subject to review only at such time as we
decide to delete the subcategory or when we promulgate a MACT standard
applicable to the subcategory. In the event that we decide to deny the
present petition to delist this subcategory, we may reconsider our
decision on subcategorization during subsequent development of a MACT
standard for the Metal Can (surface coating) category.
III. Completeness Determination and Request for Public Comment
On November 4, 1996, the CMI submitted a petition to remove the
two-piece can subcategory from the Source Category List. The EPA
reviewed the initial petition to delete the subcategory and determined
that additional information was needed on several of the HAPs emitted
by this subcategory in order for the petition to be complete. The
petitioner submitted additional documents from 1997 through April 1999
to address the information gaps.
After reviewing all of the supplemental information, we determined
that the essential subject areas had been addressed, and that the
petition is complete and ready for technical review. The EPA has
therefore determined that the petition was complete as of the date of
the last supplemental submission on April 21, 1999. The EPA must act to
grant or deny this petition within 12 months from that date. The EPA
has begun its comprehensive technical review of the CMI petition. We
invite interested members of the public to submit any additional
information which may be relevant to our analysis of whether the
statutory criteria for delisting are met.
[[Page 56496]]
IV. Description of the Petition
The complete petition provided by CMI contains the following
information: A. Identification of 16 HAPs emitted from the two-piece
can subcategory (Table 1). The petition provides more detailed
information and analysis on ethylene glycol butyl ether (EGBE) and
formaldehyde than on the other HAPs. The petitioner provides more data
on EGBE due to the fact that it is the HAP emitted in highest
quantities, and more on formaldehyde because it is a probable human
carcinogen emitted in moderate quantities.
Table 1.--Identification of HAPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical
abstract
HAP service
registry No.
(CASRN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE).................. 111-76-2
Formaldehyde............................................ 50-00-0
Diethylene glycol butyl ether (DGBE).................... 112-34-5
Diethylene glycol ethyl ether (DGEE).................... 111-90-0
Diethylene glycol hexyl ether (DGHE).................... 112-59-4
Ethylene glycol hexyl ether (EGHE)...................... 112-25-4
Benzene................................................. 71-43-2
Ethyl benzene........................................... 100-41-4
Ethylene oxide.......................................... 75-21-8
Hydrogen fluoride....................................... 7664-39-3
Methanol................................................ 67-56-1
Methyl isobutyl ketone.................................. 108-10-1
Propylene oxide......................................... 75-56-9
Styrene................................................. 100-42-5
Toluene................................................. 108-88-3
Xylenes................................................. 1330-20-7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. For each HAP, the petitioner provides summaries of and
references for qualitative and quantitative human health effects
information based on data from EPA, the State of California and from
industry. For EGBE and formaldehyde, CMI presents analyses of human
health effects studies.
C. The petition includes emissions estimates for all HAPs listed in
Table 1 and identifies the route of exposure of potential concern as
being air. To assess maximum off-site air concentrations of HAPs, CMI
uses a tiered modeling approach described in a 1992 EPA document, ``A
Tiered Approach for Assessing Risks due to Emissions of Hazardous Air
Pollutants'' (EPA-450/4-92-001). Tiered modeling involves the use of
successive modeling techniques to move from conservative ``worst case''
estimates of the ambient concentrations of a substance emitted from a
source toward more realistic site specific estimates of the ambient
concentrations.
D. For all identified HAPs, the petitioner provides numerical
estimates of risks to humans.
E. The CMI's ecological assessment addresses whether HAP emissions
are likely to result in adverse environmental effects. The analysis and
discussion consider emission levels, atmospheric fate, biodegradation
and bioconcentration, and conclude that all HAP emissions from this
subcategory are unlikely to have an adverse effect on aquatic biota,
terrestrial wildlife, or other natural resources. To support this
position, the petitioner uses as its principle source of information
the EPA's Hazardous Substances Database. For EGBE, CMI provides
additional information; an ecological analysis for EGBE which was also
submitted to the Agency under the petition to remove EGBE from the HAP
list. The petitioner combines that analysis with a discussion of
potential adverse impacts of EGBE from two-piece can operations and
finds that adverse environmental effects are unlikely to occur as a
result of EGBE emissions from the subcategory.
F. The petition includes an uncertainty analysis which considers
emissions projections, emissions modeling, exposure analysis, mixtures
and co-location of facilities.
The petition states that the data and parameters employed in each
step of risk assessment embody some degree of uncertainty that could
affect the conclusions drawn. The petitioner has attempted to reduce
the likelihood of underestimation by using upper bound estimates,
parameters and assumptions which result in maximum exposure estimates
that do not exceed a health-based exposure limit for any emitted HAP.
To further reduce the likelihood of underestimating risks, the petition
considers additivity by summing the potential impacts of all of the
emitted noncarcinogens and by summing potential impacts of all emitted
carcinogens.
Dated: October 8, 1999.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 99-27142 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P