[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49382-49433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19101]
[[Page 49381]]
Vol. 84
Thursday,
No. 182
September 19, 2019
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 49382]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416; FRL-9999-14-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU22
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting
the residual risk and technology review (RTR) of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Paper and Other
Web Coating (POWC) source category that is required under the Clean Air
Act (CAA). We are proposing to find the risks due to emissions of air
toxics to be acceptable from this source category and that the current
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
Further, we identified no new cost-effective controls under the
technology review that would achieve significant further emissions
reductions, and, thus, are proposing to find that no revisions are
necessary based on developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies. In addition to performing the RTR, we are proposing
certain amendments to the POWC NESHAP. Specifically, the EPA is
proposing to add a compliance demonstration equation that accounts for
retained volatiles in the web coating; to amend provisions addressing
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); to add repeat
testing and electronic reporting requirements; and to make technical
and editorial changes. The EPA is proposing these amendments to improve
the effectiveness of the NESHAP.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 4,
2019. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before October 21, 2019.
Public hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before September 24, 2019, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document and posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
information on requesting and registering for a public hearing.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0416, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0416 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-
Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (Mail Code E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3158; fax
number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: [email protected]. For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email
address: [email protected]. For questions about monitoring and
testing requirements, contact Mr. Barrett Parker, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (Mail Code D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5635; fax
number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public hearing. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832
or by email at [email protected] to request a public hearing, to
register to speak at the public hearing, or to inquire as to whether a
public hearing will be held.
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416. All documents in the docket are
listed in Regulations.gov. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
Regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334,
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. This
[[Page 49383]]
type of information should be submitted by mail as discussed below.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416.
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DGME diethylene glycol monoethyl ether
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.5.5
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and
bioaccumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
POM polycyclic organic matter
POWC paper and other web coating
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QA quality assurance
RBLC Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best Available Control
Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TCE trichloroethylene
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
U.S.C. United States Code
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
[[Page 49384]]
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. This proposed action will not
affect federal, state, local, and tribal government entities. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source
Category List, Final Report (see EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the POWC
source category is any facility engaged in the coating of paper,
plastic film, metallic foil, and other web surfaces. The category may
include, but is not limited to, decorative coatings on gift wraps or
packaging. The source category does not include printing operations
covered under the Printing and Publishing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart KK).
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper and Other Web Coating..... Paper and Other 322220, 322121,
Web Coating. 326113, 326112,
325992, 327993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards
for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards and the second stage involves evaluating those
standards that are based on maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) to determine whether additional standards are needed to address
any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is
commonly referred to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to
the residual risk review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review
standards set under CAA section 112 every 8 years to determine if there
are ``developments in practices, processes, or control technologies''
that may be appropriate to incorporate into the standards. This review
is commonly referred to as the ``technology review.'' When the two
reviews are combined into a single rulemaking, it is commonly referred
to as the ``risk and technology review.'' The discussion that follows
identifies the most relevant statutory sections and briefly explains
the contours of the methodology used to implement these statutory
requirements. A more comprehensive discussion appears in the document
titled CAA Section 112 Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority
and Methodology, in the docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that the technology-based
NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice
[[Page 49385]]
standards where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical
emission standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the
EPA discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). For source categories subject to MACT standards,
section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. Section 112(d)(5) of the CAA provides that this
residual risk review is not required for categories of area sources
subject to GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further
expressly preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for
developing standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's
interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions
from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene
Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA
notified Congress in the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use
the Benzene NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently
adopted this approach in its residual risk determinations and the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2)
incorporates the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083
(D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must determine the emissions
standards necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable level without
considering costs. In the second step of the approach, the EPA
considers whether the emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health ``in consideration of all health
information, including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health or determine that the standards being
reviewed provide an ample margin of safety without any revisions. After
conducting the ample margin of safety analysis, we consider whether a
more stringent standard is necessary to prevent, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the maximum
level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less often than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. NRDC v. EPA, 529
F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Association of Battery Recyclers,
Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost
in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The POWC source category includes new and existing facilities that
coat paper and other web substrates that are major sources of HAP
emissions. For purposes of the regulation, a web is defined as a
continuous substrate that is capable of being rolled at any point
during the coating process. Further, a web coating line is any number
of work stations, of which one or more applies a continuous layer of
coating material along the entire width of a continuous web substrate
or any portion of the width of the web substrate, and any associated
curing/drying equipment between an unwind (or feed) station and a
rewind (or cutting) station. Web coating operations covered by other
MACT standards (i.e., Printing and Publishing, 40 CFR part 63, subpart
KK; Magnetic Tape, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EE; Metal Coil Coating, 40
CFR part 63, subpart SSSS; Fabric Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart
OOOO), and research and development lines are excluded. In addition,
specific process exclusions include lithography, screen printing,
letterpress, and narrow web flexographic printing.
All the coating lines at a subject facility are defined as one
affected source. An existing source means any affected source of which
the construction or reconstruction commenced on or before September 13,
2000, and has not since undergone reconstruction. Generally, an
additional line at an existing facility is considered part of the
existing affected source. New affected sources are new lines installed
at new facilities or at a facility with no prior POWC operations.
Affiliated operations such as coating formulation, mixing, handling,
and storage of coatings and solvent, and conveyance and treatment of
wastewater are defined as ``affiliated equipment'' and are part of the
POWC source category but have no requirements in the existing rule.
This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a
technology review of the emission sources subject to the POWC NESHAP.
Facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP must utilize low-solvent
coatings, add-on controls, or a combination of both to meet the organic
HAP emission limits described below:
No more than 5 percent of the organic HAP applied for each
month (95-percent reduction) at existing affected sources, and no more
than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied for each month (98-percent
reduction) at new affected sources;
No more than 4 percent of the mass of coating materials
applied for each month at existing affected sources, and no more than
1.6 percent of the mass of coating materials applied for each month at
new affected sources;
No more than 20 percent of the mass of coating solids
applied for each month at existing affected sources, and no more than 8
percent of the coating solids applied for each month at new affected
sources; or
If an oxidizer is used to control organic HAP emissions,
the oxidizer must be operated such that an outlet organic HAP
concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
by compound on a dry basis is achieved and the efficiency of the
capture system is 100 percent.
The NESHAP also includes various operating limits, initial and
continuous
[[Page 49386]]
compliance requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for the POWC source category. We reviewed these requirements and are
proposing to update them as part of this action in conjunction with
conducting the RTR for this source category.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The EPA collected data from several environmental databases that
included information pertaining to POWC facilities in the United
States. The primary databases were the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance
History Online (ECHO) database, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2011 and 2014 (versions 1 and
2). Title V operating permits were obtained from states that have
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. See the memorandums
titled Determination of Facilities Subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ, Paper and Other Web Coating and Preparation of POWC Risk Inputs
File, in the docket for this rulemaking for more information on the
review of these databases (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
Additionally, the EPA conducted several site visits to better
understand POWC processes and how the NESHAP is implemented. Trip
reports drafted from these site visits are available in the docket for
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). EPA did not use
its authority under CAA section 114 to request additional information
from POWC facilities.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
In addition to the ECHO, TRI, and NEI databases, the EPA reviewed
the additional information sources listed below and consulted with
stakeholders regulated under the POWC NESHAP to determine if there have
been developments in practices, processes, or control technologies.
These include:
Permit limits and selected compliance options from permits
collected from state agencies;
Information on air pollution control options in the POWC
industry from the Reasonably Available Control Technology/Best
Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
Clearinghouse (RBLC);
Information on the most effective ways to control
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and volatile organic HAP
from sources in various industries, including the POWC industry;
Communication with trade groups and associations
representing industries in the affected NAICS categories and their
members; and
Review of on-line information on trade group and
association sites and sites of relevant publications.
III. Analytical Procedures and Decision-Making
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
action.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for an adverse environmental effect. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comments on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential HAP
exposure concentration to the noncancer dose-response value; the HI
is the sum of HQs for HAP that affect the same target organ or organ
system.
[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration of
multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of non-cancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risk. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes an MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. In other words, risks that include
an MIR above 100-in-1 million may be determined to be acceptable, and
risks with an MIR below that level may be determined to be
unacceptable, depending on all of the available health information.
Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA
stated in the Benzene NESHAP that: ``EPA believes the relative weight
of the many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin
of safety can only be determined for each specific source category.
This occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along
with the health-related factors) vary from source category to source
category.'' Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated
with the various risk analyses, as discussed
[[Page 49387]]
earlier in this preamble, in our determinations of acceptability and
ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify the HAP risk that may be associated with emissions
from other facilities that do not include the source category under
review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions, persistent
environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in the vicinity
of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risk, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in an increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Recommendations of the SAB Risk and Technology Review
Methods Panel are provided in their report, which is available at:
https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA incorporates
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this action. The Agency (1) conducts facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combines exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzes the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments consider aggregate cancer risk from all
carcinogens and aggregated noncancer HQs for all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ or target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risk in the context of total HAP risk from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Estimates of total HAP risk from emission
sources other than those that we have studied in depth during this RTR
review would have significantly greater associated uncertainties than
the source category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or
cumulative assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the
assessments too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, we analyze their technical feasibility,
estimated costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental
impacts. We also consider the emission reductions associated with
applying each development. This analysis informs our decision of
whether it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards. In
addition, we consider the appropriateness of applying controls to new
sources versus retrofitting existing sources. For this exercise, we
consider any of the following to be a ``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in our investigation of
potential practices, processes, or controls to consider. See sections
II.C and II. D of this preamble for information on the specific data
sources that were reviewed as part of the technology review.
C. How do we estimate post-MACT risk posed by the source category?
In this section, we provide a complete description of the types of
analyses that we generally perform during the risk assessment process.
In some cases, we do not perform a specific analysis because it is not
relevant. For example, in the absence of emissions of HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment (PB-HAP), we would
not perform a multipathway exposure assessment. Where we do not perform
an analysis, we state that we do not and provide the reason. While we
present all of our risk assessment methods, we only present risk
assessment results for the analyses actually conducted (see section
IV.B of this preamble).
The EPA conducts a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risk
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for an adverse environmental effect. The seven sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper
and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess risk (as
described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent with those
described by the EPA in the document reviewed by a panel of the EPA's
SAB
[[Page 49388]]
in 2009; \4\ and described in the SAB review report issued in 2010.
They are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in that
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement
Manufacturing, June 2009. EPA-452/R-09-006. https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
The facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP were identified primarily
by using the ECHO and TRI databases. Review of title V permits and
discussions with state agencies and stakeholders helped to refine the
preliminary list to the final list of 168 facilities subject to the
regulation. The effort to identify facilities subject to the POWC
NESHAP is described in detail in the memorandum titled Determination of
Facilities Subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, Paper and Other Web
Coating, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416). As described in the memorandum, Preparation of POWC Risk
Inputs File, eight of the identified facilities had source category HAP
emissions of zero. These facilities are subject to the POWC NESHAP
because they are major sources of HAP for another source category, even
though their web coating operations do not utilize any HAP-containing
coatings. For example, a paper towel core production line might use a
glue the does not contain any HAP, but the operation is co-located at a
pulp mill, which is a major source of HAP, therefore, the coating
operations are subject to the POWC NESHAP. As a result of the eight
facilities without HAP emissions, a total of 160 facilities were
included in the source-category risk assessment modeling input file.
The communications with state agencies and stakeholders regarding
development of the facility list and the risk input file are documented
in the memorandum titled Communications Regarding the Development of
the Subpart JJJJ Facility List and Risk Modeling File, in the docket
for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
Emissions data for facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP were
gathered primarily from the 2011 and 2014 NEI (versions 1 and 2),
supplemented by the TRI. The NEI is a database that contains
information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants, their
precursors, and HAP. The NEI database includes estimates of actual
annual air pollutant emissions from point and volume sources; emission
rate characteristic data such as emission release height, temperature,
stack diameter, exit gas velocity, and exit gas flow rate; and
locational latitude/longitude coordinates. We compared the NEI data for
each facility to title V permits to determine which emission points
listed in the NEI were subject to the POWC NESHAP. We then performed
quality assurance (QA) checks and made corrections when data were
missing from the NEI or appeared to be incorrect. For example, if the
exit gas flow rate for an emission point was missing, we calculated
this release characteristic using the stack velocity and cross-
sectional area of the stack. Each correction we made is discussed in
the memorandum, Preparation of POWC Risk Inputs File, in the docket for
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). The QA procedures
and tools used are described in the memorandum titled QA Procedures and
Criteria Used in Residual Risk Modeling Input File Development, in the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions allowed under the MACT standards are referred
to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions. We discussed the consideration
of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the final Coke Oven
Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and in the proposed
and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTR (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and
71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In those actions, we
noted that assessing the risk at the MACT-allowable level is inherently
reasonable since that risk reflects the maximum level facilities could
emit and still comply with national emission standards. We also
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044, September
14, 1989.)
Initially, we reviewed permits for available allowable HAP
emissions information, and two facilities were found to have allowable
HAP emissions limits specified for POWC NESHAP emission sources. For
these two facilities, MACT-allowable emissions were assumed to be equal
to the allowable HAP emissions limits contained in the permits.
Allowable emissions were not available for the remainder of the
emission units in the POWC dataset. Although some permits listed
overall plant HAP emission limits, most did not break down allowable
HAP emissions by process. Therefore, we developed a POWC category
allowable emissions multiplier to estimate allowable emissions based on
actual emissions.
Allowable emissions are emissions that can be emitted from an
emission unit and still comply with the POWC NESHAP. Because the format
of the POWC NESHAP emission standards are in a HAP-percent of mass of
coating applied, it is difficult to determine the allowable HAP
emissions without production and coating HAP content information for
each facility. Coatings sales information and industry capacity
utilization were the only information readily available to estimate
allowable emissions for this source category. A description of the
methodology used to estimate allowable emissions follows.
According to chapter 18 of the American Coatings Association 9th
Edition Market Analysis (2014-2019), the volume of paper, paperboard,
film, and foil coating shipments are forecast to increase at an annual
rate of 2 percent per year. This implies that the demand for paper and
other web coated products, as well as the capacity utilization at the
facilities producing the materials, continues to increase. For the
primary NAICS codes associated with the facilities in the risk input
file, the capacity utilization rate was obtained from the U.S. Census
Bureau's Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization for 5 years
(2013-2017). All POWC NAICS codes and years were utilized to determine
a 5-year average plant capacity utilization rate (71.3 percent).
Because the sector continues to grow, and additional production
information is not available, we estimate that the maximum allowable
emissions will occur at 100-percent production capacity utilization. A
ratio of the maximum possible capacity utilization (100 percent) to the
5-year average capacity utilization (71.3 percent) results in an
allowable multiplier of 1.4. Thus, allowable emissions for the majority
of emission points in the risk input file were estimated by multiplying
the actual emissions by 1.4. A more detailed description of the
estimation of allowable emissions for the POWC source category is
described in the memorandum, Preparation of POWC
[[Page 49389]]
Risk Inputs File, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
3. How do we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risk?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risk from the source category addressed in this action were
estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3).\5\ The HEM-3 performs
three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting dispersion
modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2)
estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals
residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources, and (3)
estimating individual and population-level inhalation risk using the
exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For more information about HEM-3, go to https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-human-exposure-model-hem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\6\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \7\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risk. These are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\7\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we use the
estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP emitted
by each source in the source category. The HAP air concentrations at
each nearby census block centroid located within 50 km of the facility
are a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for
all the people who reside in that census block. A distance of 50 km is
consistent with both the analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP
(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the limitations of Gaussian
dispersion models, including AERMOD.
For each facility, we calculate the MIR as the cancer risk
associated with a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per
week, 52 weeks per year, 70 years) exposure to the maximum
concentration at the centroid of each inhabited census block. We
calculate individual cancer risk by multiplying the estimated lifetime
exposure to the ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is
an upper-bound estimate of an individual's incremental risk of
contracting cancer over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1
microgram of the pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk
assessments, we generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS
values, we look to other reputable sources of cancer dose-response
values, often using California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In
cases where new, scientifically credible dose-response values have been
developed in a manner consistent with EPA guidelines and have undergone
a peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risk are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
To estimate individual lifetime cancer risks associated with
exposure to HAP emissions from each facility in the source category, we
sum the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \8\ emitted by the
modeled facility. We estimate cancer risk at every census block within
50 km of every facility in the source category. The MIR is the highest
individual lifetime cancer risk estimated for any of those census
blocks. In addition to calculating the MIR, we estimate the
distribution of individual cancer risks for the source category by
summing the number of individuals within 50 km of the sources whose
estimated risk falls within a specified risk range. We also estimate
annual cancer incidence by multiplying the estimated lifetime cancer
risk at each census block by the number of people residing in that
block, summing results for all of the census blocks, and then dividing
this result by a 70-year lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
classifies carcinogens as: ``carcinogenic to humans,'' ``likely to
be carcinogenic to humans,'' and ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential.'' These classifications also coincide with
the terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risk of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risk is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ or target organ
system to obtain a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by
the chronic noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected
from one of several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-
response value is the EPA RfC, defined as ``an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of
deleterious effects during a lifetime'' (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary). In cases where an RfC
from the EPA's IRIS is not available or where the EPA determines that
using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic noncancer
dose-response value can be a value from the following prioritized
sources, which define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA:
(1) The Agency for Toxic
[[Page 49390]]
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference
Exposure Level (REL) (https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3) as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-response
value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA
guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that used
by the EPA. The pollutant-specific dose-response values used to
estimate health risks are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
c. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, the EPA makes
conservative assumptions about emission rates, meteorology, and
exposure location. In this proposed rulemaking, as part of our efforts
to continually improve our methodologies to evaluate the risks that HAP
emitted from categories of industrial sources pose to human health and
the environment,\9\ we are revising our treatment of meteorological
data to use reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions in our
acute risk screening assessments instead of worst-case air dispersion
conditions. This revised treatment of meteorological data and the
supporting rationale are described in more detail in Residual Risk
Assessment for Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5
of the report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening
Assessment. We will be applying this revision in RTR rulemakings
proposed on or after June 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA. Screening Methodologies to Support Risk
and Technology Reviews (RTR): A Case Study Analysis (Draft Report,
May 2017. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the potential acute risk to the maximally exposed
individual, we use the peak hourly emission rate for each emission
point,\10\ reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th
percentile), and the point of highest off-site exposure. Specifically,
we assume that peak emissions from the source category and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions co-occur and that a person is
present at the point of maximum exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a factor (either a
category-specific factor or a default factor of 10) to account for
variability. This is documented in Residual Risk Assessment for
Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the
report: Technical Support Document for Acute Risk Screening
Assessment. Both are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations, if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure concentration by the acute dose-response
value. For each HAP for which acute dose-response values are available,
the EPA calculates acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \11\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\12\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' The document also notes that ``Airborne concentrations
below AEGL-1 represent exposure levels that can produce mild and
progressively increasing but transient and nondisabling odor, taste,
and sensory irritation or certain asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.''
Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as
parts per million or milligrams per cubic meter) of a substance above
which it is predicted that the general population, including
susceptible individuals, could experience irreversible or other
serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to
escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at https://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\12\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for
Hazardous Substances ended in October 2011, but the AEGL program
continues to operate at the EPA and works with the National
Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are ``developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \13\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ERPGs Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the
[[Page 49391]]
maximum acute HQ exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next
highest acute dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-
1).
For this source category, no short-term emissions data were readily
available for the majority of the sources subject to the POWC NESHAP.
The EPA assumed that a facility's peak 1-hour emission rate could
exceed its annual average hourly emission rate by as much as a factor
of 10, under worst-case meteorological conditions and the presence of a
person at the facility boundary. This peak-to-mean emissions ratio was
used as an acute multiplier for all facilities except one. The permit
for one facility contained allowable short-term VOC emission rates for
POWC NESHAP sources. The acute emissions for this facility were
determined using the allowable short-term VOC emission rate using the
assumption that the VOC emission rate is equal to the HAP emission
rate. For more details, see the memorandum, Preparation of the POWC
Risk Inputs File, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP for which acute HQs are less than or
equal to 1, and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
assess the site-specific data to ensure that the acute HQ is at an off-
site location. For this source category, the data refinements employed
consisted of ensuring that the locations where the maximum HQ occurred
were off facility property and where the public could potentially be
exposed. These refinements are discussed more fully in the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this source category (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0416).
4. How do we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducts a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determine
whether any sources in the source category emit any HAP known to be
persistent and bioaccumulative in the environment, as identified in the
EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume 1, Appendix D, at
https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the POWC source category, we identified PB-HAP emissions of
arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds, polycyclic organic
matter (POM), and lead, so we proceeded to the next step of the
evaluation. Except for lead, the human health risk screening assessment
for PB-HAP consists of three progressive tiers. The POWC source
category only required the completion of Tier 1 for the multipathway
screening assessment. For Tier 1, we determine whether the magnitude of
the facility-specific emissions of PB-HAP warrants further evaluation
to characterize human health risk through ingestion exposure. To
facilitate this step, we evaluate emissions against previously
developed screening threshold emission rates for several PB-HAP that
are based on a hypothetical upper-end screening exposure scenario
developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated
Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model.
The PB-HAP with screening threshold emission rates are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans,
mercury compounds, and POM. Based on the EPA estimates of toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential, these pollutants represent a conservative
list for inclusion in multipathway risk assessments for RTR rules. (See
Volume 1, Appendix D at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.) In this assessment, we
compare the facility-specific emission rates of these PB-HAP to the
screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP to assess the
potential for significant human health risks via the ingestion pathway.
We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model the Tier 1 screening
assessment. The ratio of a facility's actual emission rate to the Tier
1 screening threshold emission rate is a ``screening value.''
We derive the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for these
PB-HAP (other than lead compounds) to correspond to a maximum excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1-in-1 million (i.e., for arsenic compounds,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) or, for HAP that
cause noncancer health effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and mercury
compounds), a maximum HQ of 1. If the emission rate of any one PB-HAP
or combination of carcinogenic PB-HAP in the Tier 1 screening
assessment exceeds the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate for any
facility (i.e., the screening value is greater than 1), we conduct a
second screening assessment, which we call the Tier 2 screening
assessment. The Tier 2 screening assessment separates the Tier 1
combined fisher and farmer exposure scenario into fisher, farmer, and
gardener scenarios that retain upper-bound ingestion rates.
In the Tier 2 screening assessment, the location of each facility
that exceeds a Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate is used to
refine the assumptions associated with the Tier 1 fisher and farmer
exposure scenarios at that facility. A key assumption in the Tier 1
screening assessment is that a lake and/or farm is located near the
facility. As part of the Tier 2 screening assessment, we use a U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) database to identify actual waterbodies within
50 km of each facility and assume the fisher only consumes fish from
lakes within that 50 km zone. We also examine the differences between
local meteorology near the facility and the meteorology used in the
Tier 1 screening assessment. We then adjust the previously-developed
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rates for each PB-HAP for each
facility based on an understanding of how exposure concentrations
estimated for the screening scenario change with the use of local
meteorology and USGS lakes database.
In the Tier 2 farmer scenario, we maintain an assumption that the
farm is located within 0.5 km of the facility and that the farmer
consumes meat, eggs, dairy, vegetables, and fruit produced near the
facility. We may further refine the Tier 2 screening analysis by
assessing a gardener scenario to characterize a range of exposures,
with the gardener scenario being more plausible in RTR evaluations.
Under the gardener scenario, we assume the gardener consumes home-
produced eggs, vegetables, and fruit products at the same ingestion
rate as the farmer. The Tier 2 screen continues to rely on the high-end
food intake assumptions that were applied in Tier 1 for local fish
(adult female angler at 99th percentile fish consumption of fish \14\)
and locally grown or raised foods (90th percentile consumption of
locally grown or raised foods for the farmer and gardener scenarios
\15\). If PB-HAP emission rates do not result in a Tier 2 screening
value greater than 1, we consider those PB-HAP emissions to pose risks
below a
[[Page 49392]]
level of concern. If the PB-HAP emission rates for a facility exceed
the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rates, we may conduct a Tier 3
screening assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Burger, J. 2002. Daily consumption of wild fish and game:
Exposures of high end recreationists. International Journal of
Environmental Health Research 12:343-354.
\15\ U.S. EPA. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/
052F, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several analyses that can be included in a Tier 3
screening assessment, depending upon the extent of refinement
warranted, including validating that the lakes are fishable, locating
residential/garden locations for urban and/or rural settings,
considering plume-rise to estimate emissions lost above the mixing
layer, and considering hourly effects of meteorology and plume rise on
chemical fate and transport (a time-series analysis). If necessary, the
EPA may further refine the screening assessment through a site-specific
assessment.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations to the level of the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead.\16\ Values below the level of the primary
(health-based) lead NAAQS are considered to have a low potential for
multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety to
protect public health''). However, the primary lead NAAQS is a
reasonable measure of determining risk acceptability (i.e., the
first step of the Benzene NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to
protect the most susceptible group in the human population--
children, including children living near major lead emitting
sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition,
applying the level of the primary lead NAAQS at the risk
acceptability step is conservative, since that primary lead NAAQS
reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
5. How do we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effect, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. The acid
gases included in the screening assessment are hydrochloric acid (HCl)
and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular environmental
concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment, and water. The
acid gases, HCl and HF, are included due to their well-documented
potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In the
environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following four
exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0416).
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the POWC source category emitted
any of the environmental HAP. For the POWC source category, we
identified emissions of arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury compounds,
POM, and lead. Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated
are emitted by at least one facility in the source category, we
proceeded to the second step of the evaluation.
c. PB-HAP Methodology
The environmental screening assessment includes six PB-HAP, arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, POM, mercury (both
inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead compounds. With the
exception of lead, the environmental risk screening assessment for PB-
HAP consists of three tiers. The first tier of the environmental risk
screening assessment uses the same health-protective conceptual model
that is used for the Tier 1 human health screening assessment. The POWC
source category only required the completion of Tier 1 for the
multipathway ecological screening assessment. TRIM.FaTE model
simulations were used to back-calculate Tier 1 screening threshold
emission rates. The screening threshold emission rates represent the
emission rate in tons of pollutant per year that results in media
concentrations at the facility that equal the relevant ecological
benchmark. To assess emissions from each facility in the category, the
reported emission rate for each PB-HAP was compared to the Tier 1
screening threshold emission rate for that PB-HAP for each assessment
endpoint and effect level. If emissions from a facility do not exceed
the Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes''
the screening assessment, and, therefore, is not evaluated further
under the screening approach. If emissions from a facility exceed the
Tier 1 screening threshold emission rate, we evaluate the facility
further in Tier 2.
In Tier 2 of the environmental screening assessment, the screening
threshold emission rates are adjusted to
[[Page 49393]]
account for local meteorology and the actual location of lakes in the
vicinity of facilities that did not pass the Tier 1 screening
assessment. For soils, we evaluate the average soil concentration for
all soil parcels within a 7.5-km radius for each facility and PB-HAP.
For the water, sediment, and fish tissue concentrations, the highest
value for each facility for each pollutant is used. If emission
concentrations from a facility do not exceed the Tier 2 screening
threshold emission rate, the facility ``passes'' the screening
assessment and typically is not evaluated further. If emissions from a
facility exceed the Tier 2 screening threshold emission rate, we
evaluate the facility further in Tier 3.
As in the multipathway human health risk assessment, in Tier 3 of
the environmental screening assessment, we examine the suitability of
the lakes around the facilities to support life and remove those that
are not suitable (e.g., lakes that have been filled in or are
industrial ponds), adjust emissions for plume-rise, and conduct hour-
by-hour time-series assessments. If these Tier 3 adjustments to the
screening threshold emission rates still indicate the potential for an
adverse environmental effect (i.e., facility emission rate exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate), we may elect to conduct a more
refined assessment using more site-specific information. If, after
additional refinement, the facility emission rate still exceeds the
screening threshold emission rate, the facility may have the potential
to cause an adverse environmental effect.
To evaluate the potential for an adverse environmental effect from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which can
include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
d. Acid Gas Environmental Risk Methodology
The environmental screening assessment for acid gases evaluates the
potential phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants due to
chronic exposure to HF and HCl. The environmental risk screening
methodology for acid gases is a single-tier screening assessment that
compares modeled ambient air concentrations (from AERMOD) to the
ecological benchmarks for each acid gas. To identify a potential
adverse environmental effect (as defined in section 112(a)(7) of the
CAA) from emissions of HF and HCl, we evaluate the following metrics:
The size of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas, in acres and km\2\; the
percentage of the modeled area around each facility that exceeds the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas; and the area-weighted average
screening value around each facility (calculated by dividing the area-
weighted average concentration over the 50-km modeling domain by the
ecological benchmark for each acid gas). For further information on the
environmental screening assessment approach, see Appendix 9 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source
Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
6. How do we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset compiled from the 2014 NEI. The source category records
of that NEI dataset were removed, evaluated, and updated as described
in section II.C of this preamble: What data collection activities were
conducted to support this action? Once a quality assured source
category dataset was available, it was placed back with the remaining
records from the NEI for that facility. The facility-wide file was then
used to analyze risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are emitted
``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of each
facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, the
modeled source category risks were compared to the facility-wide risks
to determine the portion of the facility-wide risks that could be
attributed to the source category addressed in this action. We also
specifically examined the facility that was associated with the highest
estimate of risk and determined the percentage of that risk
attributable to the source category of interest. The Residual Risk
Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available
through the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0416), provides the methodology and results of the facility-wide
analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the percentage of
source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How do we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions, ensures that our decisions are
health and environmentally protective. A brief discussion of the
uncertainties in the RTR emissions dataset, dispersion modeling,
inhalation exposure estimates, and dose-response relationships follows
below. Also included are those uncertainties specific to our acute
screening assessments, multipathway screening assessments, and our
environmental risk screening assessments. A more thorough discussion of
these uncertainties is included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket
for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). If a multipathway
site-specific assessment was performed for this source category, a full
discussion of the uncertainties associated with that assessment can be
found in Appendix 11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health
Multipathway Residual Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved QA/
quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values will vary
depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data are
incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to complete
the datasets are accurate, errors in emission estimates, and other
factors. The emission estimates considered in this analysis generally
are
[[Page 49394]]
annual totals for certain years, and they do not reflect short-term
fluctuations during the course of a year or variations from year to
year. The estimates of peak hourly emission rates for the acute effects
screening assessment were based on an emission adjustment factor
applied to the average annual hourly emission rates, which are intended
to account for emission fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risk or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note, as a
preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty that
is stated in the EPA's 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment;
namely, that ``the primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human
health; accordingly, as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures,
including default options that are used in the absence of scientific
data to the contrary, should be health protective'' (the EPA's 2005
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, page 1-7). This is the
approach followed here as summarized in the next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk.\17\
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical
confidence limit). In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low
as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\18\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach,\19\ which considers uncertainty, variability, and gaps
in the available data. The UFs are applied to derive dose-response
values that are intended to protect against appreciable risk of
deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\18\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
\19\ See A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference
Concentration Processes, U.S. EPA, December 2002, and Methods for
Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of
Inhalation Dosimetry, U.S. EPA, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although we make every effort to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is
[[Page 49395]]
available, we use that value as a surrogate for the assessment of the
HAP for which no value is available. To the extent use of surrogates
indicates appreciable risk, we may identify a need to increase priority
for an IRIS assessment for that substance. We additionally note that,
generally speaking, HAP of greatest concern due to environmental
exposures and hazard are those for which dose-response assessments have
been performed, reducing the likelihood of understating risk. Further,
HAP not included in the quantitative assessment are assessed
qualitatively and considered in the risk characterization that informs
the risk management decisions, including consideration of HAP
reductions achieved by various control options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of a
person. In the acute screening assessment that we conduct under the RTR
program, we assume that peak emissions from the source category and
reasonable worst-case air dispersion conditions (i.e., 99th percentile)
co-occur. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point at the same time. Together, these assumptions
represent a reasonable worst-case actual exposure scenario. In most
cases, it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point of
maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and reasonable
worst-case air dispersion conditions occur simultaneously.
f. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Risk Screening
Assessments
For each source category, we generally rely on site-specific levels
of PB-HAP or environmental HAP emissions to determine whether a refined
assessment of the impacts from multipathway exposures is necessary or
whether it is necessary to perform an environmental screening
assessment. This determination is based on the results of a three-
tiered screening assessment that relies on the outputs from models--
TRIM.FaTE and AERMOD--that estimate environmental pollutant
concentrations and human exposures for five PB-HAP (dioxins, POM,
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic) and two acid gases (HF and HCl). For
lead, we use AERMOD to determine ambient air concentrations, which are
then compared to the secondary NAAQS standard for lead. Two important
types of uncertainty associated with the use of these models in RTR
risk assessments and inherent to any assessment that relies on
environmental modeling are model uncertainty and input uncertainty.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the context of this discussion, the term ``uncertainty''
as it pertains to exposure and risk encompasses both variability in
the range of expected inputs and screening results due to existing
spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well as uncertainty in
being able to accurately estimate the true result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model uncertainty concerns whether the model adequately represents
the actual processes (e.g., movement and accumulation) that might occur
in the environment. For example, does the model adequately describe the
movement of a pollutant through the soil? This type of uncertainty is
difficult to quantify. However, based on feedback received from
previous EPA SAB reviews and other reviews, we are confident that the
models used in the screening assessments are appropriate and state-of-
the-art for the multipathway and environmental screening risk
assessments conducted in support of RTR.
Input uncertainty is concerned with how accurately the models have
been configured and parameterized for the assessment at hand. For Tier
1 of the multipathway and environmental screening assessments, we
configured the models to avoid underestimating exposure and risk. This
was accomplished by selecting upper-end values from nationally
representative datasets for the more influential parameters in the
environmental model, including selection and spatial configuration of
the area of interest, lake location and size, meteorology, surface
water, soil characteristics, and structure of the aquatic food web. We
also assume an ingestion exposure scenario and values for human
exposure factors that represent reasonable maximum exposures.
In Tier 2 of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, we refine the model inputs to account for meteorological
patterns in the vicinity of the facility versus using upper-end
national values, and we identify the actual location of lakes near the
facility rather than the default lake location that we apply in Tier 1.
By refining the screening approach in Tier 2 to account for local
geographical and meteorological data, we decrease the likelihood that
concentrations in environmental media are overestimated, thereby
increasing the usefulness of the screening assessment. In Tier 3 of the
screening assessments, we refine the model inputs again to account for
hour-by-hour plume rise and the height of the mixing layer. We can also
use those hour-by-hour meteorological data in a TRIM.FaTE run using the
screening configuration corresponding to the lake location. These
refinements produce a more accurate estimate of chemical concentrations
in the media of interest, thereby reducing the uncertainty with those
estimates. The assumptions and the associated uncertainties regarding
the selected ingestion exposure scenario are the same for all three
tiers.
For the environmental screening assessment for acid gases, we
employ a single-tiered approach. We use the modeled air concentrations
and compare those with ecological benchmarks.
For all tiers of the multipathway and environmental screening
assessments, our approach to addressing model input uncertainty is
generally cautious. We choose model inputs from the upper end of the
range of possible values for the influential parameters used in the
models, and we assume that the exposed individual exhibits ingestion
behavior that would lead to a high total exposure. This approach
reduces the likelihood of not identifying high risks for adverse
impacts.
Despite the uncertainties, when individual pollutants or facilities
do not exceed screening threshold emission rates (i.e., screen out), we
are confident that the potential for adverse multipathway impacts on
human health is very low. On the other hand, when individual pollutants
or facilities do exceed screening threshold emission rates, it does not
mean that impacts are significant, only that we cannot rule out that
possibility and that a refined assessment for the site might be
necessary to obtain a more accurate risk characterization for the
source category.
The EPA evaluates the following HAP in the multipathway and/or
[[Page 49396]]
environmental risk screening assessments, where applicable: Arsenic,
cadmium, dioxins/furans, lead, mercury (both inorganic and methyl
mercury), POM, HCl, and HF. These HAP represent pollutants that can
cause adverse impacts either through direct exposure to HAP in the air
or through exposure to HAP that are deposited from the air onto soils
and surface waters and then through the environment into the food web.
These HAP represent those HAP for which we can conduct a meaningful
multipathway or environmental screening risk assessment. For other HAP
not included in our screening assessments, the model has not been
parameterized such that it can be used for that purpose. In some cases,
depending on the HAP, we may not have appropriate multipathway models
that allow us to predict the concentration of that pollutant. The EPA
acknowledges that other HAP beyond these that we are evaluating may
have the potential to cause adverse effects and, therefore, the EPA may
evaluate other relevant HAP in the future, as modeling science and
resources allow.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
1. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the
inhalation risk results. The results of the chronic baseline inhalation
cancer risk assessment indicate the maximum individual lifetime cancer
risk (MIR) posed by the POWC source category was estimated to be 6-in-1
million based on actual emissions and 7-in-1 million based on allowable
emissions. The risk driver is formaldehyde emissions from web coating
processes. The total estimated cancer incidence from POWC emission
sources based on actual emission levels is 0.005 excess cancer cases
per year, or one case in every 200 years, with emissions from web
coating operations representing 80 percent of the modeled cancer
incidence. Emissions of formaldehyde contributed 90 percent to this
cancer incidence. Based upon actual emissions, 4,300 people were
exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
compared to 9,900 people from allowable emissions.
The maximum chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) values for the source
category, based on actual and allowable emissions, were estimated to be
less than 1 (0.8 based on allowable emissions). Based on actual and
allowable emissions, respiratory risks were driven by acrylic acid
emissions from web coating processes.
Table 2--POWC Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Estimated Estimated
individual population at annual cancer Maximum
Risk assessment Number of cancer risk increased risk incidence chronic Maximum screening acute
facilities \2\ (in 1 million) of cancer >= 1- (cases per noncancer noncancer HQ \5\
\3\ in-1 million year) TOSHI \4\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Actual Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......................... 160 6 4,300 0.005 0.6 3 (REL).
Facility-Wide \6\....................... 168 300 161,000 0.03 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Allowable Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category......................... 160 7 9,900 0.007 0.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ As discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble, 168 facilities were identified as subject to the POWC NESHAP. Additionally, eight facilities did
not emit any HAP from their POWC processes, resulting in 160 facilities being modeled for the source-category risk assessment and 168 modeled for the
facility-wide risk assessment.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category except for risks from facility-wide emissions.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the POWC source category is the respiratory system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. The risk driver for acute risks were emissions of formaldehyde
from web coating processes and affiliated operations.
\6\ The facility-wide risk value estimate of 300-in-1 million and the HI equal to 30 was from trichloroethylene (TCE) emissions from a production
process outside the source category.
2. Screening Level Acute Risk Assessment Results
Reasonable worst-case acute HQs were calculated for every HAP for
which there is an acute health benchmark using actual emissions. The
maximum refined off-site acute noncancer HQ values for the source
category were equal to 3 from formaldehyde emissions and 3 from
diethylene glycol monoethyl ether (DGME) emissions based on the acute
(1-hour) REL for these pollutants. The formaldehyde and DGME maximum HQ
values were at separate facilities and no facilities have an HQ based
on AEGL or ERPG greater than 1. No other acute health benchmarks were
exceeded for this source category. For DGME, no other acute dose
benchmark was available besides the 1-hour REL. The acute risks for
these pollutants were from web coating processes with an acute hourly
multiplier of 10 times the annual average hourly emissions rate.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
Results of the worst-case Tier 1 screening analysis indicate that
PB-HAP emissions (based on estimates of actual emissions) from the
source category did not exceed the screening value of 1 for any
carcinogenic PB-HAP (arsenic and POM compounds). Emissions of dioxins
were not reported by any facilities within the source category.
The Tier 1 screening analysis for the noncarcinogenic PB-HAP
(cadmium and mercury) was below a screening value of 1. Further
screening or multipathway analysis was not required for any of the
reported PB-HAP based upon our Analytical Procedures discussed in
section III.C.4 of this preamble. Based on this upperbound Tier 1
screening assessment for carcinogens (arsenic and POM) and non-
carcinogens (cadmium and mercury), the emission rates for all
facilities and scenarios were below levels of concern.
In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of
[[Page 49397]]
lead, we compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the secondary
NAAQS for lead (0.15 [mu]g/m\3\). The highest annual average lead
concentration, of 0.001 [mu]g/m\3\, is below the NAAQS for lead,
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to
lead.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
We conducted an environmental risk screening assessment for the
POWC source category for the following pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium,
lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride) and POM.
In the Tier 1 screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which
was evaluated differently), arsenic, cadmium, mercury (methyl mercury
and mercuric chloride), and POM emissions had no Tier 1 exceedances for
any ecological benchmark.
For lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead
NAAQS. Based on the results of the environmental risk screening
analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result
of HAP emissions from this source category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
Results of the assessment of facility-wide emissions indicate that
of the 168 facilities, 42 facilities have a facility-wide MIR cancer
risk greater than 1-in-1 million. The maximum facility-wide cancer risk
is 300-in-1 million, driven by TCE emissions from emissions outside the
source category. The total estimated cancer incidence from the whole
facility is 0.03 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 33
years. Approximately 161,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million with approximately 30 people
with excess cancer risks greater than or equal to 100-in-1 million. The
maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be equal
to 30, driven by emissions of TCE from non-category emission sources.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the POWC source category
across different demographic groups within the populations living near
facilities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--POWC Demographic Risk Analysis Results
[POWC: Demographic assessment results--50 km study area radius]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population
with cancer
risk greater Population
than or equal with HI
to 1-in-1 greater than 1
million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Source category
-----------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................ 317,746,049 4,331 0
-----------------------------------------------
White and Minority by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
White........................................................... 62 86 0
Minority........................................................ 38 14 0
-----------------------------------------------
Minority by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
African American................................................ 12 8 0
Native American................................................. 0.8 0.2 0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................ 18 3 0
Other and Multiracial........................................... 7 3 0
-----------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level............................................. 14 17 0
Above Poverty Level............................................. 86 83 0
-----------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma....................... 14 14 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.......................... 86 86 0
-----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
-----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated......................................... 6 1 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49398]]
The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
4,300 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and zero
people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of
the at-risk population in the demographic groups, White and people
below poverty level, are greater than their respective nationwide
percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web
Coating Facilities, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effect?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of `approximately
1-in-10 thousand.' '' See 54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989.
In this proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and
allowable emissions for 160 facilities in the POWC source category
(i.e., as discussed in section III.C.1 of this preamble, 168 facilities
were determined to be subject to the POWC NESHAP, however eight
facilities did not have POWC source category emissions, therefore, 160
facilities were modeled for source-category risks) In determining
whether risks are acceptable, the EPA considered all available health
information and risk estimation uncertainty, as described above. Table
2 summarizes the risk assessment results from the POWC source category.
The risk results for the POWC source category indicate that both the
actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the individual most
exposed are at least 14 times below the presumptive limit of
acceptability of 100-in-1 million (i.e., 1-in-10 thousand). The
residual risk assessment for the POWC source category \22\ estimated
cancer incidence rate at 0.005 cases per year based on actual
emissions. Approximately 4,300 people are exposed to a cancer risk
equal to or above 1-in-1 million from the source category based upon
actual emissions from 11 facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web
Coating Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology
Review Proposed Rule, EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to inhalation exposures is
less than 1 for actual and allowable emissions. The results of the
acute screening analysis showed that acute risks were below a level of
concern for the source category considering the conservative
assumptions used that err on the side of overestimating acute risk (as
discussed in section III.C.7.e of this preamble). Multipathway screen
values were below a level of concern for both carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic PB-HAP as well as emissions of lead compounds.
Maximum cancer and noncancer risks due to ingestion exposures using
health-protective risk screening assumptions are below the presumptive
limit of acceptability. The maximum estimated excess cancer risk is
below 1-in-1 million and the maximum noncancer HQ for mercury is less
than 1 based upon the Tier 1 farmer/fisher exposure scenario.
Taking into account all of this information, the EPA proposes that
the risks remaining after implementation of the existing MACT standard
for the POWC source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis
Although the EPA is proposing that the risks from this source
category are acceptable for both inhalation and multipathway, risk
estimates for approximately 4,300 people in the exposed population are
above 1-in-1 million, caused primarily by formaldehyde and acetaldehyde
emissions from 11 POWC facilities. The maximum acute risk is an HQ of 3
from two facilities, one based on DGME emissions and the second,
formaldehyde emissions. As a result, we further considered whether the
MACT standards applicable to these specific emission points, as well as
the current MACT standards applicable to this source category, provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine if the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety
analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk
assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available control
technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and
costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to
this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks)
due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. In this
analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine
whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that
would reduce emissions further and are needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health.
As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble and in the memorandum
titled Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating
Source Category, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2018-0416), we did not identify any development in practices,
processes, or control technologies that could be applied industry-wide
and would be expected to result in significant HAP emissions
reductions. Although some facilities are using coatings with HAP
formulations more stringent than MACT, we only have limited data and
the data do not indicate where/when such coatings are most applicable.
In addition, although some existing facilities using capture and
control are achieving greater than 95-percent control, the available
data are limited and do not clearly indicate that any one industry
sector can readily achieve such control levels. Some POWC facilities
use permanent total enclosures to capture emissions even though they
are not required to do so, but conversion of an application area with a
permanent total enclosure is site specific and would be prohibitively
complicated and expensive in most cases.
Although some facilities are subject to permit conditions more
stringent than the MACT requirements, the applicability of these
coating reformulations and emission controls for the POWC industry as a
whole is expected to be limited, and the associated potential risk
reductions would be expected to be small because baseline risks are
low. Because no cost-effective controls, technologies, processes, or
work practices were identified that were widely applicable to the
industry that would significantly reduce HAP emissions and the
associated risk, and the risk assessment determined that the health
risks associated with HAP emissions remaining after implementation of
the POWC MACT were well below levels that we consider acceptable, we
are proposing that the current standards protect public health with an
ample margin of safety, and revision of the standards is not required.
[[Page 49399]]
3. Adverse Environmental Effect
The emissions data for this source category indicate the presence
of several environmental HAP: Arsenic, cadmium compounds, mercury
compounds, POM, and lead. Based on the results of our environmental
risk screening assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from the POWC source
category. Thus, we are proposing that it is not necessary to set a more
stringent standard to prevent an adverse environmental effect. For more
details on the environmental risk screening assessment, see the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source
Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
As described in section III.B of this preamble, our technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for control of HAP emissions from POWC facilities.
In conducting the technology review, we reviewed information on
practices, processes, and control technologies that were not considered
during the development of the POWC NESHAP, as well as searched for
information on improvements in practices, processes, and control
technologies that have occurred since the development of the POWC
NESHAP. The review included a search of the RBLC database and reviews
of title V permits for POWC facilities, site visits to facilities with
POWC operations, and a review of relevant literature. We did not
identify any developments in practices, processes, or control
technologies that were widely applicable to the industry that would
significantly reduce HAP emissions, and, therefore, we are not
proposing any changes to the NESHAP based on our technology review. For
more details on the technology review, see the Technology Review
Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category
memorandum, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0416).
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed actions described above as part of the
RTR, we are proposing certain revisions to the NESHAP. We are proposing
revisions to the SSM provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM.
We also are proposing various other changes, including a compliance
calculation to account for retained volatile organic content in the
coated web; periodic emissions testing requirements; electronic
submittal of initial notifications, notification of compliance status,
semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and
performance evaluation reports; temperature sensor calibration
requirements, incorporation by reference (IBR) of several test methods;
and various technical and editorial changes. Our analyses and proposed
changes related to these issues are discussed below.
1. SSM
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule,
which is established by cross-reference to the General Provisions
exemption in Table 2 (40 CFR 63.6(f)). Consistent with Sierra Club v.
EPA, we are proposing that the current standards in the NESHAP apply at
all times. We are also proposing several revisions to Table 2 (the
General Provisions Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail
below. For example, we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM
plan. We also are proposing to eliminate and revise certain
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption
as further described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so.
In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not proposed alternate emission standards for those periods.
As discussed in the memorandum titled Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction Review of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Paper and Other Web Coating, we collected data regarding
these periods to determine if separate standards for startup and
shutdown were needed. It was determined that startups and shutdowns
occur frequently at many of these facilities. It was also noted that 40
CFR part 60, subpart RR (Standards of Performance for Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations (Tape NSPS)), to
which many POWC facilities are also subject, states that startup and
shutdown are normal operations and emissions should be included when
determining compliance. Because these events are considered to be
normal operations, the EPA is not proposing alternative emission limits
for these periods. As part of the data collection, it was found that
thermal oxidizer temperature decreases were likely to happen during
emission unit startup for a short period of time. To account for these
swings and promote consistency between the POWC NESHAP and the Tape
NSPS, we are proposing to add language to recognize that sources can
demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the 3-hour average
firebox temperature does not drop lower than 50-degree Fahrenheit
([deg]F) below the average combustion temperature established during
the performance test.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process, or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2)
(definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA,
830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under CAA section 112,
emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the
level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for
existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
[[Page 49400]]
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the
best units is to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts
for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section
112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of that
analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the same
manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during
routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the
source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section
112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.' ''). See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
could go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
could be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because the EPA had information to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performers. 80
FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will consider whether
circumstances warrant setting standards for a particular type of
malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has sufficient information to
identify the relevant best performing sources and establish a standard
for such malfunctions. We also encourage commenters to provide any such
information.
The EPA anticipates that it is unlikely that a malfunction of a
POWC emission unit would result in a violation of the standard. For
example, some facilities using thermal oxidizers as pollution control
equipment indicated during the EPA site visits that interlocks would
shut the process down if an oxidizer malfunction occurred, and
facilities may also have back-up oxidizers that could be used to treat
the emissions. The MACT standards are based on a monthly average for
each web coating line or grouping of lines, therefore, a malfunction on
a single piece of equipment for a short period of time is unlikely to
result in an exceedance of the standard.
The American Coatings Association provided a letter to the EPA on
April 19, 2018, requesting that the EPA consider provisions covering
periods of malfunctions at the same time as we conduct the RTR, and
suggested two options. The first option would require a facility to
discontinue the coating operation during periods of malfunctions, but
the facility could continue the oven curing of any coating materials
already applied onto the web without the control device for the period
of the malfunction, so long as it continues to meet the emission limits
for the compliance period. The second option would require a facility
to initiate repairs immediately during the malfunction and complete
them as expeditiously as possible, without ceasing operations, until it
becomes apparent that the repairs will not be completed before
exceeding the emission limit. Neither of these alternatives would allow
the facility to exceed the emission limit.\23\ We are requesting
comment regarding the need to promulgate a special provision covering
periods of malfunctions of a control device or capture system that is
used to meet the emission limits for the POWC NESHAP. Specifically, we
are requesting comment on best practices and the best level of emission
control during malfunction events, and additionally, potential cost
savings associated with potential malfunction work practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Letter to the U.S. EPA from David Darling, American
Coatings Association regarding Start-up, Shut-down and Malfunction;
American Coatings Association (ACA) Concerns, dated April 19, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the unlikely event that a source owner or operator fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of
a malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate response
based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to
minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative
and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. The EPA would also consider whether the
source owner or operator's failure to comply with the CAA section
112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable, and was not instead caused, in part, by poor
[[Page 49401]]
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source owner or operator for violation of an emission
standard is warranted, the source owner or operator can raise any and
all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal district court
will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true
for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an
administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine
whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
section 112, is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
a. General Duty
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty
to minimize emissions. Some of the language in that section is no
longer necessary or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM
exemption. We are proposing instead to add general duty regulatory text
at 40 CFR 63.3340(b) that reflects the general duty to minimize
emissions while eliminating the reference to periods covered by an SSM
exemption. The current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes
what the general duty entails during periods of SSM. With the
elimination of the SSM exemption, there is no need to differentiate
between normal operations, startup and shutdown, and malfunction events
in describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.3340(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions
table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that
are not necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are
redundant with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR
63.3340(b).
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Generally, these paragraphs require development
of an SSM plan and specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the SSM plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the
SSM exemptions. Therefore, affected units will be subject to an
emission standard during such events. The applicability of a standard
during such events will ensure that sources have ample incentive to
plan for and achieve compliance and, thus, the SSM plan requirements
are no longer necessary.
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. The current language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts
sources from non-opacity standards during periods of SSM. As discussed
above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in
this provision and held that the CAA requires that some section 112
standard apply continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is
proposing to revise standards in this rule to apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead proposing to add a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.3360(e)(2). The performance testing
requirements we are proposing to add differ from the General Provisions
performance testing provisions in several respects. The regulatory text
does not include the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the
SSM exemption and language that precluded startup and shutdown periods
from being considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance
testing. The proposed performance testing provisions do not allow
performance testing during startup or shutdown. As in 40 CFR
63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under this subpart should not
be conducted during malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions
are often not representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is
proposing to add language that requires the owner or operator to record
the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Section
63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make available to the
Administrator such records ``as may be necessary to determine the
condition of the performance test'' available to the Administrator upon
request but does not specifically require the information to be
recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is proposing to add to this
provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the requirement
to record the information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to re-designate the entry to the General
Provisions table (Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)-(3) to be 40 CFR
63.8(c)(2)-(3) and remove the text in the explanation column. We are
proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table (Table 2) for
40 CFR 63.8(c)(1) and 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), and include a ``no'' in
the applicability column. The cross-references to the general duty and
SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary in light
of other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution
control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements
of a quality control program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
We are also proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) and include a ``yes'' in the
applicability column and to clarify in the explanation column that 40
CFR 63.8(c)(1)(ii) only applies if a capture and control system is in
use.
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. The final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to
the General Provisions' SSM plan requirement which is no longer
applicable. The EPA is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(5) text that is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) except that
the final sentence is replaced with the following sentence: ``The
program of corrective action should be included in the plan required
under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).''
f. Recordkeeping
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and include a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording
provisions are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply
to
[[Page 49402]]
startup and shutdown. In the absence of special provisions applicable
to startup and shutdown, such as a startup and shutdown plan, there is
no reason to retain additional recordkeeping for startup and shutdown
periods.
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the
recordkeeping requirements during a malfunction. The EPA is proposing
to add such requirements to 40 CFR 63.3410(c)(2) and (3). The
regulatory text we are proposing to add differs from the General
Provisions it is replacing in that the General Provisions require the
creation and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of
each malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to any
failure to meet an applicable standard and is requiring that the source
record the date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the
``occurrence.'' The EPA is also proposing to add to 40 CFR
63.3410(c)(2) and (3) a requirement that source owners or operators
keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment
and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source
owner or operator failed to meet the standard, and a description of the
method used to determine the emissions. Examples of such methods would
include product-loss calculations, mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing to require that sources keep
records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events when actions were
inconsistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required. The
requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to
record actions to minimize emissions and record corrective actions is
now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.3340.
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. When applicable, the provision requires sources
to record actions taken during SSM events to show that actions taken
were consistent with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer
appropriate because SSM plans will no longer be required.
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no
longer applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or
operator to use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to
satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40
CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the reporting
requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the
General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is proposing to add
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.3400. The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are proposing language
that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard at any
time to report the information concerning such events in the semiannual
compliance report already required under this rule. We are proposing
that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to determine the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include product-loss calculations,
mass balance calculations, measurements when available, or engineering
judgment based on known process parameters. The EPA is proposing this
requirement to ensure that there is adequate information to determine
compliance, to allow the EPA to determine the severity of the failure
to meet an applicable standard, and to provide data that may document
how the source owner or operator met the general duty to minimize
emissions during a failure to meet an applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
We are proposing to add an entry to the General Provisions table
(Table 2) for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and enter a ``no'' in the
applicability column. Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions when a source failed
to meet an applicable standard but did not follow the SSM plan. We will
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
2. Method for Determining Volatile Matter Retained in the Coated Web
The EPA finalized an alternative compliance option as part of the
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products RTR on March 4, 2019 (84 FR
7682), which would allow facilities to account for HAP retained in the
product as a result of utilizing reactive coatings. Discussions between
the EPA and industry trade associations elucidated the need for a
similar compliance alternative in the POWC NESHAP. Particularly, the
current NESHAP allows for the accounting of retained HAP in 40 CFR
63.3360(g), but the requirement to ``develop a testing protocol to
determine the mass of volatile matter retained . . . and submit this
protocol to the Administrator for approval'' was found to be vague and
unworkable. To provide clarity and reduce regulatory burden, the EPA is
proposing the utilization of an emission factor to account for volatile
organic matter retained in the coated web. As discussed below, we are
proposing to include new language in this
[[Page 49403]]
rulemaking to allow facilities to account for retained volatile
organics in their compliance demonstration calculations without
requiring the submittal of an alternative monitoring request to the EPA
under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f). The proposed amendment adds
compliance flexibility and reduces regulatory burden but does not alter
the emission standard. This approach quantifies emissions in a way that
is representative of the actual emissions from the coating operations.
We are proposing language in 40 CFR 63.3360(g) that allows a
facility to develop a site- and product-specific emission factor for
use to calculate the amount of volatile organics retained in its coated
web. This site- and product-specific emission factor is determined by
performing an EPA Method 25A test and calculating the ratio of the mass
of volatile organics emitted to the mass of volatile organics in the
coating materials evaluated over a three-run test average. This site-
and product-specific emission factor can be used for the production of
similar products to the product tested during the performance test. A
separate performance test must be performed for each different group of
products for which a source owner or operator intends to account for
the retained volatiles in the compliance demonstration calculations.
The site- and product-specific emission factor is then used in Equation
4 to determine the amount retained for each group of products. The
amount of volatile organics retained in the web can then be subtracted
from the emissions calculated in the appropriate equations in 40 CFR
63.3370.
Facilities using the proposed equations in 40 CFR 63.3360(g) to
account for volatiles retained in the coated web would be required to
conduct an initial performance test to develop a site- and product-
specific emission factor to demonstrate compliance. It is not clear how
many POWC facilities may elect to use this approach and, therefore, be
required to perform this initial air emissions performance test;
therefore, we have not assessed a cost for this test. Additionally,
facilities choosing to use this approach will also have associated
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 63.3410 and 40 CFR
63.3400, respectively. We have not assessed a cost for the additional
recordkeeping and reporting requirements because it is unclear how many
POWC facilities will elect to use this approach.
3. Periodic Emissions Testing
As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various
federal air emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the compliance
demonstration requirements in the POWC NESHAP. Currently, if a source
owner or operator chooses to comply with the standards using a non-
recovery add-on control device, such as a thermal oxidizer, the results
of an initial performance test are used to demonstrate compliance;
however, the current rule does not require periodic performance testing
for these emission capture systems and add-on controls. We are
proposing a periodic emissions testing provision for sources using non-
recovery add-on controls in 40 CFR 63.3360(a)(2), in addition to the
one-time initial emissions and capture efficiency testing and ongoing
parametric monitoring to ensure ongoing compliance with the standards.
Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by
the POWC NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the destruction
efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to various
factors. These factors are discussed in more detail in the memorandum
titled Periodic Testing of Control Devices Used to Comply with the
Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). Based on the need for vigilance
in maintaining the control device equipment, we are proposing periodic
testing of non-recovery add-on control devices once every 5 years.
Currently, there are an estimated 123 oxidizers at 81 facilities
that are used to demonstrate compliance with the POWC NESHAP.
Currently, 58 of those oxidizers are tested on at least a 5-year
frequency due to state requirements to check destruction efficiency and
re-establish operating parameters; therefore, 65 oxidizers are not
currently tested on a regular basis. The repeat performance testing
provision which the Agency is proposing would impact these 65 oxidizers
if the provisions were finalized, with an estimated cost of $28,000 for
each repeat performance test. The inclusion of a periodic repeat
testing requirement would help demonstrate that emissions control
equipment is continuing to operate as designed and that the facility
remains in compliance with the standard. We specifically request
comment on the proposed repeat testing requirements.
4. Electronic Reporting
Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing that owners and
operators of POWC facilities submit electronic copies of required
performance test reports (40 CFR 63.3400(f)), performance evaluation
reports (40 CFR 63.3400(g)), initial notifications (40 CFR 63.3400(b)),
notification of compliance status (40 CFR 63.3400(e)), and semiannual
compliance reports (40 CFR 63.3400(c)) through the EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). A description of the electronic data submission
process is provided in the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416. This proposed rule
requirement would replace the current rule requirement to submit the
notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. This proposed rule requirement does not
affect submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR
63.13.
For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(f), the
proposed rule requires that performance test results collected using
test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) as listed on the ERT website \24\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems measuring relative
accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by the ERT at the
time of the test must be submitted in the format generated through the
use of the ERT and other performance evaluation results be submitted in
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(c),
the proposed rule requires that owners and operators use the final
semiannual report template to submit information to CEDRI. The template
will reside in CEDRI and is to be used on and after 180 days past
finalization of this proposed action. A draft version of the proposed
template for these reports is included in the docket for this
[[Page 49404]]
rulemaking.\25\ The EPA specifically requests comment on the format and
usability of the template (e.g., filling out and uploading a provided
spreadsheet versus entering the required information into an on-line
fillable CEDRI web form), as well as the content, layout, and overall
design of the template. Prior to 180 days after the final semiannual
compliance report template has been made available in CEDRI, owners and
operators of affected sources will be required to submit semiannual
compliance reports as currently required by the rule. When the EPA
finalizes the semiannual compliance report template, POWC sources will
be notified about its availability via the CEDRI website. We plan to
finalize the required reporting format with the final rule. The owner
or operator would begin submitting reports electronically with the next
report that is due, once the electronic template has been available for
at least 180 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See POWC_Electronic_Reporting_Template.xlsx, available at
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For electronic submittal of initial notifications required in 40
CFR 63.3400(b), no specific form is available at this time, therefore,
these notifications are required to be submitted in PDF using the
attachment module of the ERT. If electronic forms are developed for
these notifications, we will notify source owners and operators about
their availability via the CEDRI website. For electronic submittal of
notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR
63.3400(e), the final semiannual report template discussed above, will
also contain the information required for the notification of
compliance status report. This will satisfy the requirement to provide
the notifications of compliance status information electronically,
eliminating the need to provide a separate notification of compliance
status report. As stated above, the final semiannual report template
will be available after finalizing this proposed action and source
owners or operators will be required to use the form after 180 days.
Prior to the availability of the final semiannual compliance report
template in CEDRI, owners and operators of affected sources will be
required to submit semiannual compliance reports as currently required
by the rule. As stated above, we will notify sources about the
availability of the final semiannual report template via the CEDRI
website.
Additionally, the EPA has identified two broad circumstances in
which electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both
circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing additional
time to report is within the discretion of the Administrator, and
reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA is providing these
potential extensions to protect owners and operators from noncompliance
in cases where they cannot successfully submit a report by the
reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control. The situation
where an extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or
CEDRI which precludes an owner or operator from accessing the system
and submitting required reports is addressed in 40 CFR 63.3400(i). The
situation where an extension may be warranted due to a force majeure
event, which is defined as an event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, its
contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents an owner or operator from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule is addressed in
40 CFR 63.3400(j). Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of
war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the
control of the facility.
The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public. Moreover,
electronic reporting is consistent with the EPA's plan \26\ to
implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping with the EPA's
Agency-wide policy \27\ developed in response to the White House's
Digital Government Strategy.\28\ For more information on the benefits
of electronic reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules,
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, August
2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
\27\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
\28\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Temperature Sensor Calibration
Facilities with controlled sources subject to the POWC NESHAP that
use regenerative thermal or catalytic oxidizers to comply with the
standard are currently required to establish a minimum operating
temperature during performance testing and subsequently maintain a 3-
hour block average firebox temperature above the minimum temperature
established during the performance test to demonstrate ongoing
compliance. Temperature sensors are used to measure the temperature in
the firebox. At 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9), the POWC NESHAP currently
requires conducting an electronic calibration of the temperature
monitoring device every 3 months or the temperature sensor must be
replaced. Facilities subject to the standard have explained to the EPA
that they are not aware of a temperature sensor manufacturer that
provides procedures or protocols for conducting electronic calibration
of temperature sensors. Facilities have reported that because they
cannot calibrate their temperature sensors, the alternative is to
replace them and so they have requested that an alternative approach to
the current requirement in 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9) be considered.
The EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow multiple
alternative approaches to temperature sensor calibration. The first
alternative would allow use of a National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator
to confirm the accuracy of any temperature sensor placed into use for
at least one quarterly period, where the accuracy of the temperature
measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by
the NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F, whichever is greater. The second
alternative would be to have the temperature sensor manufacturer
certify
[[Page 49405]]
the electrical properties of the temperature sensor. The third
alternative would codify the common practice of replacing temperature
sensors quarterly. The fourth alternative would be to permanently
install a redundant temperature sensor as close as practicable to the
process temperature sensor. The redundant sensors must read within 25
[deg]F of each other for thermal and catalytic oxidizers. The EPA plans
to maintain the option of allowing facilities to follow calibration
procedures developed by the temperature sensor manufacturer when
temperature sensor manufacturers develop calibration procedures for
their products.
6. Operating Parameter Clarification
We are proposing to clarify language in 40 CFR 63.3370 which
currently implies deviations in operating parameters result in non-
compliance with the standard. Specifically, we are proposing a
clarification that each 3-hour average operating parameter that is
outside of the operating limit range established during a performance
test should be assumed to have zero control and all HAP must be assumed
to be emitted for that period in the monthly compliance calculation.
Operating parameters were established in the POWC NESHAP to aid in
determining a source's compliance, but they were not intended to
constitute a violation of the emission standard. For example, one 3-
hour average regenerative thermal oxidizer firebox temperature below
the setpoint established in during the stack test would not necessarily
indicate a violation of the emission standard for the month, but it is
a deviation of the operating parameter limits.
7. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51
The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14:
ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method
for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(d).
ASTM D6093-97, (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,
IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
ASTM D1963-85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/
25[deg]C, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
While ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 was incorporated by reference when
40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ was originally promulgated (67 FR 72347,
December 4, 2002), the method has been updated, requiring a revision to
the regulatory text addressing its IBR. All of the other above-
referenced VCS, except for ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\ are being
incorporated by reference for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ for the
first time under this rulemaking.
8. Technical and Editorial Changes
a. Removal of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-
Defined Carcinogens Reference
We propose to amend 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(1)(i) and (3), which describe
how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations
using the compliant material option, to remove references to OSHA-
defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We are proposing to
remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended
and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. We are
proposing to replace these references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and
29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart JJJJ) of those organic HAP that must be included in
calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are
present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. We propose to include
organic HAP in proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ if they
were categorized in the EPA's Prioritized Chronic Dose-Response Values
for Screening Risk Assessments (dated May 9, 2014) as a ``human
carcinogen,'' ``probable human carcinogen,'' or ``possible human
carcinogen'' according to The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/
600/8-87/045, August 1987),\29\ or as ``carcinogenic to humans,''
``likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' or with ``suggestive evidence
of carcinogenic potential'' according to the Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment (EPA/630/P-03/001F, March 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Clarification of Compliance Demonstration Options
An introductory paragraph and a new subsection are proposed in this
action to clarify the compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR
63.3370. As promulgated, it is not clear that compliance can be
demonstrated based on individual web coating lines, groups of web
coating lines, or all of the web coating lines located at an affected
facility. An introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 is proposed to
clarify the intent of how compliance can be demonstrated across the web
coating lines in a facility. Additionally, a new subsection 40 CFR
63.3370(r) is also being proposed to clarify that compliance with the
subpart is demonstrated using a mass-balance. While the compliance
calculations included in 40 CFR 63.3370(b)-(p) are thorough, there are
instances where variables in the equations are not needed, resulting in
confusion by the regulated facilities and the regulating agencies as to
what is required for compliance. The mass-balance summary approach
proposed in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) clarifies the intent of the rule.
c. Clarification of Coating Materials Definition
The EPA is proposing to revise the coating material definition in
40 CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-
liquid materials, consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
Additionally, we are proposing to revise the web coating line
definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid.
These revisions will improve regulatory clarity by confirming that the
weight of solid materials should not be accounted for in the compliance
demonstration calculations, and that vapor-deposition coating is not
covered by this subpart.
d. Addition of Web Coating Line Usage Threshold
The EPA is proposing to add a usage threshold to 40 CFR 63.3300(h),
consistent with 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, that requires a web
coating line that coats both paper and another substrate, such as
fabric, to comply with
[[Page 49406]]
the subpart that corresponds to the predominate activity conducted. We
are proposing to define predominant activity to be 90 percent of the
mass of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a
web coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate,
and 10 percent or less of a fabric substrate, would be subject to this
subpart and not 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
e. Addition of Printing Activity Exemption
The EPA is proposing to add a printing activity exemption to 40 CFR
63.3300(i) which would allow for modified web coating lines already
subject to this subpart to continue to demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart KK. This proposed exemption will reduce regulatory burden
without resulting in increased emissions.
f. Clarification of Testing Requirements
The EPA is proposing to remove the ``by compound'' statement in 40
CFR 63.3320(b)(4) to clarify that the standard is 20 ppmv for the total
of organic HAP emitted, not 20 ppmv for each individual HAP emitted.
This is consistent with the test methods used in this subpart, which
test for total HAP concentration.
g. Applicability to Sources Using Only Non-HAP Coatings
As identified during the development of the risk modeling input
file and discussed in section III.C of this preamble, some facilities
that utilize only non-HAP coatings are subject to the POWC NESHAP
because they perform web coating operations and are a major source
because of non-POWC source category emissions. For example, a non-HAP
coating line used to produce paper towel cores may be located at a pulp
and paper facility that is a major source because of emissions from the
pulping operations. This facility would be required to comply with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ, even though the coatings used contain no HAP, and, therefore, no
HAP were emitted from the web coating lines. The EPA is requesting
comment on changing the applicability of the subpart to exclude sources
that only use non-HAP coatings but are located at a major source from
the POWC NESHAP requirements to reduce regulatory burden.
h. Other
The following are additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial corrections:
Revised the references to the other NESHAP in 40 CFR
63.3300 to clarify the appropriate subparts;
Revised 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(4) to clarify 3-hour averages
should be block averages, consistent with the requirements in Table 1
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ.
Revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR
63.3360 to clarify what constitutes representative conditions;
Revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR
63.3410 to include the requirement to show continuous compliance after
effective date of regulation;
Revised the terminology in the delegation of authority
section in 40 CFR 63.3420 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90;
Revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table
2 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) to provide more detail and to make
it align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been
amended or reserved over time; and
Renumbered the equations throughout the subpart for
regulatory clarity.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply
with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that
affected source owners or operators that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 19, 2019 must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being proposed
except for the electronic reporting of semiannual reports, no later
than the effective date of the final rule or upon startup, whichever is
later. All affected existing facilities would have to continue to meet
the current requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ until the
applicable compliance date of the amended rule. The final action is not
expected to be a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the
effective date of the final rule will be the promulgation date as
specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that would
impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing to add
a requirement that initial notifications, notifications of compliance
status reports, performance test results, performance evaluation
results, and semiannual reports be submitted electronically. We are
also proposing to change the requirements for SSM by removing the
exemption from the requirements to meet the standard during SSM
periods, and by removing the requirement to develop and implement an
SSM plan. Our experience with similar industries that are required to
convert reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install
necessary software, become familiar with the process of submitting
performance test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test
these new electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ
electronic reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to
different time-reporting parameters, shows that a time period of a
minimum of 90 days, and more typically, 180 days, is generally
necessary to successfully complete these changes. Our experience with
similar industries further shows that owners or operators of this sort
of regulated facility generally requires a time period of 180 days to
read and understand the amended rule requirements; evaluate their
operations to ensure that they can meet the standards during periods of
startup and shutdown as defined in the rule, and make any necessary
adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and recording systems to
accommodate revisions; and update their operations to reflect the
revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion that multiple
different compliance dates for individual requirements would create and
the additional burden such an assortment of dates would impose. From
our assessment of the time frame needed for compliance with the
entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA considers a period of 180
days to be the most expeditious compliance period practicable, and,
thus, is proposing that existing affected sources be in compliance with
all of this regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the
regulation's effective date. We solicit comment on this proposed
compliance period, and we specifically request submission of
information from sources in this source category regarding specific
actions that would need to be undertaken to comply with the proposed
amended requirements and the time needed to make the adjustments for
compliance with any of the revised requirements. We note that
information provided may result in
[[Page 49407]]
changes to the proposed compliance date.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
The POWC source category includes any facility that is located at a
major source and is engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film,
metallic foil, and other web surfaces. All the coating lines at a
subject facility are defined as one affected source. An existing source
means any affected source of which the construction or reconstruction
was commenced on or before September 13, 2000, and has not undergone
reconstruction. Generally, an additional line at an existing facility
is considered part of the existing affected source. New affected
sources are new lines installed at new facilities or at a facility with
no prior POWC operations.
There are currently 168 facilities in the United States that are
subject to the POWC NESHAP. There is currently one known new affected
source that is under construction that will be subject to the POWC
NESHAP. No other facilities are under construction or are planned to be
constructed which would be considered ``new facilities'' under the POWC
NESHAP to the EPA's knowledge.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, estimated emissions of total HAP
are approximately 3,870 tpy. Compared to pre-MACT levels, this
represents a significant reduction of HAP for the category. Prior to
the development of the POWC NESHAP, the EPA estimated HAP emissions to
be 42,000 tpy (67 FR 72331).
The proposed amendments will require all 168 major sources with
equipment subject to the POWC NESHAP to operate without the SSM
exemption. Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM
periods, however we are unable to quantify the specific emissions
reductions associated with eliminating the exemption. The requirement
for repeat performance testing once every 5 years for oxidizers will
ensure that the control device is operating correctly and may reduce
emissions, but no method for accurately estimating such emissions
reduction is available.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA
expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this
rulemaking.
For further information, see the memorandum titled Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for
this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
C. What are the cost impacts?
Startup and shutdown are considered normal operations for most
facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA does not believe
removing the SSM exemption will result in additional incurred costs.
As discussed in detail in the memorandum titled Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, it was estimated
that an additional 65 oxidizers will have to perform repeat performance
testing every 5 years. The estimated cost for an inlet-outlet EPA
Method 25A performance test (with electronic reporting of results) is
$28,000 per test, for an estimated nationwide cost of $1,820,000
(2018$) every 5 years. The proposed electronic reporting requirement is
not expected to require any additional labor hours to prepare, compared
to the paper semi-annual compliance reports that are already prepared.
Therefore, the costs associated with the electronic reporting
requirement are zero.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. To
assess the potential impact, the largest cost expected to be
experienced in any 1 year is compared to the total sales for the
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden
for each facility.
For the proposed revisions to the POWC NESHAP, the 168 affected
facilities are owned by 91 different parent companies, and the total
costs associated with the proposed requirements range from less than
0.000001 to 3 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These
costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed
by the firms.
The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Twenty-
nine of the facilities potentially affected by the proposed revisions
to the POWC NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated
with the proposed requirements for the affected small entities range
from 0.0003 to 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner;
there is one facility with costs of 1.4 percent and one facility with
costs of 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner.
Therefore, there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities from these proposed amendments.
E. What are the benefits?
Because these proposed amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we did
not estimate emission reductions associated with the proposal, we did
not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general
comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in additional
data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are
specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used
in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk assessment
modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in
sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and
representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this
preamble provides more information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation
[[Page 49408]]
of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes.
To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website,
complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416 (through the method described in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple
facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file
should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility
(or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be
submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are
generated by the Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are
provided on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1951.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0511. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
The POWC NESHAP applies to existing facilities and new POWC
facilities. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance tests,
performance evaluation reports, and periodic reports by the owners/
operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any malfunction in
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ.
Respondents/affected entities: POWC facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJJJ).
Estimated number of respondents: 170.
Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
Total estimated burden: 17,600 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $2,789,000 (per year), includes $789,000
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than October 21, 2019. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action and the
annualized costs associated with the proposed requirements in this
action for the affected small entities are described in section V.D.
above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the
following risk report, titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper
and Other Web Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which can be found in the docket for
[[Page 49409]]
this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for
its manual methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of
the exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA
Method 3B and is available from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-2763. While this
standard was incorporated by reference when 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ was originally promulgated (67 FR 72347), EPA is proposing to use
the updated version.
The EPA also proposes to use the following six VCS as alternatives
to EPA Method 24 and is incorporating them by reference for the first
time in the proposed amendments:
ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, ``Standard Test Method
for Volatile Content of Coatings.'' This test method describes a
procedure used for the determination of the weight percent volatile
content of solvent-borne and waterborne coatings.
ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test Method
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.'' This
test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of
nonvolatile matter in coatings.
ASTM D3960-98, ``Standard Practice for Determining
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related
Coatings.'' This test method is used for the measurement of the VOC
content of solventborne and waterborne paints and related coatings.
This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 if the
regulation allows for the use of VOC content as a surrogate for HAP.
ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.'' This test method is used for the
determination of the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and
pigmented coatings.
ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), ``Standard Test Methods
for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures.'' This test method is used for the determination of the
specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents and solvent
admixtures.
ASTM D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at
25[deg]C.'' This test method is used for the determination of the
specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd resins, fatty acids,
and related materials. This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 24 for density only and may not be valid for all coatings and is
valid at the designated temperature (25-degrees Celsius). This standard
was withdrawn in 2004 with no replacement; there is no later version.
These standards are reasonably available from the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org/.
While the EPA has identified another 19 VCS as being potentially
applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS
in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other
important technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum
titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating, in
the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for these
determinations (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.A.6 of this
preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web
Coating Facilities, which is available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 22, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. in paragraph (e)(1), removing the phrase ``63.3360(e),'' without
replacement;
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(50) through (h)(111) as (h)(52) through
(h)(113);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(19) through (h)(49) as (h)(20) through
(h)(50);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (h)(19) and (51); and
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(22), (27), (31), and
(81).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses, IBR approved for Sec. 63.3360(e).
(h) * * *
(19) ASTM D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes,
[[Page 49410]]
Resins, and Related Materials at 25/25[deg]C,'' IBR approved for Sec.
63.3360(c).
* * * * *
(22) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.3360(c), 63.4141(b) and (c) and 63.4741(a).
* * * * *
(27) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.3360(c), 63.4141(a) and (b), 63.4161(h), 63.4321(e),
63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), and 63.4961(j).
* * * * *
(31) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July
1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.3360(c), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a)
and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
(51) ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR
approved for Sec. 63.3360(c).
* * * * *
(81) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, Approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.3360(c), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
Subpart JJJJ--[Amended]
0
3. Section 63.3300 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (h) and (i).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3300 Which of my emission sources are affected by this
subpart?
The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of
all web coating lines at your facility. This includes web coating lines
engaged in the coating of metal webs that are used in flexible
packaging, and web coating lines engaged in the coating of fabric
substrates for use in pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials.
Web coating lines specified in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this
section are not part of the affected source of this subpart.
(a) Any web coating line that is stand-alone equipment under
subpart KK of this part (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which the
owner or operator includes in the affected source under subpart KK of
this part.
(b) Any web coating line that is a product and packaging
rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press under subpart KK of this
part (NESHAP for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which is
included in the affected source under subpart KK of this part.
* * * * *
(d) Any web coating line subject to subpart EE of this part (NESHAP
for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations).
(e) Any web coating line subject to subpart SSSS of this part
(NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Coil).
(f) Any web coating line subject to subpart OOOO of this part
(NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles). This includes any web coating line that coats both a paper
or other web substrate and a fabric or other textile substrate, except
for a fabric substrate used for pressure sensitive tape and abrasive
materials.
* * * * *
(h) Any web coating line that coats both paper or a web, and
another substrate such as fabric, must comply with the subpart of this
part that applies to the predominant activity conducted on the affected
source. Predominant activity for this subpart is 90 percent of the mass
of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a web
coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, and 10
percent or less of a fabric or other textile substrate, would be
subject to this subpart and not 40 CFR 63, subpart OOOO.
(i) Any web coating line subject to this part that is modified to
include printing activities, may continue to demonstrate compliance
with this part, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with subpart KK of
this part.
0
4. Section 63.3310 is amended by revising the definitions of ``coating
material(s)'' and ``web coating line''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3310 What definitions are used in this subpart?
* * * * *
Coating material(s) means all liquid or semi-liquid materials,
including inks, varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers, and
other materials applied to a substrate via a web coating line.
Materials used to form a substrate are not considered coating
materials.
* * * * *
Web coating line means any number of work stations, of which one or
more applies a continuous layer of liquid or semi-liquid coating
material across the entire width or any portion of the width of a web
substrate, and any associated curing/drying equipment between an unwind
or feed station and a rewind or cutting station.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.3320 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b) and revising paragraph (b)(4).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3320 What emission standards must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) You must limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in
paragraph (b)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section for all periods of
operation, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
(4) If you use an oxidizer to control organic HAP emissions,
operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic HAP concentration of
no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis is
achieved and the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.3330 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3330 When must I comply?
(a) For existing affected sources which commenced construction or
reconstruction prior to September 13, 2000, and for new affected
sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after September
13, 2000, but before September 19, 2019, you must comply as follows:
(1) Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE Federal Register], the affected coating operation(s) must be in
compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3320 at all
times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM). On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register] the affected coating operation(s) must be
in compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3320 at
all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(2) A periodic performance test must be performed by [DATE 3 YEARS
[[Page 49411]]
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE Federal Register], and subsequent
tests no later than 60 months thereafter, as required in Sec. 63.3360.
(3) After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], you must electronically submit initial
notifications, semiannual compliance reports, and performance test
reports, as required in Sec. 63.3400.
(b) For new affected sources which commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, you must comply as indicated
in (b)(1) through (4) of this section. Existing affected sources which
have undergone reconstruction as defined in Sec. 63.2 are subject to
the requirements for new affected sources. The costs associated with
the purchase and installation of air pollution control equipment are
not considered in determining whether the existing affected source has
been reconstructed. Additionally, the costs of retrofitting and
replacing of equipment that is installed specifically to comply with
this subpart are not considered reconstruction costs.
(1) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3320 at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, immediately upon
startup.
(2) You must complete any initial performance test required in
Sec. 63.3360 within the time limits specified in Sec. 63.7(a)(2), and
subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter.
(3) You must electronically submit initial notifications and
performance test reports as required in Sec. 63.3400. After [DATE 180
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],
you must electronically submit semiannual compliance reports as
required in Sec. 63.3400.
0
7. Section 63.3340 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3340 What general requirements must I meet to comply with
the standards?
(a) Before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
Federal Register], for each existing source, and for each new or
reconstructed source for which construction or reconstruction commenced
after September 13, 2000, but on or before September 19, 2019, you must
be in compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE Federal Register], for each such source you must be in compliance
with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all
times. For new and reconstructed sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September 19, 2019, you must be in
compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this
subpart at all times, immediately upon startup.
(b) For affected sources as of September 19, 2019, before [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air
pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of
complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i). On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register] for such sources and after September 19,
2019 for new or reconstructed affected sources, you must always operate
and maintain your affected source, including associated air pollution
control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with
safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require the
owner or operator to make any further efforts to reduce emissions if
levels required by the applicable standard have been achieved.
Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance requirements will be based on information
available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited
to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance procedures,
review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the
source.
(c) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.
63.3360 according to the requirements in Sec. 63.3360(e)(2) and under
the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the
performance test according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(h).
(1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions.
You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction.
You must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions
represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating
at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record
information that is necessary to document emission capture system and
add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain
why the conditions represent normal operation.
(d) Table 2 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply if you are subject to subpart JJJJ of this
part.
0
8. Section 63.3350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (c);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii);
0
d. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e) and paragraph
(e)(2);
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(4);
0
f. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(5) through (e)(10) as paragraphs (e)(6)
through (e)(11);
0
g. Adding paragraph (e)(5); and
0
h. Revising the newly designated paragraph (e)(10).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.3350 If I use a control device to comply with the emission
standards, what monitoring must I do?
* * * * *
(b) Following the date on which the initial or periodic performance
test of a control device is completed to demonstrate continuing
compliance with the standards, you must monitor and inspect each
capture system and each control device used to comply with Sec.
63.3320. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as
specified in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section.
(c) Bypass and coating use monitoring. If you own or operate web
coating lines with intermittently-controlled work stations, you must
monitor bypasses of the control device and the mass of each coating
material applied at the work station during any such bypass. If using a
control device for complying with the requirements of this subpart, you
must demonstrate that any coating material applied on a never-
[[Page 49412]]
controlled work station or an intermittently-controlled work station
operated in bypass mode is allowed in your compliance demonstration
according to Sec. 63.3370(o) and (p). The bypass monitoring must be
conducted using at least one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) of this section for each work station and associated dryer.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the
hours when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report.
* * * * *
(e) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). If you are using
a control device to comply with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in
paragraphs (e)(10) and (11) and (f) of this section according to the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (9) of this section. You must
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraph (c) of
this section according to paragraphs (e)(5) through (8) of this
section.
(1) * * *
(2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours
when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report.
* * * * *
(4) You must determine the block 3-hour average of all recorded
readings for each operating period. To calculate the average for each
3-hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the
hourly averages for that period using only average values that are
based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control periods).
(5) You must develop a quality control program, as required in
Sec. 63.8(d). The owner or operator shall keep these written
procedures on record for the life of the affected source or until the
affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to
be made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator.
If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner or operator
shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon
request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each
revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under Sec. 63.8(d)(2).
* * * * *
(10) Oxidizer. If you are using an oxidizer to comply with the
emission standards, you must comply with paragraphs (e)(10)(i) through
(vi) of this section.
(i) Install, maintain, and operate temperature monitoring equipment
according to the manufacturer's specifications. Calibrate the chart
recorder or data logger at least quarterly.
(ii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, install,
operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder. The device must have an accuracy of 1
percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees Fahrenheit, or
1.8 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The
temperature sensor must be installed in the combustion chamber at a
location in the combustion zone.
(iii) For a catalytic oxidizer, install, operate, and maintain a
temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The
device must be capable of monitoring temperature with an accuracy of
1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees
Fahrenheit or 1.8 degree Fahrenheit, whichever is greater.
The temperature sensor must be installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed.
Calculate the temperature rise across the catalyst.
(iv) Validate the temperature sensor at least quarterly using
method (iv)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E):
(A) Compare measured readings to a National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or
simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST traceable
temperature simulation device. When the temperature measurement device
method is used, the sensor of the calibrated device must be placed as
close as practicable to the process sensor, and both devices must be
subjected to the same environmental conditions. The accuracy of the
temperature measured must be 2.5% of the temperature measured by the
NIST traceable device or 5 [deg]F whichever is greater.
(B) Follow applicable procedures in the manufacturer owner's
manual.
(C) Request the temperature sensor manufacturer to certify or re-
certify electromotive force (electrical properties) of the
thermocouple.
(D) Replace the temperature sensor with a new certified temperature
sensor in lieu of validation.
(E) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a
reading within 25 [deg]F of each other for thermal oxidizers and
catalytic oxidizers.
(v) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the
temperature sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum
operating temperature range or install a new temperature sensor.
(vi) At least quarterly, inspect all components for integrity and
all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.3360 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i),and (2) through (4); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) through (3), (e)(1) and (2), the
introductory text of paragraph (f), and paragraph (g).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3360 What performance tests must I conduct?
(a) The performance test methods you must conduct are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you control organic HAP on any
individual web coating line or any You must:
group of web coating lines by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Limiting organic HAP or volatile Determine the organic HAP or
matter content of coatings. volatile matter and coating
solids content of coating
materials according to
procedures in paragraphs (c) and
(d) of this section. If
applicable, determine the mass
of volatile matter retained in
the coated web or otherwise not
emitted to the atmosphere
according to paragraph (g) of
this section.
[[Page 49413]]
(2) Using a capture and control (i) Initially, conduct a
system. performance test for each
capture and control system to
determine: the destruction or
removal efficiency of each
control device other than
solvent recovery according to
paragraph (e) of this section,
and the capture efficiency of
each capture system according to
paragraph (f) of this section.
If applicable, determine the
mass of volatile matter retained
in the coated web or otherwise
not emitted to the atmosphere
according to paragraph (g) of
this section.
(ii) Perform a periodic test once
every 5 years for each non-
recovery control device to
determine the destruction or
removal efficiency according to
paragraph (e) of this section.
If applicable, perform a
periodic test once every 5 years
to determine the mass of
volatile matter retained in the
coated web or otherwise not
emitted to the atmosphere
according to paragraph (g) of
this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Control Device. If you are using a control device to comply
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320, you are not required to
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or more of
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are met.
(1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) for determining inlet and outlet total
organic volatile matter concentration and meeting the requirements of
Performance Specification 6, 8, or 9 in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60
and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance with the
requirements of this subpart such that an overall organic HAP control
efficiency can be calculated, and the CEMS are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.3350; or
(2) You have met the requirements of Sec. 63.7(h) (for waiver of
performance testing); or
(3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you comply
by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Include each organic HAP in Table 3 to this subpart determined
to be present at greater than or equal to 0.1 mass percent and greater
than or equal to 1.0 mass percent for other organic HAP compounds.
* * * * *
(2) Method 24. For coatings, determine the volatile organic content
as mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use it as a
substitute for organic HAP using Method 24 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR
part 60. The Method 24 determination may be performed by the
manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you. One of the
voluntary consensus standards in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of
this section may be used as an alternative to using Method 24.
(i) ASTM D1963-85 (1996), (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14);
(ii) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14);
(iii) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14);
(iv) ASTM D2697-03 (2014), (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14); and
(v) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14).
(3) Formulation data. You may use formulation data to determine the
organic HAP mass fraction of a coating material. Formulation data may
be provided to the owner or operator by the manufacturer of the
material. In the event of an inconsistency between Method 311 (appendix
A to 40 CFR part 63) test data and a facility's formulation data, and
the Method 311 test value is higher, the Method 311 data will govern.
Formulation data may be used provided that the information represents
all organic HAP present at a level equal to or greater than 0.1 percent
for the organic HAP specified in Table 3 to this subpart and equal to
or greater than 1.0 percent for other organic HAP compounds in any raw
material used.
(4) As-applied organic HAP mass fraction. If the as-purchased
coating material is applied to the web without any solvent or other
material added, then the as-applied organic HAP mass fraction is equal
to the as-purchased organic HAP mass fraction. Otherwise, the as-
applied organic HAP mass fraction must be calculated using Equation 4
of Sec. 63.3370.
(d) * * *
(1) Method 24. You may determine the volatile organic and coating
solids mass fraction of each coating applied using Method 24 (appendix
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). The Method 24 determination may be performed by
the manufacturer of the material and the results provided to you. When
using volatile organic compound content as a surrogate for HAP, you may
also use ASTM D3960-98, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) as
an alternative to Method 24. If these values cannot be determined using
either of these methods, you must submit an alternative technique for
determining their values for approval by the Administrator.
(2) Formulation data. You may determine the volatile organic
content and coating solids content of a coating material based on
formulation data and may rely on volatile organic content data provided
by the manufacturer of the material. In the event of any inconsistency
between the formulation data and the results of Method 24 of appendix
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 and the Method 24 results are higher, the results
of Method 24 will govern.
(3) As-applied volatile organic content and coating solids content.
If the as-purchased coating material is applied to the web without any
solvent or other material added, then the as-applied volatile organic
content is equal to the as-purchased volatile content and the as-
applied coating solids content is equal to the as-purchased coating
solids content. Otherwise, the as-applied volatile organic content must
be calculated using Equation 5 of Sec. 63.3370 and the as-applied
coating solids content must be calculated using Equation 6 of Sec.
63.3370.
(e) * * *
(1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test to
establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device
must be conducted such that control device inlet and outlet testing is
conducted simultaneously, and the data are reduced in accordance with
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix) of
this section. You must conduct three test runs as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour.
(i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used
for sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60,
or Method 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to
determine gas volumetric flow rate.
[[Page 49414]]
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be
used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also
use as an alternative to Method 3B the manual method for measuring the
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14).
(iv) Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to
determine stack gas moisture.
(v) Methods for determining the gas volumetric flow rate, dry
molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as
applicable, during each test run.
(vi) Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 must be
used to determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter
concentration. Use the same test method for both the inlet and outlet
measurements which must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit
notice of the intended test method to the Administrator for approval
along with notification of the performance test required under Sec.
63.7(b). You must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in
paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the
control device.
(A) The control device is not an oxidizer.
(B) The control device is an oxidizer but an exhaust gas volatile
organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required to comply
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320; or
(C) The control device is an oxidizer but the volatile organic
matter concentration at the inlet to the control system and the
required level of control are such that they result in exhaust gas
volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or
(D) The control device is an oxidizer but because of the high
efficiency of the control device the anticipated volatile organic
matter concentration at the control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less,
regardless of inlet concentration.
(vii) Except as provided in Sec. 63.7(e)(3), each performance test
must consist of three separate runs with each run conducted for at
least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected source
is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of
determining volatile organic compound concentrations and mass flow
rates, the average of the results of all the runs will apply.
(viii) Volatile organic matter mass flow rates must be determined
for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section using
Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.026
Where:
Mf = Total organic volatile matter mass flow rate,
kilograms (kg)/hour (h).
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting
the control device, as determined according to paragraph (e)(1)(ii)
of this section, dry standard cubic meters (dscm)/h.
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds as carbon, ppmv.
12.0 = Molecular weight of carbon.
0.0416 = Conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic
meter (mol/m\3\) (@293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury
(mmHg)).
(ix) For each run, emission control device destruction or removal
efficiency must be determined using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.000
Where:
E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control
device, percent.
Mfi = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the inlet
to the control device, kg/h.
Mfo = Organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the
outlet of the control device, kg/h.
(x) The control device destruction or removal efficiency is
determined as the average of the efficiencies determined in the test
runs and calculated in Equation 2.
(2) Process information. You must record such process information
as may be necessary to determine the conditions in existence at the
time of the performance test. Representative conditions exclude periods
of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
(f) Capture efficiency. If you demonstrate compliance by meeting
the requirements of Sec. 63.3370(f) through (i), (j)(2), (l), (o)(2)
or (3), or (q), you must determine capture efficiency using the
procedures in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as
applicable.
* * * * *
(g) Volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not
emitted to the atmosphere. You may choose to take into account the mass
of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying or
otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere when determining compliance
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320. If you choose this
option, you must develop a site- and product-specific emission factor
(EF) and determine the amount of volatile matter retained in the web
using Equation 3. The EF must be developed by conducting a performance
test using Method 25A of Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 and be
determined by obtaining the average of a three-run test. The EF should
equal the proportion of the mass of volatile organics emitted to the
mass of volatile organics in the coating materials evaluated. You may
use the EF in your compliance calculations only for periods that the
work station(s) was (were) used to make the product, or a similar
product, corresponding to that produced during the performance test.
You must develop a separate EF for each group of different products
that you choose to utilize an EF for calculating emissions by
conducting a separate performance test for that product.
(1) Calculate the mass of volatile organics retained in the web for
the month from each group of similar products using Equation 3:
[[Page 49415]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.001
Where:
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
EFi = Volatile organic matter site- and product-specific
emission factor (three-run average determined from performance
testing, evaluated as proportion of mass volatile organics emitted
to mass of volatile organics in the coatings used during the
performance test).
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.3370 is amended by:
0
a. Adding introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (p) as paragraphs (f) through
(q);
0
h. Adding new paragraph (e);
0
i. Revising redesignated paragraphs (f) through (m);
0
j. Revising redesignated paragraphs (o) though (q); and
0
k. Adding paragraph (r).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3370 How do I demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards?
You must demonstrate compliance each month with the emission
limitations in Sec. 63.3320(b)(1) through (4). For each monthly
demonstration, you may apply any combination of the emission
limitations to each of your web coating lines individually, to each of
one or more groupings of your lines (including a single grouping
encompassing all lines of your affected source), or to any combination
of individual and grouped lines, so long as each web coating line is
included in the compliance demonstration for the month (i.e., you are
not required to apply the same emission limitation to each of the
individual lines or groups of lines). You may change the emission
limitation that you apply each month to your individual or grouped
lines, and you may change line groupings for your monthly compliance
demonstration.
(a) A summary of how you must demonstrate compliance follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you choose to demonstrate Then you must
compliance by: demonstrate that: To accomplish this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Use of ``as-purchased'' (i) Each coating Follow the
compliant coating materials. material used at an procedures set out
existing affected in Sec.
source does not 63.3370(b).
exceed 0.04 kg
organic HAP per kg
coating material,
and each coating
material used at a
new affected source
does not exceed
0.016 kg organic
HAP per kg coating
material as-
purchased; or
(ii) Each coating Follow the
material used at an procedures set out
existing affected in Sec.
source does not 63.3370(b).
exceed 0.2 kg
organic HAP per kg
coating solids, and
each coating
material used at a
new affected source
does not exceed
0.08 kg organic HAP
per kg coating
solids as-purchased.
(2) Use of ``as-applied'' (i) Each coating Follow the
compliant coating materials. material used at an procedures set out
existing affected in Sec.
source does not 63.3370(c)(1). Use
exceed 0.04 kg either Equation 4
organic HAP per kg or 5 of Sec.
coating material, 63.3370 to
and each coating determine
material used at a compliance with
new affected source Sec.
does not exceed 63.3320(b)(2) in
0.016 kg organic accordance with
HAP per kg coating Sec.
material as- 63.3370(c)(5)(i).
applied; or
(ii) Each coating Follow the
material used at an procedures set out
existing affected in Sec.
source does not 63.3370(c)(2). Use
exceed 0.2 kg Equations 6 and 7
organic HAP per kg of Sec. 63.3370
coating solids, and to determine
each coating compliance with
material used at a Sec.
new affected source 63.3320(b)(3) in
does not exceed accordance with
0.08 kg organic HAP Sec.
per kg coating 63.3370(c)(5)(i).
solids as-applied;
or
(iii) Monthly Follow the
average of all procedures set out
coating materials in Sec.
used at an existing 63.3370(c)(3). Use
affected source Equation 8 of Sec.
does not exceed 63.3370 to
0.04 kg organic HAP determine
per kg coating compliance with
material, and Sec.
monthly average of 63.3320(b)(2) in
all coating accordance with
materials used at a Sec.
new affected source 63.3370(c)(5)(ii).
does not exceed
0.016 kg organic
HAP per kg coating
material as-applied
on a monthly
average basis; or
[[Page 49416]]
(iv) Monthly average Follow the
of all coating procedures set out
materials used at in Sec.
an existing 63.3370(c)(4). Use
affected source Equation 9 of Sec.
does not exceed 0.2 63.3370 to
kg organic HAP per determine
kg coating solids, compliance with
and monthly average Sec.
of all coating 63.3320(b)(3) in
materials used at a accordance with
new affected source Sec.
does not exceed 63.3370(c)(5)(ii).
0.08 kg organic HAP
per kg coating
solids as-applied
on a monthly
average basis.
(3) Tracking total monthly Total monthly Follow the
organic HAP applied. organic HAP applied procedures set out
does not exceed the in Sec.
calculated limit 63.3370(d). Show
based on emission that total monthly
limitations. HAP applied
(Equation 10 of
Sec. 63.3370) is
less than the
calculated
equivalent
allowable organic
HAP (Equation 17 or
18 of Sec.
63.3370).
(4) Accounting for volatile A site- and product- Follow the
matter retained in the web. specific emission procedures set out
factor was in Sec.
appropriately 63.3360(g) and Sec.
established for the 63.3370(e).
group of products
for which the site-
and product-
specific emission
factor was used in
the compliance
calculations.
(5) Use of a capture system (i) Overall organic Follow the
and control device. HAP control procedures set out
efficiency is equal in Sec.
to 95 percent at an 63.3370(f) to
existing affected determine
source and 98 compliance with
percent at a new Sec.
affected source on 63.3320(b)(1)
a monthly basis; or according to Sec.
oxidizer outlet 63.3370(j) if using
organic HAP a solvent recovery
concentration is no device, or Sec.
greater than 20 63.3370(k) if using
ppmv by compound a control device
and capture and CPMS, or Sec.
efficiency is 100 63.3370(l) if using
percent; or an oxidizer.
operating
parameters are
continuously
monitored; or
(ii) Overall organic Follow the
HAP emission rate procedures set out
does not exceed 0.2 in Sec.
kg organic HAP per 63.3370(g) to
kg coating solids determine
for an existing compliance with
affected source or Sec.
0.08 kg organic HAP 63.3320(b)(3)
per kg coating according to Sec.
solids for a new 63.3370(j) if using
affected source on a solvent recovery
a monthly average device, or Sec.
as-applied basis; 63.3370(l) if using
an oxidizer.
(iii) Overall Follow the
organic HAP procedures set out
emission rate does in Sec.
not exceed 0.04 kg 63.3370(h) to
organic HAP per kg determine
coating material compliance with
for an existing Sec.
affected source or 63.3320(b)(2)
0.016 kg organic according to Sec.
HAP per kg coating 63.3370(j) if using
material for a new a solvent recovery
affected source on device, or Sec.
a monthly average 63.3370(l) if using
as-applied basis; an oxidizer.
or
(iv) Overall organic Follow the
HAP emission rate procedures set out
does not exceed the in Sec.
calculated limit 63.3370(i). Show
based on emission that the monthly
limitations. organic HAP
emission rate is
less than the
calculated
equivalent
allowable organic
HAP emission rate
(Equation 17 or 18
of Sec. 63.3370).
Calculate the
monthly organic HAP
emission rate
according to Sec.
63.3370(j) if using
a solvent recovery
device, or Sec.
63.3370(l) if using
an oxidizer.
(6) Use of multiple capture (i) Overall organic Follow the
and/or control devices. HAP control procedures set out
efficiency is equal in Sec.
to 95 percent at an 63.3370(f) to
existing affected determine
source and 98 compliance with
percent at a new Sec.
affected source on 63.3320(b)(1)
a monthly basis; or according to Sec.
63.3370(f)(1) or
(2).
(ii) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set out
HAP emission rate in Sec.
does not exceed 0.2 63.3370(g) to
kg organic HAP per determine
kg coating solids compliance with
for an existing Sec.
affected source or 63.3320(b)(3)
0.08 kg organic HAP according to Sec.
per kg coating 63.3370(o).
solids for a new
affected source on
a monthly average
as-applied basis;
or
(iii) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set out
HAP emission rate in Sec.
does not exceed 63.3370(h) to
0.04 kg organic HAP determine
per kg coating compliance with
material for an Sec.
existing affected 63.3320(b)(2)
source or 0.016 kg according to Sec.
organic HAP per kg 63.3370(o).
coating material
for a new affected
source on a monthly
average as-applied
basis; or
(iv) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set out
HAP emission rate in Sec.
does not exceed the 63.3370(i). Show
calculated limit that the monthly
based on emission organic HAP
limitations. emission rate is
less than the
calculated
equivalent
allowable organic
HAP emission rate
(Equation 17 or 18
of Sec. 63.3370)
according to Sec.
63.3370(o).
[[Page 49417]]
(7) Use of a combination of (i) Average Follow the
compliant coatings and equivalent organic procedures set out
control devices. HAP emission rate in Sec.
does not exceed 0.2 63.3370(g) to
kg organic HAP per determine
kg coating solids compliance with
for an existing Sec.
affected source or 63.3320(b)(3)
0.08 kg organic HAP according to Sec.
per kg coating 63.3370(o).
solids for a new
affected source on
a monthly average
as-applied basis;
or
(ii) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set out
HAP emission rate in Sec.
does not exceed 63.3370(h) to
0.04 kg organic HAP determine
per kg coating compliance with
material for an Sec.
existing affected 63.3320(b)(2)
source or 0.016 kg according to Sec.
organic HAP per kg 63.3370(o).
coating material
for a new affected
source on a monthly
average as-applied
basis; or
(iii) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set out
HAP emission rate in Sec.
does not exceed the 63.3370(i). Show
calculated limit that the monthly
based on emission organic HAP
limitations. emission rate is
less than the
calculated
equivalent
allowable organic
HAP emission rate
(Equation 17 or 18
of Sec. 63.3370)
according to Sec.
63.3370(o).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP content of each coating
material using Equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.002
Where:
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
or calculate the as-applied volatile organic content of each coating
material using Equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.003
Where:
Cavi = Monthly average, as-applied, volatile organic
content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(2) * * *
(i) Determine the as-applied coating solids content of each coating
material following the procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d). You must
calculate the as-applied coating solids content of coating materials
which are reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application, using
Equation 6:
[[Page 49418]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.004
Where:
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP to coating solids ratio
using Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.005
Where:
Hsi = As-applied, organic HAP to coating solids ratio of
coating material, i.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Casi = Monthly average, as-applied, coating solids
content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
(3) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials
as-applied is less than the mass percent limit (Sec. 63.3320(b)(2)).
Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content of
all coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less
than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, and all
coating materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.016
kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, as determined by
Equation 8:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.006
Where:
HL = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of
all coating materials applied, expressed as kg organic HAP per kg of
coating material applied, kg/kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in Sec.
63.3370.
(4) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials
as-applied is less than the mass fraction of coating solids limit
(Sec. 63.3320(b)(3)). Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied
organic HAP content on the basis of coating solids applied of all
coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less than
0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, and all coating
materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.08 kg
organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, as determined by Equation 9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.007
Where:
Hs = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP to coating
solids ratio, kg organic HAP/kg coating solids applied.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or
[[Page 49419]]
otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere, kg. The value of this term
will be zero in all cases except where you choose to take into
account the volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise
not emitted to the atmosphere for the compliance demonstration
procedures in Sec. 63.3370.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/
kg.
* * * * *
(d) Monthly allowable organic HAP applied. Demonstrate that the
total monthly organic HAP applied as determined by Equation 10 is less
than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP as determined by
Equation 17 or 18 in paragraph (m) of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.008
Where:
Hm = Total monthly organic HAP applied, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in Sec.
63.3370.
(e) Accounting for volatile matter retained in the web. If you
choose to use the equation in Sec. 63.3360(g) to take into account
retained volatile organic matter, you must identify each group of
similar products that can utilize each site- and product-specific
emission factor. Details regarding the test methods and calculations
are provided in Sec. 63.3360(g).
(f) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than
allowable limit (Sec. 63.3320(b)(1)). Operate a capture system and
control device and demonstrate an overall organic HAP control
efficiency of at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at
least 98 percent at a new affected source for each month, or operate a
capture system and oxidizer so that an outlet organic HAP concentration
of no greater than 20 ppmv by compound on a dry basis is achieved as
long as the capture efficiency is 100 percent as detailed in Sec.
63.3320(b)(4). Unless one of the cases described in paragraph (f)(1),
(2), or (3) of this section applies to the affected source, you must
either demonstrate compliance in accordance with the procedure in
paragraph (i) of this section when emissions from the affected source
are controlled by a solvent recovery device, or the procedure in
paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an
oxidizer or demonstrate compliance for a web coating line by operating
each capture system and each control device and continuous parameter
monitoring according to the procedures in paragraph (k) of this
section.
(1) If the affected source has only always-controlled work stations
and operates more than one capture system or more than one control
device, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the
provisions of either paragraph (o) or (q) of this section.
(2) If the affected source operates one or more never-controlled
work stations or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations,
you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (o) of this section.
(3) An alternative method of demonstrating compliance with Sec.
63.3320(b)(1) is the installation of a PTE around the web coating line
that achieves 100 percent capture efficiency and ventilation of all
organic HAP emissions from the total enclosure to an oxidizer with an
outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv by compound
on a dry basis. If this method is selected, you must demonstrate
compliance by following the procedures in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii)
of this section. Compliance is determined according to paragraph
(f)(3)(iii) of this section.
(i) Demonstrate that a total enclosure is installed. An enclosure
that meets the requirements in Sec. 63.3360(f)(1) will be considered a
total enclosure.
(ii) Determine the organic HAP concentration at the outlet of your
total enclosure using the procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) or (B)
of this section.
(A) Determine the control device efficiency using Equation 2 of
Sec. 63.3360 and the applicable test methods and procedures specified
in Sec. 63.3360(e).
(B) Use a CEMS to determine the organic HAP emission rate according
to paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (x) of this section.
(iii) You are in compliance if the installation of a total
enclosure is demonstrated and the organic HAP concentration at the
outlet of the incinerator is demonstrated to be no greater than 20 ppmv
by compound on a dry basis.
(g) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction of coating solids
applied limit (Sec. 63.3320(b)(3)). Operate a capture system and
control device and limit the organic HAP emission rate from an existing
affected source to no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP emitted per kg
coating solids applied, and from a new affected source to no more than
0.08 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating solids applied as determined
on a monthly average as-applied basis. If the affected source operates
more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more
never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-
controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section.
Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in
paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source
are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in
paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an
oxidizer.
(h) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction limit (Sec.
63.3320(b)(2)). Operate a capture system and control device and limit
the organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP
emitted per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source,
and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating material
applied at a new affected source as determined on a monthly average as-
applied basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture
[[Page 49420]]
system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work
stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, then
you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate
compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section
when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent
recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when
emissions are controlled by an oxidizer.
(i) Capture and control to achieve allowable emission rate. Operate
a capture system and control device and limit the monthly organic HAP
emissions to less than the allowable emissions as calculated in
accordance with paragraph (m) of this section. If the affected source
operates more than one capture system, more than one control device,
one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more
intermittently-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate
compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this
section. Otherwise, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance
following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions
from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or
the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are
controlled by an oxidizer.
(j) Solvent recovery device compliance demonstration. If you use a
solvent recovery device to control emissions, you must show compliance
by following the procedures in either paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this
section:
(1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a monthly liquid-liquid
material balance as specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (v) of
this section and use the applicable equations in paragraphs (j)(1)(vi)
through (ix) of this section to convert the data to units of the
selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph
(j)(1)(x) of this section.
(i) Determine the mass of each coating material applied on the web
coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common
solvent recovery device during the month.
(ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of
each coating material as-applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(c).
(iii) Determine the volatile organic content of each coating
material as-applied during the month following the procedure in Sec.
63.3360(d).
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids
content of each coating material applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d).
(v) Determine and monitor the amount of volatile organic matter
recovered for the month according to the procedures in Sec.
63.3350(d).
(vi) Recovery efficiency. Calculate the volatile organic matter
collection and recovery efficiency using Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.009
Where:
Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, percent.
Mvr = Mass of volatile matter recovered in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this
section.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(vii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during
the month using Equation 12:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.010
Where:
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, percent.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this
section.
(viii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
using Equation 13:
[[Page 49421]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.011
Where:
L = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of coating solids applied, kg/
kg.
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied using Equation 14:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.012
Where:
S = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of material applied, kg/kg.
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(x) You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b) if:
(A) The volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency
is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent
or greater at a new affected source; or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied
is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at
an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per
kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(2) Continuous emission monitoring of capture system and control
device performance. Demonstrate initial compliance through a
performance test on capture efficiency and continuing compliance
through continuous emission monitors and continuous monitoring of
capture system operating parameters following the procedures in
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section. Use the applicable
equations specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(viii) through (x) of this
section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the
selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph
(j)(2)(xi) of this section.
(i) Control device efficiency. Continuously monitor the gas stream
entering and exiting the control device to determine the total organic
volatile matter mass flow rate (e.g., by determining the concentration
of the vent gas in grams per cubic meter and the volumetric flow rate
in cubic meters per second such that the total organic volatile matter
mass flow rate in grams per second can be calculated) such that the
control device efficiency of the control device can be calculated for
each month using Equation 2 of Sec. 63.3360.
(ii) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web coating line is
operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency.
(iii) Determine the percent capture efficiency in accordance with
Sec. 63.3360(f).
(iv) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control
efficiency achieved for each month using Equation 15:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.013
Where:
R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control
device, percent.
CE = Organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the capture
system, percent.
(v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating
material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines
controlled by a common control device during the month.
(vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of
each coating material as-applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(c).
(vii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids
content of each coating material as-applied during the month following
the procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d).
(viii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted
during the month for each month using Equation 16:
[[Page 49422]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.014
Where:
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this
section.
(ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
using Equation 13 of this section.
(x) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied using Equation 14 of this section.
(xi) Compare actual performance to the performance required by
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) for each month if the capture
system is operated such that the average capture system operating
parameter is greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating
parameter value established in accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f); and
(A) The organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency
is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent
or greater at a new affected source; or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied
is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at
an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per
kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(k) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures
using a CPMS. If you use an add-on control device, you must demonstrate
initial compliance for each capture system and each control device
through performance tests and demonstrate continuing compliance through
continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating
parameters as specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (k)(4)
or (k)(5) of this section.
(1) Determine the control device destruction or removal efficiency
using the applicable test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.3360(e).
(2) Determine the emission capture efficiency in accordance with
Sec. 63.3360(f).
(3) Whenever a web coating line is operated, continuously monitor
the operating parameters established according to Sec. 63.3350(e) and
(f).
(4) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) if the thermal oxidizer is
operated such that the average combustion temperature does not fall
more than 50 [deg]F below the temperature established in accordance
with Sec. 63.3360(e)(3)(i) for each 3-hour period, or the catalytic
oxidizer temperature is greater than the temperature established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3360(e)(3)(ii) for each 3-hour period, and the
capture system operating parameter is operated at an average value
greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter
value established in accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f); and
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a
new affected source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source;
or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(5) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit
deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) is determined by
assuming no control of emissions during each 3-hour period that was a
deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b) if, including the periods of no control:
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a
new affected source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source;
or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(l) Oxidizer compliance demonstration procedures. If you use an
oxidizer to control emissions, you must show compliance by following
the procedures in paragraph (l)(1) of this section. Use the applicable
equations specified in paragraph (l)(2) of this section to convert the
monitoring and other data into units of the selected compliance option
in paragraph (f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined
in accordance with paragraph (l)(3) or (l)(4) of this section.
(1) Demonstrate initial compliance through performance tests of
capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuing
compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control
device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i)
through (vi) of this section:
(i) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency using the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(e).
(ii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency in accordance
with Sec. 63.3360(f).
[[Page 49423]]
(iii) Capture and control efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web
coating line is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters
established in accordance with Sec. 63.3350(e) and (f) to ensure
capture and control efficiency.
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating
material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines
controlled by a common oxidizer during the month.
(v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of
each coating material as-applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(c).
(vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids
content of each coating material applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d).
(2) Convert the information obtained under paragraph (q)(1) of this
section into the units of the selected compliance option using the
calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control
efficiency achieved using Equation 15.
(ii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during
the month using Equation 16.
(iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
for each month using Equation 13.
(iv) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied using Equation 14.
(3) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) if the oxidizer is operated such
that the average operating parameter value is greater than the
operating parameter value established in accordance with Sec.
63.3360(e) for each 3-hour period, and the capture system operating
parameter is operated at an average value greater than or less than (as
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance
with Sec. 63.3350(f); and
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a
new affected source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source;
or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(4) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit
deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) is determined by
assuming no control of emissions during each 3-hour period that was a
deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b) if, including the periods of no control:
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a
new affected source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source;
or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(m) Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions. This paragraph
provides the procedures and calculations for determining monthly
allowable organic HAP emissions for use in demonstrating compliance in
accordance with paragraph (d), (i), (j)(1)(x)(D), (j)(2)(xi)(D), or
(l)(3)(iv) of this section. You will need to determine the amount of
coating material applied at greater than or equal to 20 mass percent
coating solids and the amount of coating material applied at less than
20 mass percent coating solids. The allowable organic HAP limit is then
calculated based on coating material applied at greater than or equal
to 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 0.2 kg organic HAP per
kg coating solids at an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP
per kg coating solids at a new affected source, and coating material
applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 4
mass percent organic HAP at an existing affected source and 1.6 mass-
percent organic HAP at a new affected source as follows:
(1) Determine the as-purchased mass of each coating material
applied each month.
(2) Determine the as-purchased coating solids content of each
coating material applied each month in accordance with Sec.
63.3360(d)(1).
(3) Determine the as-purchased mass fraction of each coating
material which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids
content on an as-applied basis.
(4) Determine the total mass of each solvent, diluent, thinner, or
reducer added to coating materials which were applied at less than 20
mass percent coating solids content on an as-applied basis each month.
(5) Calculate the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions using
Equation 17 for an existing affected source:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.015
Where:
Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
[[Page 49424]]
Mi = mass of as-purchased coating material, i,
applied in a month, kg.
Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which
was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on
an as-applied basis, kg/kg.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
MLj = Mass of non-coating-solids-containing coating
material, j, added to coating-solids-containing coating materials
which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids
content, on an as-applied basis, in a month, kg.
or Equation 18 for a new affected source:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.016
Where:
Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i,
applied in a month, kg.
Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which
was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on
an as-applied basis, kg/kg.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
MLj = Mass of non-coating-solids-containing coating
material, j, added to coating-solids-containing coating materials
which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids
content, on an as-applied basis, in a month, kg.
* * * * *
(o) Combinations of capture and control. If you operate more than
one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-
controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work
stations, you must calculate organic HAP emissions according to the
procedures in paragraphs (o)(1) through (4) of this section, and use
the calculation procedures specified in paragraph (o)(5) of this
section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the
selected control option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section.
Use the procedures specified in paragraph (o)(6) of this section to
demonstrate compliance.
(1) Solvent recovery system using liquid-liquid material balance
compliance demonstration. If you choose to comply by means of a liquid-
liquid material balance for each solvent recovery system used to
control one or more web coating lines, you must determine the organic
HAP emissions for those web coating lines controlled by that solvent
recovery system either:
(i) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v)
through (vii) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by
that solvent recovery system have only always-controlled work stations;
or
(ii) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(ii), (iii), (v), and (vi)
and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by that
solvent recovery system have one or more never-controlled or
intermittently-controlled work stations.
(2) Solvent recovery system using performance test compliance
demonstration and CEMS. To demonstrate compliance through an initial
test of capture efficiency, continuous monitoring of a capture system
operating parameter, and a CEMS on each solvent recovery system used to
control one or more web coating lines, you must:
(i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent
recovery system, monitor the operating parameter established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f) to ensure capture system efficiency;
and
(ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating
lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that
solvent recovery system either:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (v),
(vi), and (viii) of this section, if the web coating lines served by
that capture and control system have only always-controlled work
stations; or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (vi),
and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that
capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or
intermittently-controlled work stations.
(3) Oxidizer. To demonstrate compliance through performance tests
of capture efficiency and control device efficiency, continuous
monitoring of capture system, and CPMS for control device operating
parameters for each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or more
web coating lines, you must:
(i) Monitor the operating parameter in accordance with Sec.
63.3350(e) to ensure control device efficiency; and
(ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer,
monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with Sec.
63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency; and
(iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating
lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that
oxidizer either:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control
system have only always-controlled work stations; or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii), (v), and
(p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture
and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-
controlled work stations.
(4) Uncontrolled coating lines. If you own or operate one or more
uncontrolled web coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP
applied on those web coating lines using Equation 10. The organic HAP
emitted from an uncontrolled web coating line is equal to the organic
HAP applied on that web coating line.
(5) Convert the information obtained under paragraphs (o)(1)
through (4) of this section into the units of the selected compliance
option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs
(o)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emissions for
the affected source for the month by summing all organic HAP emissions
calculated according to paragraphs (o)(1), (2)(ii), (3)(iii), and (4)
of this section.
(ii) Coating solids applied. If demonstrating compliance on the
basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or
emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, the owner
or operator must determine the coating solids content of each coating
material applied during the month following the procedure in Sec.
63.3360(d).
(iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
for each month using Equation 13.
[[Page 49425]]
(iv) Organic HAP based on materials applied. Calculate the organic
HAP emission rate based on material applied using Equation 14.
(6) Compliance. The affected source is in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) for the month if all operating
parameters required to be monitored under paragraphs (o)(1) through (3)
of this section were maintained at the values established under
Sec. Sec. 63.3350 and 63.3360 and one of the standards in paragraphs
(6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met. If operating parameter
deviations occurred, the affected source is in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) for the month if, assuming no
control of emissions for each 3-hour deviation period, one of the
standards in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met.
(i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per
kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more
than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new
affected source; or
(ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg
material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016
kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as
determined using paragraph (m) of this section; or
(iv) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
was not more than 5 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied
for the month at an existing affected source and no more than 2 percent
of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at a new
affected source. The total mass of organic HAP applied by the affected
source in the month must be determined using Equation 10.
(p) Intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations.
If you have been expressly referenced to this paragraph by paragraphs
(o)(1)(ii), (o)(2)(ii)(B), or (o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section for
calculation procedures to determine organic HAP emissions for your
intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations, you must:
(1) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass
mode and the mass of all coating materials as-applied on never-
controlled work stations during the month.
(2) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in a
controlled mode and the mass of all coating materials applied on
always-controlled work stations during the month.
(3) Liquid-liquid material balance compliance demonstration. For
each web coating line or group of web coating lines for which you use
the provisions of paragraph (o)(1)(ii) of this section, you must
calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 19 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.017
Where:
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled
mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, percent.
MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode
and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on never-controlled
work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this
section.
(4) Performance test to determine capture efficiency and control
device efficiency. For each web coating line or group of web coating
lines for which you use the provisions of paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(B) or
(o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP
emitted during the month using Equation 20:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19SE19.018
Where:
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled
mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode
and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on never-controlled
work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the
[[Page 49426]]
compliance demonstration procedures in this section.
(q) Always-controlled work stations with more than one capture and
control system. If you operate more than one capture system or more
than one control device and only have always-controlled work stations,
then you are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b)(1) for the month if for each web coating line or group of
web coating lines controlled by a common control device:
(1) The volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency as
determined by paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (iii), (v), and (vi) of this
section is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at
least 98 percent at a new affected source; or
(2) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for each web coating
line or group of web coating lines served by that control device and a
common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing affected
source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source; or
(3) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by
paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii) and (l)(2)(i) of this section for
each web coating line or group of web coating lines served by that
control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an
existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected
source.
(r) Mass-balance approach. As an alternative to paragraphs (b)
through (p) of this section, you may demonstrate monthly compliance
using a mass-balance approach in accordance with this section, except
for any month that you elect to meet the emission limitation in Sec.
63.3320(b)(4). The mass-balance approach should be performed as
follows:
(1) Separately for each individual/grouping(s) of lines, you must
sum the mass of organic HAP emitted during the month and divide by the
corresponding total mass of all organic HAP utilized on the lines,
including from coating materials or coating solids, for the same
period. You may also choose to use volatile organic content as a
surrogate for organic HAP for the compliance demonstration in
accordance with Sec. 63.3360(d). You are required to include all
emissions and inputs that occur during periods that each line or
grouping of lines operates in accordance with the applicability
criteria in Sec. 63.3300.
(2) You must include all of the organic HAP emitted by your
individual/grouping(s) of lines, as follows.
(i) You must record the mass of organic HAP or volatile organic
content utilized at each work station of each of your individually/
grouping(s) of lines.
(ii) You must assume that all of the organic HAP input to every
never-controlled work station is emitted, unless you have determined an
emission factor in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(g).
(iii) For every always-controlled work station, you must assume
that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted,
less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture system and
control device, in accordance with the most recently measured capture
and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with the measured mass
of VOC recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control or condensers).
You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic content retained in
the web if you have determined an emission factor in accordance with
Sec. 63.3360(g).
(iv) For every intermittently-controlled work station, you must
assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is
emitted during periods of no control. During periods of control, you
must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is
emitted, less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture
system and control device, in accordance with the most recently
measured capture and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with
the measured mass of VOC recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control
or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic
content retained in the web if you have determined an emission factor
in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(g).
(v) You must record the organic HAP or volatile organic content
input to every work station of your individual/grouping(s) of lines and
determine corresponding emissions during all periods of operation,
including malfunctions or startups and shutdowns of any web coating
line or control device.
(3) You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b) if each of your individual/grouping(s) of lines, meets
paragraphs (r)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable, and
each oxidizer control device, if used, additionally meets paragraph
(r)(4)(iv) of this section:
(i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the effected source
based on HAP applied is no more than 0.05 kg organic HAP per kg HAP
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.02 kg organic
HAP per kg HAP applied at a new affected source; or
(ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per
kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more
than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new
affected source; or
(iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg
material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016
kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source.
(iv) The oxidizer control device(s), if any, is operated such that
the average operating parameter value is greater than or less than (as
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance
with Sec. 63.3360(e) for each 3-hour period, and the capture system
operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or
less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3360(f).
0
11. Section 63.3400 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) and introductory text of paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(iv);
0
c. Revising paragraph (c)(2) introductory text, and paragraphs
(c)(2)(v) and (c)(2)(vi);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (k) and revising the
introductory text; and
0
f. Adding new paragraphs (g), (h), (i) and (j).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3400 What notifications and reports must I submit?
(a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) through (k)
of this section to the Administrator.
(b) You must submit an initial notification as required by Sec.
63.9(b), using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The first compliance report is due no later than July 31 or
January 31, whichever date follows the end of the calendar half
immediately following the compliance date that is specified for your
affected source in Sec. 63.3330. Before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the report must
be postmarked or delivered by the
[[Page 49427]]
aforementioned dates. On and after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], the report must
be submitted electronically as described in paragraph (h) of this
section.
* * * * *
(iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be submitted
electronically no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
(2) Compliance Report Contents. The compliance report must contain
the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section:
* * * * *
(v) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating limit) that applies to you and that occurs at an affected
source where you are not using a CEMS to comply with the emission
limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the
following information:
(A) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(B) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time, the cause and duration of each failure.
(C) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(D) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(E) Information on the number, duration, and cause for CPMS
downtime incidents, if applicable, other than downtime associated with
zero and span and other calibration checks.
(vi) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an
affected source where you are using a CEMS to comply with the emission
limit in this subpart, you must include the following information:
(A) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(B) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time, the cause and duration of each failure.
(C) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(D) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(E) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was
inoperative except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(F) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was
out-of-control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(G) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(H) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of each deviation
during the reporting period and the total duration of each deviation as
a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting
period.
(I) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(J) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of CEMS and CPMS
downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CEMS and
CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time during
that reporting period.
(K) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS and CPMS downtime
during the reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring
equipment malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality
assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(L) The date of the latest CEMS and CPMS certification or audit.
(M) A description of any changes in CEMS, CPMS, or controls since
the last reporting period.
* * * * *
(e) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as
specified in Sec. 63.9(h). For affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, the
Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted electronically
using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this section. For affected
sources that commenced construction or reconstruction on or before
September 19, 2019, the Notification of Compliance Status must be
submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this
section after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
(f) Performance test reports. You must submit performance test
reports as specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control
device to comply with the emission standard and you have not obtained a
waiver from the performance test requirement or you are not exempted
from this requirement by Sec. 63.3360(b). Within 60 days after the
date of completing each performance test required by this subpart, you
must submit the results of the performance test following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through EPA's Central Data
Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed
on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive,
or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to EPA via
[[Page 49428]]
EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(g) Performance evaluation reports. You must submit the results of
performance evaluations within 60 days of completing each continuous
monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.
63.2) following the procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(3) of this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on
EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of
the performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed
through EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format
generated through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit
an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT
website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed
on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive,
or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1)
of this section.
(h) Electronic Reporting. If you are required to submit reports
following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit
reports to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's Central
Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Initial notifications and
notifications of compliance status must be submitted as PDFs to CEDRI
using the attachment module of the ERT. You must use the semiannual
compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates
become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must
be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of
the method in which the report is submitted. If you claim some of the
information required to be submitted via CEDRI is confidential business
information (CBI), submit a complete report, including information
claimed to be CBI, to EPA. The report must be generated using the
appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph.
(i) Extension for CDX/CEDRI outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with
the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of
this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is
due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(j) Extension for force majuere events. If you are required to
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majuere, you must
meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
[[Page 49429]]
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(k) For existing affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction before September 19, 2019, before [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] you must submit
startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports as specified in Sec.
63.10(d)(5), except that the provisions in subpart A of this part
pertaining to startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions do not apply unless
a control device is used to comply with this subpart. On and after,
[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal
Register], and for affected sources that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, this section is no longer
relevant.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 63.3410 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3410 What records must I keep?
(a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section on a monthly basis in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(1):
(1) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of all measurements
needed to demonstrate compliance with this standard as indicated in
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63, including:
(i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.3350(d);
(ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3350(c), (e), and (f);
(iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3360(c);
(iv) Volatile matter and coating solids content data for the
purpose of demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements
of Sec. 63.3360(d);
(v) Overall control efficiency determination using capture
efficiency and control device destruction or removal efficiency test
results in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3360(e) and
(f);
(vi) Material usage, organic HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and
coating solids usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3370(b), (c), and (d); and
(vii) Emission factor development calculations and HAP content for
coating materials used to develop the emission factor as needed for
Sec. 63.3360(g).
(2) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(c) for each CMS operated by
the owner or operator in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
63.3350(b), as indicated in Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63.
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must maintain records of all liquid-liquid material balances
performed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3370. The
records must be maintained in accordance with the applicable
requirements of Sec. 63.10(b).
(c) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an
affected source, you must record the following information.
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time, the cause and duration of each failure.
(3) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit
and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(4) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or EPA as part
of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
13. Section 63.3420 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3420 What authorities may be delegated to the states?
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the
authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained
by the EPA Administrator and not transferred to a state, local, or
tribal agency.
(b) Authority which will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section:
(1) Approval of alternate test method for organic HAP content
determination under Sec. 63.3360(c).
(2) Approval of alternate test method for volatile matter
determination under Sec. 63.3360(d).
(3) Approval of alternatives to the work practice standards under
Sec. 63.3322.
0
14. Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits if Using Add-On
Control Devices and Capture System
If you are required to comply with operating limits by Sec. 63.3321,
you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you must
You must meet the demonstrate
For the following device: following operating continuous
limit: compliance with
operating limits by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer......... a. The average i. Collecting the
combustion combustion
temperature in any temperature data
3-hour period must according to Sec.
not fall more than 63.3350(e)(10);
50[deg] F below the ii. Reducing the
combustion data to 3-hour
temperature limit block averages; and
established iii. Maintain the 3-
according to Sec. hour average
63.3360(e)(3)(i). combustion
temperature at or
above the
temperature limit.
2. Catalytic oxidizer....... a. The average i. Collecting the
temperature at the catalyst bed inlet
inlet to the temperature data
catalyst bed in any according to Sec.
3-hour period must 63.3350(e)(10);
not fall below the ii. Reducing the
combustion data to 3-hour
temperature limit block averages; and
established iii. Maintain the 3-
according to Sec. hour average
63.3360(e)(3)(ii). catalyst bed inlet
temperature at or
above the
temperature limit.
[[Page 49430]]
b. The temperature i. Collecting the
rise across the catalyst bed inlet
catalyst bed must and outlet
not fall below the temperature data
limit established according to Sec.
according to Sec. 63.3350(e)(10);
63.3360(e)(3)(ii). ii. Reducing the
data to 3-hour
block averages; and
iii. Maintain the 3-
hour average
temperature rise
across the catalyst
bed at or above the
limit.
3. Emission capture system.. Submit monitoring Conduct monitoring
plan to the according to the
Administrator that plan (Sec.
identifies 63.3350(f)(3)).
operating
parameters to be
monitored according
to Sec.
63.3350(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
15. Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions to Subpart JJJJ
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions reference Applicable to subpart JJJJ Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)...................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(8).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.1(a)(9)...................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14)................ Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)...................... No..................................... Subpart JJJJ specifies
applicability.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)-(3).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)...................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)...................... No..................................... Area sources are not subject
to emission standards of
subpart JJJJ.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)...................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)...................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)...................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.1(d)......................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(e)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.2............................ Yes.................................... Additional definitions in
subpart JJJJ.
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(3).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.4(a)(4)...................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.4(a)(5)...................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.5(a)(1)-(2).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)...................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)...................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(6).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.5(c)......................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(d)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.5(e)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.5(f)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(a)......................... Yes.................................... Applies only when capture and
control system is used to
comply with the standard.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5).................. No..................................... Sec. 63.3330 specifies
compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)...................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)...................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).................. No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)...................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(d)......................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)................... Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019, see Sec.
63.3340(a) for general duty
requirement. Yes, for all
other affected sources before
[DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter, see Sec.
63.3340(a) for general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii).................. Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019. Yes, for
all other affected sources
before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)...................... No..................................... Reserved.
[[Page 49431]]
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)...................... Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019. Yes, for
all other affected sources
before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)...................... Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019. Yes, for
all other affected sources
before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(g)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(h)......................... No..................................... Subpart JJJJ does not require
continuous opacity monitoring
systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)..................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.6(j)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.7(a)-(d)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)...................... No..................................... See Sec. 63.3360(e)(2).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(3).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.7(f)-(h)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)...................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)...................... No..................................... Subpart JJJJ does not have
monitoring requirements for
flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1) and Sec. Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
63.8(c)(1)(i). sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019, see Sec.
63.3340(a) for general duty
requirement. Yes, for all
other affected sources before
[DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter, see Sec.
63.3340(a) for general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).................. Yes.................................... Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii) only
applies if you use capture
and control systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)................. Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019. Yes, for
all other affected sources
before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)...................... No..................................... Sec. 63.3350 specifies the
requirements for the
operation of CMS for capture
systems and add-on control
devices at sources using
these to comply.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)...................... No..................................... Subpart JJJJ does not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8).................. Yes.................................... Provisions for COMS are not
applicable.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)...................... No..................................... Sec. 63.3350(e)(5) specifies
the program of corrective
action.
Sec. 63.8(e)-(f)..................... Yes.................................... Sec. 63.8(f)(6) only applies
if you use CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)......................... Yes.................................... Only applies if you use CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(a)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)...................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.9(b)(2)...................... Yes.................................... Except Sec. 63.3400(b)(1)
requires submittal of initial
notification for existing
affected sources no later
than 1 year before compliance
date.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)-(5).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.9(c)-(e)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.9(f)......................... No..................................... Subpart JJJJ does not require
opacity and visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.9(g)......................... Yes.................................... Provisions for COMS are not
applicable.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.9(h)(4)...................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(6).................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.9(i)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.9(j)......................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.10(a)........................ Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i).................. Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019. Yes, for
all other affected sources
before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)................. No..................................... See Sec. 63.3410 for
recordkeeping of relevant
information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)................ Yes.................................... Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii) only
applies if you use a capture
and control system.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)............. Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019. Yes, for
all other affected sources
before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv)........... Yes. ..............................
[[Page 49432]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(4)................. No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(5)-(8)................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)..................... No..................................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)............... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.10(c)(15).................... Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019. Yes, for
all other affected sources
before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)................. Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)..................... No..................................... Subpart JJJJ does not require
opacity and visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)..................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).................. Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019. Yes, for
all other affected sources
before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter. See Sec.
63.3400(c) for malfunction
reporting requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)................. Depends, see explanation............... No, for new or reconstructed
sources which commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019. Yes, for
all other affected sources
before [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and No
thereafter. See Sec.
63.3400(c) for malfunction
reporting requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)................. Yes.................................... Provisions for COMS are not
applicable.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)-(4)................. No..................................... Subpart JJJJ does not require
opacity and visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(f)........................ Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.11........................... No..................................... Subpart JJJJ does not specify
use of flares for compliance.
Sec. 63.12........................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.13........................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.14........................... Yes.................................... Subpart JJJJ includes
provisions for alternative
ASME and ASTM test methods
that are incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15........................... Yes. ..............................
Sec. 63.16........................... Yes. ..............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
16. Add Table 3 to Subpart JJJJ to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
That Must Be Counted Relative to Determining Coating HAP Content if
Present at 0.1 Percent or More By Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane................. 79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane..................... 79-00-5
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine..................... 57-14-7
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane............... 96-12-8
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine..................... 122-66-7
1,3-Butadiene............................. 106-99-0
1,3-Dichloropropene....................... 542-75-6
1,4-Dioxane............................... 123-91-1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol..................... 88-06-2
2,4/2,6-Dinitrotoluene (mixture).......... 25321-14-6
2,4-Dinitrotoluene........................ 121-14-2
2,4-Toluene diamine....................... 95-80-7
2-Nitropropane............................ 79-46-9
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine.................... 91-94-1
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine................... 119-90-4
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine.................... 119-93-7
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)....... 101-14-4
Acetaldehyde.............................. 75-07-0
Acrylamide................................ 79-06-1
Acrylonitrile............................. 107-13-1
Allyl chloride............................ 107-05-1
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH)....... 319-84-6
Aniline................................... 62-53-3
Benzene................................... 71-43-2
[[Page 49433]]
Benzidine................................. 92-87-5
Benzotrichloride.......................... 98-07-7
Benzyl chloride........................... 100-44-7
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane (b-HCH)........ 319-85-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate................ 117-81-7
Bis(chloromethyl)ether.................... 542-88-1
Bromoform................................. 75-25-2
Captan.................................... 133-06-2
Carbon tetrachloride...................... 56-23-5
Chlordane................................. 57-74-9
Chlorobenzilate........................... 510-15-6
Chloroform................................ 67-66-3
Chloroprene............................... 126-99-8
Cresols (mixed)........................... 1319-77-3
DDE....................................... 3547-04-4
Dichloroethyl ether....................... 111-44-4
Dichlorvos................................ 62-73-7
Epichlorohydrin........................... 106-89-8
Ethyl acrylate............................ 140-88-5
Ethylene dibromide........................ 106-93-4
Ethylene dichloride....................... 107-06-2
Ethylene oxide............................ 75-21-8
Ethylene thiourea......................... 96-45-7
Ethylidene dichloride (1,1-Dichloroethane) 75-34-3
Formaldehyde.............................. 50-00-0
Heptachlor................................ 76-44-8
Hexachlorobenzene......................... 118-74-1
Hexachlorobutadiene....................... 87-68-3
Hexachloroethane.......................... 67-72-1
Hydrazine................................. 302-01-2
Isophorone................................ 78-59-1
Lindane (hexachlorocyclohexane, all 58-89-9
isomers).................................
m-Cresol.................................. 108-39-4
Methylene chloride........................ 75-09-2
Naphthalene............................... 91-20-3
Nitrobenzene.............................. 98-95-3
Nitrosodimethylamine...................... 62-75-9
o-Cresol.................................. 95-48-7
o-Toluidine............................... 95-53-4
Parathion................................. 56-38-2
p-Cresol.................................. 106-44-5
p-Dichlorobenzene......................... 106-46-7
Pentachloronitrobenzene................... 82-68-8
Pentachlorophenol......................... 87-86-5
Propoxur.................................. 114-26-1
Propylene dichloride...................... 78-87-5
Propylene oxide........................... 75-56-9
Quinoline................................. 91-22-5
Tetrachloroethene......................... 127-18-4
Toxaphene................................. 8001-35-2
Trichloroethylene......................... 79-01-6
Trifluralin............................... 1582-09-8
Vinyl bromide............................. 593-60-2
Vinyl chloride............................ 75-01-4
Vinylidene chloride....................... 75-35-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2019-19101 Filed 9-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P