Wednesday,

January 15, 2003 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans; Proposed Rule VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2110 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ FRL   7418   3]

RIN 2060   AG96 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Metal Cans AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for metal can surface coating operations pursuant to section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). The EPA estimates that there are approximately 142 major source facilities in the metal can surface coating source category that emit hazardous air pollutants ( HAP), such as xylene, hexane, methyl isobutyl ketone ( MIBK), ethylene glycol monobutyl ether ( EGBE) and other glycol ethers, isophorone, ethyl benzene, formaldehyde, napthalene, methyl ethyl ketone ( MEK), cumene, and toluene. As proposed, the standards are estimated to reduce HAP emissions by 6,160 megagrams per year ( Mg/ yr) ( 6,800 tons per year ( tpy)) or by 71 percent. The reduction in HAP emissions would be achieved by requiring all major sources of HAP emissions that have metal can surface coating operations to meet the HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 14, 2003. Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing, they should do so by January 27, 2003. If requested, a public hearing will be held approximately 15 days following publication of this notice in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Comments. By U. S. Postal Service, send comments ( in duplicate if possible) to: Office of Air & Radiation Docket & Information Center ( 6102T), Attention Docket Number A   98   41, U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments ( in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Attention Docket Number A   98   41, U. S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Product Group, Emission Standards Division ( C539   03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541   7946, to request to speak at the public hearing or to find out if a hearing will be held. Docket. Docket No. A   98   41 contains supporting information used in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air & Radiation Docket & Information Center ( 6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8: 30 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Almo ´ dovar, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emissions Standards Division ( C539   03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number ( 919) 541   0283; facsimile number ( 919) 541   5689; electronic mail ( e mail) address: almodovar. <EMAIL_ADDRESS>epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by e mail to: a and rdocket epa. gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect   file format. All comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: A   98   41. No confidential business information ( CBI) should be submitted by e mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the docket: Mr. Paul Almo ´ dovar, c/ o OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404   02), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA, the information may be made available to the public without further notice to the commenter. Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division ( C539   03), U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number ( 919) 541   7946 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing should also contact Ms. Eck at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission standards. Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information considered by EPA in the development of the proposed rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. ( See section 307( d)( 7)( A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to the rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling ( 202) 260   7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. World Wide Web ( WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed rule will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following signature by the Administrator, a copy of the proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at ( 919) 541   5384. Regulated Entities. The proposed source category definition includes facilities that apply surface coatings to metal cans and ends ( including decorative tins) or metal crowns and closures. In general, facilities that apply surface coatings to metal cans are VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2111 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules covered under the North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes listed in Table 1. However, facilities classified under other NAICS codes may be subject to the proposed rule if they meet the applicability criteria. The table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding subcategories and entities likely to be regulated by today's action. To determine whether your coating operation is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.3481 of the proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of today's action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

TABLE 1.   SUBCATEGORIES AND ENTITIES POTENTIALLY REGULATED BY THE PROPOSED STANDARDS Subcategory NAICS Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities One and two piece draw and iron ( D& I) can body coatings. 332431 Two piece beverage can facility Sheetcoatings .............................................. 332431 332115 332116 332812 332999 Three piece food can facility, two piece D& I facility, one piece aerosol can facility, etc.

Three piece can assembly coatings ........... 332431 Can assembly facility End lining coatings ...................................... 332431 332812 End manufacturing facilities Background Information Document and Economic Impact Analysis. The Background Information Document ( BID) and the Economic Impact Analysis ( EIA) for the proposed rule may be obtained from the TTN WWW; the metal can manufacturing ( surface coating) docket ( A   98   41); the EPA Library ( 267   01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone ( 919) 541   2777; or the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone ( 703) 487   4650. Please refer to `` Background Information Document   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for the Metal Can Manufacturing ( Surface Coating) Industry'' ( EPA   453/ R   02   008) and the `` Economic Impact Analysis of Metal Can MACT Standards'' ( EPA   452/ R   02   005). Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP? B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP? C. What impacts do cure HAP have on the NESHAP? D. What are the health effects associated with HAP emissions from metal can surface coating operations? II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by the proposed rule? B. What is the relationship to other rules? C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the regulated pollutants? D. What is the affected source? E. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards? F. When must I comply with the proposed rule? G. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements? H. What are the continuous compliance requirements? I. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? III. Rationale for Selecting Proposed Standards A. How did we select the source category and subcategories? B. How did we select the regulated pollutants? C. How did we select the affected source? D. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed standards for new or reconstructed affected sources and existing affected sources? E. How did we select the format of the standards? F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance requirements? G. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements? H. How did we select the test methods for determining compliance with the emission limits using add on control devices? I. How did we select notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements? IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts A. What are the air impacts? B. What are the cost impacts? C. What are the economic impacts? D. What are the non air health, environmental, and energy impacts? V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 G. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601, et seq. H. Paperwork Reduction Act I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Background A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The metal can surface coating source category was listed on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576) under the Surface Coating Processes industry group. Major sources of HAP are those that emit or have the potential to emit equal to or greater than 9.1 Mg/ yr ( 10 tpy) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/ yr ( 25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP emissions from both new or reconstructed and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. That level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112( d)( 3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2112 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules better controlled and lower emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new or reconstructed sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new or reconstructed sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limit achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory ( or the best performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. What Impacts Do Cure HAP Have on the NESHAP? Chemical reactions occurring during many metal can surface coating and curing operations may create compounds that are then emitted into the atmosphere. Those types of compounds are normally referred to as `` cure volatiles'' or `` cure HAP'' and may include formaldehyde and methanol ( listed as HAP under section 112( b) of the CAA). In determining the MACT, we did not quantify emissions of cure HAP because there is not an EPA approved test method for measuring those compounds. Therefore, the proposed rule would not require affected sources to account for and control emissions of cure HAP.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP Emissions From Metal Can Surface Coating Operations? The primary HAP emitted from metal can surface coating operations include EGBE and other glycol ethers, xylenes, hexane, MEK, and MIBK. Those compounds account for 95 percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from that source category. Other HAP emitted include isophorone, ethyl benzene, toluene, trichloroethylene, formaldehyde, and napthalene. The HAP that would be controlled with the proposed rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. Those adverse health effects include chronic health disorders ( e. g., irritation of the lungs, eyes, and mucus membranes and effects on the central nervous system), acute health disorders ( e. g., lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects on the central nervous system), and possibly cancer. We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities covered by the proposed emission standards for that category and on the people living around the facilities that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from those facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding those facilities. However, to the extent that adverse effects do occur, the proposed rule would reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the Proposed Rule?

The proposed rule would apply to you if you own or operate a metal can surface coating operation that uses at least 5,700 liters ( 1,500 gallons ( gal)) of coatings per year and is a major source, is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions, whether or not you manufacture the metal can substrate. The surface coating operations themselves are not required to be major sources of HAP emissions in order for the surface coating operations at a major source facility to be covered by the proposed rule. As long as some part of the total facility is considered a major source ( e. g., the metal can substrate manufacturing process), the surface coating operations would be subject to the standards. A metal can surface coating facility is any facility that coats or prints metal cans or ends ( including decorative tins) or metal crowns or closures for any type of can during any stage of the can manufacturing process. It includes the coating/ printing of metal sheets for subsequent processing into cans or can parts, but not the coating of metal coils for cans or can parts. ( Coil coating for cans and can parts is included in the metal coil surface coating source category.) Note that the coating/ printing of pails and drums falls in the miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating source category. As explained later, we have established four subcategories in the metal can surface coating industry, including: ( 1) One and two piece D& I can body coating, ( 2) sheetcoating, ( 3) three piece can body assembly coating, and ( 4) end lining. Some metal can surface coating facilities include coating operations in more than one subcategory. In those cases, the facilities would be subject to more than one emission limit. You would not be subject to the proposed rule if your coating operation is located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through the permitting authority.

B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules? Affected sources subject to the proposed rule may also be subject to other rules. We specifically request comments on how monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements can be consolidated for sources that are subject to more than one rule. National Emission Standards for Metal Coil Surface Coating. Facilities engaged in surface coating performed on a continuous metal substrate greater than 0.006 inches thick would be subject to the metal coil surface coating NESHAP ( 67 FR 39794, June 10, 2002). National Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating. Surface coating of any metal parts and products not covered in any other surface coating source category, such as metal can surface coating or metal coil surface coating, would be subject to the future miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating NESHAP, as proposed August 13, 2002 ( 67 FR 52780).

C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Regulated Pollutants? HAP Emission Sources. The primary HAP emission sources in metal can surface coating operations are coating application lines, drying/ curing ovens, mixing and/ or thinning areas, and cleaning equipment. Coating application lines and drying/ curing ovens are the largest sources of HAP emissions. Recent reformulation efforts involving the primary coatings used in metal can surface coating operations are likely to continue as a result of the proposed rule and will serve to reduce HAP emissions from these sources. Mixing and/ or thinning areas and cleaning equipment are smaller HAP emission sources and work practice standards would be used to limit the HAP emissions from these sources. Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed NESHAP show that the VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2113 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules primary organic HAP ( including cure HAP) emitted from metal can surface coating operations include EGBE and other glycol ethers, xylenes, hexane, MEK, and MIBK. Other significant organic HAP identified include isophorone, ethyl benzene, toluene, trichloroethylene, napthalene, and formaldehyde. Organic HAP emissions would be regulated by the proposed metal can surface coating rule. Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported during the development of the proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP, including chromium and manganese compounds, are contained in some of the coatings used by that source category and may be emitted if they are spray applied. Inorganic HAP emissions would not be regulated by the proposed metal can surface coating rule. ( See section III. B of this preamble for further discussion of inorganic HAP emissions from surface coating operations.)

D. What Is the Affected Source? We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. The proposed standards for metal can surface coating define the affected source for each subcategory as the collection of all operations within a facility associated with ( 1) one and two piece D& I can body coating, ( 2) sheetcoating, ( 3) three piece can body assembly coating, or ( 4) end lining. Those operations include the following: Preparation of a coating for application ( e. g., mixing with thinners); process equipment involving storage, transfer, handling, and application of coatings; and associated curing, and drying equipment. The affected source does not include research or laboratory equipment or janitorial, building, or facility maintenance operations.

E. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Work Practice Standards? Emission Limits. We are proposing to limit organic HAP emissions from each new or reconstructed affected source using the emission limits in Table 2 of this preamble. The proposed emission limits for each existing affected source are given in Table 3 of this preamble. You can choose from several compliance options in the proposed rule to achieve the emission limit that applies to your affected source. You could comply by applying materials ( coatings and thinners) that meet the emission limit, either individually or collectively. You could also use a capture system and add on control equipment to meet the emission limit. You could also comply by using a combination of both approaches. If you use a capture system and add on control equipment, there are alternative control efficiency or outlet concentration limits that you may use to simplify and reduce your recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The alternative emission limits for affected sources using the control efficiency/ outlet concentration compliance option are provided in Table 4 of this preamble.

TABLE 2.   EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED AFFECTED SOURCES If you apply surface coatings to metal cans or metal can parts in this subcategory . . . for all coatings of this type . . . then, you must meet the following organic HAP emission limit in kilograms HAP/ liter solids ( pound HAP/ gal solids) 1:

1. One and two piece D& I can body coating .................... a. two piece beverage cans   all coatings ......................... b. two piece food cans   all coatings ................................. c. one piece aerosol cans   all coatings ............................ 0.04 ( 0.31) 0.06 ( 0.50) 0.08 ( 0.65) 2. Sheetcoating ................................................................... sheetcoating ....................................................................... 0.02 ( 0.17) 3. Three piece can assembly ............................................. a. inside spray .................................................................... b. aseptic side seam stripes on food cans ........................ c. non aseptic side seam stripes on food cans ................. d. side seam stripes on general line non food cans .......... e. side seam stripes on aerosol cans ................................ 0.12 ( 1.03) 1.48 ( 12.37) 0.72 ( 5.96) 1.18 ( 9.84) 1.46 ( 12.14) 4. End lining ........................................................................ a. aseptic end seal compounds ......................................... b. non aseptic end seal compounds .................................. 0.06 ( 0.54) 0.00 ( 0.00)

1 If you apply surface coatings of more than one type within any one subcategory, you may calculate an overall subcategory emission limit ( OSEL) according to 40 CFR 63.3551( i).

TABLE 3.   EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES If you apply surface coatings to metal cans or metal can parts in this subcategory . . . for all coatings of this type . . . then, you must meet the following organic HAP emission limit in kilogram HAP/ liter solids ( pound HAP/ gal solids) 1:

1. One and two piece D& I can body coating ................... a. two piece beverage cans   all coatings ......................... b. two piece food cans   all coatings ................................. c. one piece aerosol cans   all coatings ............................ 0.07 ( 0.59) 0.06 ( 0.51) ........................................ 0.12 ( 0.99) 2. Sheetcoating ................................................................... sheetcoating ....................................................................... 0.03 ( 0.26) 3. Three piece can assembly ............................................. a. inside spray .................................................................... b. aseptic side seam stripes on food cans ........................ c. non aseptic side seam stripes on food cans ................. d. side seam stripes on general line non food cans .......... e. side seam stripes on aerosol cans ................................ 0.29 ( 2.43) 1.94 ( 16.16) 0.79 ( 6.57) 1.18 ( 9.84) 1.46 ( 12.14)

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2114 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3.   EMISSION LIMITS FOR EXISTING AFFECTED SOURCES   Continued If you apply surface coatings to metal cans or metal can parts in this subcategory . . . for all coatings of this type . . . then, you must meet the following organic HAP emission limit in kilogram HAP/ liter solids ( pound HAP/ gal solids) 1:

4. End lining ........................................................................ a. aseptic end seal compounds ......................................... b. non aseptic end seal compounds .................................. 0.06 ( 0.54) 0.00 ( 0.00)

1 If you apply surface coatings of more than one type within any one subcategory you may calculate an OSEL according to 40 CFR 63.3551( i).

TABLE 4.   EMISSION LIMITS FOR AFFECTED SOURCES USING THE CONTROL EFFICIENCY/ OUTLET CONCENTRATION COMPLIANCE OPTION If you use the control efficiency/ outlet concentration option to comply with the emission limitations for any coating operation( s) Then you must comply with one of the following by using an emissions control system to 1. In a new or reconstructed affected source .......................................... a. reduce emissions of total HAP, measured as total hydrocarbons ( THC) ( as carbon), 1 by 97 percent; or b. limit emissions of total HAP, measured as THC ( as carbon) 1 to 20 parts per million by volume, dry ( ppmvd) at the control device outlet and use a permanent total enclosure. 2. In an existing affected source .............................................................. a. reduce emissions of total HAP, measured as THC ( as carbon), 1 by 95 percent; or b. limit emissions of total HAP, measured as THC ( as carbon), 1 to 20 ppmvd at the control device outlet and use a PTE.

1 You may choose to subtract methane from THC as carbon measurements.

Operating Limits. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and add on control device ( other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid liquid material balance), the proposed operating limits would apply to you. Those limits are site specific parameter limits you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems that are not permanent total enclosures ( PTE), you would establish average volumetric flow rates or duct static pressure limits for each capture device ( or enclosure) in each capture system. For capture systems that are PTE, you would establish limits on average facial velocity or pressure drop across openings in the enclosure. For thermal oxidizers, you would monitor the combustion temperature. For catalytic oxidizers, you would monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed or you would monitor the temperature before the catalyst bed and implement a sitespecific inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer. For carbon adsorbers for which you do not conduct a liquid liquid material balance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. For condensers, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature from the condenser. For concentrators, you would monitor the temperature of the desorption concentrate stream and the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator. All site specific parameter limits that you establish must reflect operation of the capture system and control devices during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limits during representative operating conditions. Work Practice Standards. In lieu of emission standards, section 112( h) of the CAA allows work practice standards or other requirements to be established when a pollutant cannot be emitted through a conveyance or capture system, or when measurement is not practicable because of technological and economic limitations. Many metal can surface coating facilities use work practice measures to reduce HAP emissions from mixing, cleaning, storage, and waste handling areas as part of their standard operating procedures. They use those measures to decrease solvent usage and minimize exposure to workers. However, we do not have data to accurately quantify the emissions reductions achievable by the work practice measures, and it is not feasible to measure emissions or enforce a numerical standard for emissions from those operations. Based on information received from that industry during the development of NESHAP and information available from several similar coating industries for which NESHAP have already been promulgated ( aerospace manufacturing and rework, magnetic tape manufacturing, shipbuilding and ship repair, and wood furniture manufacturing), we identified a variety of work practice measures for cleaning, storage, mixing, and waste handling. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and add on control device, you would be required to develop and implement a work practice plan that would specify practices and procedures to ensure that, at a minimum, the elements specified below are implemented: ( 1) Storing all organic HAP containing liquids and waste materials in closed containers, ( 2) minimizing spills of all organic HAPcontaining materials, ( 3) using closed containers or pipes to transport all organic HAP containing materials, ( 4) keeping mixing vessels for organic HAPcontaining materials closed except when adding to, removing, or mixing the contents, and ( 5) minimizing organic HAP emissions during all cleaning operations. If your affected source has an existing documented plan that incorporates steps taken to minimize emissions from the aforementioned sources, then your existing plan could be used to satisfy the requirement for a work practice plan. Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction. If you use a capture system and add on control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) during VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2115 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and add on control device. General Provisions. The General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A) also would apply to you as indicated in the proposed standards. The General Provisions codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance related activities such as notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed standards refer to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that are relevant. However, unless specifically overridden in the proposed standards, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements would apply to you.

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

G. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements? Initial Compliance. Compliance with the emission limits is based on a 12 month rolling average. Therefore, for new or reconstructed affected sources using the compliant materials option or the emission rate without add on controls option, the proposed initial compliance period begins on the first day of the first month following initial startup of the affected source or the effective date, whichever is later, and ends on the last day of the 12th month following initial startup or the effective date, whichever is later. For new or reconstructed affected sources that use a capture system and control device, the initial compliance period begins on the first day of the first month following the initial performance test and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the initial performance test. For all new or reconstructed affected sources, any partial month data between initial startup or initial performance test and initial compliance period must be added to the first month data. For existing affected sources, the proposed initial compliance period begins on the first day of the month in which the compliance date falls and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the compliance date. Being in compliance means that the owner or operator of the affected source meets the requirements to achieve the proposed emission limitations by the end of the initial compliance period. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator would use the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance with the 12 month rolling average for that period. If the affected source does not meet the applicable limits and other requirements, it is out of compliance for the entire initial compliance period. We welcome specific comments on the compliance dates and the data collection activities required for the initial compliance period. Emission Limits. There are several proposed options for complying with the proposed emission limits, and the testing and initial compliance requirements vary accordingly. Option 1: Compliance Based on the Compliant Material Option. If you demonstrate compliance based on the compliant material option, you would determine the mass of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners used each month during the initial compliance period and the volume fraction of coating solids in all coatings used each month during the initial compliance period. To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings and thinners and the volume fraction of coating solids, you could use either manufacturer's data or test results using the test methods listed below. You may use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with 40 CFR 63.7( f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test method results ( either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results would prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes.   For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A.   The proposed rule allows you to use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP. If you choose that option, then use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine nonaqueous volatile matter.   For volume fraction of coating solids, use either information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, ASTM Method D2697   86( 1998), or ASTM Method D6093   97. To demonstrate initial compliance based on the compliant materials option, you would be required to demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each coating meets the applicable emission limits and that you use no organic HAP containing thinners. Option 2: Compliance Based on the Emission Rate Without Add On Controls Option. If you demonstrate compliance based on the emission rate without add on controls option, you would determine the mass of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners used in each coating type segment each month during the initial compliance period and the volume fraction of coating solids in all coatings in each coating type segment used each month during the initial compliance period. To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings and thinners and the volume fraction of coating solids, you could use either manufacturer's data or test results using the test methods listed below. You may use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with 40 CFR 63.7( f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test method results ( either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results would prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes.   For organic HAP content, use Method 311.   The proposed rule allows you to use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP. If you choose that option, use Method 24 to determine nonaqueous volatile matter.   For volume fraction of coating solids, use either information from the supplier or manufacturer of the material, ASTM Method D2697   86( 1998), or ASTM Method D6093   97. To demonstrate initial compliance based on the emission rate without addon controls option, you would be required to demonstrate that the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners in each coating type segment divided by the total volume of coating solids in that coating type segment meets the applicable emission limit. For the emission rate without add on VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2116 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules controls option, you would be required to perform the following.   Determine the quantity of each coating and thinner used in each coating type segment.   Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating and thinner in each coating type segment.   Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating in each coating type segment.   Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all materials in each coating type segment and total volume of coating solids in each coating type segment for each month of the initial compliance period. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266.   Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP for the materials used in each coating type segment to the total volume of coating solids used in the segment.   Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Alternatively, if you apply coatings in more than one coating type segment within a subcategory, you may calculate an overall HAP emission limit for the subcategory and demonstrate compliance by including all coatings and thinners in all coating type segments in the subcategory in calculating the ratio of total mass of organic HAP to total volume of coating solids. If you use that approach, you must use the subcategory limit throughout the 12 month initial compliance period and may not switch between compliance with limits for individual coating type segments and an overall limit. You may not include coatings in different subcategories in determining your overall HAP limit by that approach. Option 3: Compliance Based on the Emission Rate With Add On Controls Option. If you use a capture system and add on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid liquid material balance, your testing and initial compliance requirements are as follows.   Conduct an initial performance test to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis.   Determine the mass of organic HAP in each material and the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating used each month of the initial compliance period.   Calculate the organic HAP emissions from the controlled coating operations using the capture and control efficiencies determined during the performance test and the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations.   Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP emissions to the total volume of coating solids used each month of the initial compliance period.   Record the calculations and results and include them in the Notification of Compliance Status. If you use a capture system and addon control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid liquid material balances, you would determine both the efficiency of the capture system and the emissions reduction efficiency of the control device. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a PTE using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, or use one of the protocols in 40 CFR 63.3565 to measure capture efficiency. If you have a PTE and all the materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, then you would assume 100 percent capture. To determine the emissions reduction efficiency of the control device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting at least 1 hour, using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A:   Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites;   Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas volumetric flow rate;   Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in ANSI/ ASME PTC 19.10   1981;   Method 4 to determine stack moisture; and   Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be used. If you use a solvent recovery system, you could determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you would be required to measure the amount of all materials used in the affected source during each month of the initial compliance period and determine the volatile matter contained in these materials. You would also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system each month of the initial compliance period. Then you would compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency and apply this efficiency to the ratio of organic HAP to coating solids for the materials used. You would record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Operating Limits. As mentioned above, you would establish operating limits as part of the initial performance test of an emission capture and control system. The operating limits are the values of certain parameters measured for capture systems and control devices during the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits. The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of emission control systems commonly used in the industry. You would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to the manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) meet the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3568 of the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States. If you use a thermal oxidizer, you would continuously monitor the appropriate temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. The temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the average temperature measured during the performance test, and for each consecutive 3 hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above that limit. If you use a catalytic oxidizer you may choose from two methods to determine operating limits. In the first method, you would continuously monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed and record it at least every 15 minutes. The operating limits would be the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3 hour period the VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2117 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules average temperature and the average temperature difference would have to be at or above those limits. In the alternative method, you would continuously monitor the temperature immediately before the catalyst bed and record it at least every 15 minutes. The operating limit would be the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3 hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above that limit. As part of the alternative method, you must also develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer. If you use a carbon adsorber and do not conduct liquid liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration. The operating limits would be the carbon bed temperature ( not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption ( to be met as a minimum). If you use a condenser, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature to ensure that the air stream is being cooled to a low enough temperature. The operating limit would be the average condenser outlet gas temperature measured during the performance test, and for each consecutive 3 hour period the average temperature would have to be at or below this limit. If you use a concentrator, you would monitor the desorption concentrate stream gas temperature and the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator. The operating limits would be the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature ( to be met as a minimum) and the dilute stream pressure drop ( not to be exceeded). For each capture system that is not a PTE, you would establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit would be the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure during the performance test to be met as a minimum. For each capture system that is a PTE, the operating limit would require the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings to be at least 200 feet per minute or the pressure drop across the enclosure to be at least 0.007 inch water. Work Practice Standards. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and implement on an ongoing basis a work practice plan for minimizing organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, material handling, and waste handling operations. That plan would include a description of all steps taken to minimize emissions from those sources ( e. g., using closed storage containers, practices to minimize emissions during filling and transfer of contents from containers, using spill minimization techniques, etc.). You would have to make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to a SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. Option 4: Compliance Based on the Control Efficiency/ Outlet Concentration Option. If you use a capture system and add on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid liquid material balance, you may meet either of the applicable alternative limits summarized in Table 4 of this preamble instead of the organic HAP emission rate limits summarized in Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble. Prior to the initial performance test, you would be required to install control device parameter monitoring equipment to be used to demonstrate compliance with the capture and control efficiencies ( or the capture efficiency of the capture system and the oxidizer outlet concentration) and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis. During the initial compliance test, you would use the control device parameter monitoring equipment to establish parameter values that represent your operating requirements for the control systems. You would record the initial performance test results and include them in the Notification of Compliance Status. If you use a capture system and addon control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid liquid material balances, you would verify the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent and determine the emissions reduction efficiency of the control device. To verify the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a PTE using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, or use one of the protocols in § 63.3565 to measure capture efficiency. If you have a PTE and all the materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, then you would assume 100 percent capture. To determine the emissions reduction efficiency of the control device, you would conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test would consist of three runs, each run lasting at least 1 hour, using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A:   Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites;   Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas volumetric flow rate;   Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in ANSI/ ASME PTC 19.10   1981;   Method 4 to determine stack moisture; and   Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be used. If you use a solvent recovery system, you could determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you would be required to measure the amount of all materials used in the affected source during each month of the initial compliance period and determine the volatile matter contained in these materials. You would also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system each month of the initial compliance period. Then you would compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency, and apply this efficiency to the ratio of organic HAP to coating solids for the materials used. You would record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status. Operating Limits. As mentioned above, you would establish operating limits as part of the initial performance test of an emission capture and control system. The operating limits are the values of certain parameters measured for capture systems and control devices during the most recent performance test that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits. The proposed rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of emission control systems commonly used in the industry.

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2118 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules You would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to the manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the CPMS meet the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3568 of the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the proposed rule, you would submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States. If you use a thermal oxidizer, you would continuously monitor the appropriate temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. The temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit would be the average temperature measured during the performance test, and for each consecutive 3 hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above that limit. If you use a catalytic oxidizer you may choose from two methods to determine operating limits. In the first method, you would continuously monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed and record it at least every 15 minutes. The operating limits would be the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3 hour period the average temperature and the average temperature difference would have to be at or above these limits. In the alternative method, you would continuously monitor the temperature immediately before the catalyst bed and record it at least every 15 minutes. The operating limit would be the average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance test, and for each 3 hour period the average temperature would have to be at or above this limit. As part of the alternative method, you must also develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer. If you use a carbon adsorber and do not conduct liquid liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you would monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration. The operating limits would be the carbon bed temperature ( not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption ( to be met as a minimum). If you use a condenser, you would monitor the outlet gas temperature to ensure that the air stream is being cooled to a low enough temperature. The operating limit would be the average condenser outlet gas temperature measured during the performance test, and for each consecutive 3 hour period the average temperature would have to be at or below that limit. If you use a concentrator, you would monitor the desorption concentrate stream gas temperature and the pressure drop of the dilute stream across the concentrator. The operating limits would be the desorption concentrate gas stream temperature ( to be met as a minimum) and the dilute stream pressure drop ( not to be exceeded). For each capture system that is not a PTE, you would establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit would be the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure during the performance test, to be met as a minimum. For each capture system that is a PTE, the operating limit would require the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings to be at least 200 feet per minute or the pressure drop across the enclosure to be at least 0.007 inches water. Work Practice Standards. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and implement on an ongoing basis a work practice plan for minimizing organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, material handling, and waste handling operations. That plan would include a description of all steps taken to minimize emissions from those sources ( e. g., using closed storage containers, practices to minimize emissions during filling and transfer of contents from containers, using spill minimization techniques, etc.). You would have to make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction. You would be required to develop and operate your capture system and control device according to a SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

H. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements? Option 1: Compliance Based on the Compliant Material Option. If you demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limits based on the compliant material option, you would demonstrate continuous compliance if, for each 12 month compliance period, the organic HAP content of each coating used does not exceed the applicable emission limit and you use no thinner that contains organic HAP. Option 2: Compliance Based on the Emission Rate Without Add On Controls Option. If you demonstrate compliance with the proposed emission limits based on the emission rate without add on controls option, you would demonstrate continuous compliance if, for each rolling 12 month compliance period, the ratio of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners in each coating type segment to coating solids in that coating type segment is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit. You would follow the same procedures for calculating the organic HAP to coating solids ratio that you used for the initial compliance period. If you use an alternative calculated overall HAP emission limit for all coating type segments within a subcategory, you would use the same procedures that you used for the initial compliance period. Whichever approach you use must be used consistently throughout each 12 month compliance period. Option 3: Compliance Based on the Emission Rate With Add On Controls Option. For each coating operation on which you use a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid liquid material balance, you would use the continuous parameter monitoring results for the month in determining the mass of organic HAP emissions. If the monitoring results indicate no deviations from the operating limits and there were no bypasses of the control device, you would assume the capture system and control device are achieving the same percent emissions reduction efficiency as they did during the most recent performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. You would then apply that percent reduction to the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations to determine the monthly emission rate from those operations. If there were any deviations from the operating limits during the month or any bypasses of the control device, you would account for them in the calculation of the monthly emission rate by assuming the capture system and control device were achieving zero emissions reduction during the periods of deviation. Then, you would determine the annual average emission rate by calculating the ratio for the most recent 12 month period. For each coating operation on which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid liquid material balance each month, you would use the liquid

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2119 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules liquid material balance to determine control efficiency. To determine the overall control efficiency, you must measure the amount of all materials used during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, calculate the overall control efficiency, and apply it to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions. Then, you would determine the annual average emission rate by taking the average of the monthly ratios for the most recent 12 month period. Operating Limits. If you use a capture system and control device, the proposed rule would require you to achieve on a continuous basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test. If the continuous monitoring shows that the capture system and control device is operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, you have deviated from the established operating limits. If you operate a capture system and control device that allow emissions to bypass the control device, you would have to demonstrate that organic HAP emissions from each emission point within the affected source are being routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control device. You may choose from the following four monitoring procedures:   Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device;   Car seal or lock and key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating;   Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or   Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when flow is diverted from the control device. If the bypass monitoring procedures indicate that emissions are not routed to the control device, you have deviated from the emission limits. Work Practice Standards. If you use an emission capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to implement on an ongoing basis the work practice plan you developed during the initial compliance period. If you did not develop a plan for reducing organic HAP emissions or you do not implement the plan, that would be a deviation from the work practice standards. Operations During Startup, Shutdown, or Malfunction. If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and operate according to an SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. Option 4: Compliance Based on the Control Efficiency/ Outlet Concentration Option. If you use a capture system and add on control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid liquid material balance, your testing and continuous compliance requirements are the same as those in Option 3. For add on control systems, you would be required to install control device parameter monitoring equipment to be used to demonstrate compliance with the operating requirements for add on control systems in today's proposed rule. If you operate a CPMS, it would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes and you would need to have at least three data points per hour to have a valid hour of data. You would have to operate the CPMS at all times the surface coating operation and control systems are operating. You would also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the data collected with the CPMS, you would calculate and record the average values of each operating parameter according to the specified averaging times.

I. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You are required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in the proposed rule. The General Provisions notification requirements include: Initial notifications, notification of performance test if you are complying using a capture system and control device, notification of compliance status, and additional notifications required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems. The General Provisions also require certain records and periodic reports. Initial Notification. If the proposed standards apply to you as a new or reconstructed affected source, you must send a notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your facility is located and to your State agency within 120 days after the date of initial startup or 120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later. Existing affected sources must send the initial notification within 1 year after publication of the final rule. The report notifies us and your State agency that you have constructed a new facility, reconstructed an existing facility, or you have an existing facility that is subject to the proposed rule. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to plan for compliance activities. You would also need to send a notification of planned construction or reconstruction of a source that would be subject to the proposed rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct. Notification of Performance Test. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device for which you do not conduct a liquidliquid material balance, you would conduct a performance test. For a new or reconstructed affected source, the performance test would be required no later than 180 days after initial startup or 180 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later. For an existing source, the performance test would be required no later than the compliance date. You must notify us ( or the delegated State or local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as indicated in the General Provisions for the NESHAP. Notification of Compliance Status. Your compliance procedures would depend on which compliance option you choose. For each compliance option, you would send us a Notification of Compliance Status within 30 days after the end of the initial compliance period. In the notification, you would certify whether the affected source has complied with the proposed standards, identify the option( s) you used to demonstrate initial compliance, summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance demonstration, and describe how you will determine continuous compliance. If you elect to comply by using a capture system and control device for which you conduct performance tests, you must provide the results of the tests. Your notification would also include the measured range of each monitored parameter and the operating limits established during the performance test, and information showing whether the affected source has complied with its operating limits during the initial compliance period. Recordkeeping Requirements. You would be required to keep records of reported information and all other information necessary to document compliance with the proposed rule for 5 years. As required under the General Provisions, records for the 2 most recent years must be kept on site; the other 3 VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2120 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules years' records may be kept off site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the equipment. Depending on the compliance option that you choose, you may need to keep records of the following:   Organic HAP content, volatile matter content, coating solids content, and quantity of the coatings and other materials applied; and   All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status. If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device, you would also need to keep records of the following:   The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system and control device;   All maintenance performed on the capture system and control device;   Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures specified in the affected source's SSMP;   All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's SSMP when the plan procedures are followed;   All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's plan for minimizing emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling operations;   Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or inoperative ( including out of control periods);   All required measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards; and   All results of performance tests. The proposed rule would require you to collect and keep records according to your monitoring plan. Failure to collect and keep the specified minimum data would be a deviation that is separate from any emission limits, operating limits, or work practice standards. Deviations, as determined from those records, would need to be recorded and also reported. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or obligation established by the proposed rule including, but not limited to, the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards, are not met. If you use a capture system and control device to reduce organic HAP emissions, you would have to make your SSMP available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. The plan would stay in your records for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the proposed standards. If you revise the plan, you would need to keep the previous superceded versions on record for 5 years following the revision. Periodic Reports. Each year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, you would submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If deviations occur, you would need to include them in the report as follows:   Report each deviation from the emission limit.   Report each deviation from the work practice standards if you use an emission capture system and control device.   If you use an emission capture system and control device, report each deviation from an operating limit and each time a bypass line diverts emissions from the control device to the atmosphere.   Report other specific information on the periods of time and details of deviations that occurred. You would also have to include an explanation in each semiannual report if a change occurs that might affect the compliance status of the affected source or you change to another option for meeting the applicable emission limit. Other Reports. You would be required to submit reports for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. If the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your plan, you would report those procedures with your semiannual reports in addition to immediate reports required by the General Provisions in section 63.10( d)( 5)( ii).

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Subcategories?

Metal can surface coating operations is on the CAA list of source categories to be regulated because it contains major sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 9.07 Mg ( 10 tons) of any one HAP or at least 22.7 Mg ( 25 tons) of any combination of HAP annually. The proposed rule would control HAP emissions from both new or reconstructed and existing major sources. Area sources are not being regulated under the proposed rule. We intend the source category to include facilities for which the surface coating of metal cans is either their principal activity or is an integral part of a production process which is the principal activity. While some facilities are entirely dedicated to surface coating, most metal can surface coating operations are located at plant sites for which can manufacturing is the principal activity. Both stand alone and co located surface coating operations are included in the source category, and the definition of the source category is intended to reflect that inclusion. The project database was used to identify those `` major source'' or `` synthetic minor source'' facilities that reported using at least 5,700 liter/ yr ( 1,500 gal/ yr) of coatings in metal can surface coating operations. The source category does not include research or laboratory facilities or janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations. Subcategory Selection. The statute gives us discretion to determine if and how to subcategorize. A subcategory is a group of similar sources within a given source category. As part of the regulatory development process, we evaluate the similarities and differences among industry segments or groups of facilities comprising a source category. In establishing subcategories, we consider factors such as process operations ( type of process, raw materials, chemistry/ formulation data, associated equipment, and final products), emission characteristics ( amount and type of HAP), control device applicability, and opportunities for pollution prevention. We may also consider existing regulations or guidance from States and other regulatory agencies in determining subcategories. After reviewing survey responses from the industry, facility site visit reports, and information received from stakeholder meetings we found that the metal can surface coating industry may be grouped into four product groups or subcategories with different coating processes and performance requirements. The four subcategories are ( 1) One and two piece D& I can body coating, ( 2) sheetcoating, ( 3) three piece can body assembly coating, and ( 4) end lining. We also found significant differences in coating requirements for cans manufactured for different end uses within several of these subcategories that warranted further segmentation into coating types within the subcategories. Descriptions of each subcategory and coating type segment are given in the following paragraphs. One and Two Piece Draw and Iron Can Body Coating. Aluminum or steel D& I cans are made from metal coil by stamping out shallow metal cups which are then placed on a cylinder and forced through a series of rings of decreasing annular space to further draw out the VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2121 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules wall of the can and iron out folds in the metal. Surface coatings, both interior and exterior, are then applied to the formed can. There are several reasons why D& I can body coating is a separate subcategory. In both annual production and overall HAP emissions, cans made by the D& I process make up the largest component of the metal can manufacturing industry. The processes by which they are produced and surface coated, and, to some extent, the coatings used, differ significantly from those used for other types of cans, and because of existing VOC rules and the coating processes and configuration of D& I facilities, emission control devices are commonly used. While the general production and coating application processes are similar for all D& I cans, differences in coating types and relative amount of coating used for cans with different end uses warrant a further subdivision of that subcategory into three coating type segments: ( 1) Two piece beverage can coatings, ( 2) two piece food can coatings, and ( 3) one piece aerosol can coatings. A different MACT standard is proposed for each of those segments. Sheetcoating. The subcategory includes all of the flat metal sheet coating operations associated with the manufacture of three piece cans, decorative tins, crowns and closures, and two piece draw redraw cans. The methods of coating application and the types of coatings used on flat sheets differ significantly from those used in the other subcategories. The coatings ( interior and exterior base coatings, decorative inks, and overvarnishes) are most commonly applied by roller to the flat metal sheets, which then pass through a curing oven. While those emission points are sometimes uncontrolled, the best performing sources typically control emissions through the use of ultraviolet cured coatings or partial or total enclosures routed to thermal or catalytic oxidizers that achieve destruction efficiencies of 95 percent or higher. Decorative inks, which make up a significant proportion of the coatings used in sheetcoating, have very low concentrations of HAP and are inherently low emitting. Three Piece Can Body Assembly Coatings. Three piece cans consist of an open ended can body and two separate ends. Can body assembly is the step in the three piece can manufacturing process in which flat body blanks are formed into a cylinder and the side seams are joined together. Coating operations associated with can body assembly are interior and exterior side seam stripe and inside spray applications. Several characteristics of three piece can body assembly coating place it in a separate subcategory. Can assembly facilities use only a limited number of coatings in relatively small total volumes. Side seam striping is unique in that the application process and coating formulations have higher solvency requirements than other can body and end coatings and end seal compounds. Side seam stripe emissions are typically uncontrolled because emission rates are low and capturing emissions is not economical due to high air flow rates and low solvent loading. Three piece cans made for different end uses and contents require coatings, particularly side seam stripes, with widely differing chemical characteristics and shelf life requirements. Some food cans must be sterilized before filling by subjecting them to high temperature steam, chemicals, or a combination of both, while other food cans do not require this kind of aseptic processing. Different kinds of foods vary in their acid contents. Coatings required on cans for these different end uses often have significantly different HAP contents. Inside spray coatings also differ from side seam stripes in quantity used and chemical composition. For those reasons, the three piece can body assembly coating subcategory is divided into five distinct coating type segments with different emission limits for each. Those segments include: ( 1) Inside spray coatings, ( 2) aseptic side seam stripe coatings for food cans, ( 3) nonaseptic side seam stripe coatings for food cans, ( 4) side seam stripe coatings for non food general line cans, and ( 5) side seam stripe coatings for non food aerosol cans. End Lining Coatings. End lining coating operations consisting of the application of end seal compounds to can ends are in a separate subcategory for several reasons. Unlike other coatings, end seal compounds are applied in a bead around the edges of can ends. Curing takes place under ambient conditions ( not in a curing oven) over a longer period of time than other coatings. And the coating formulation ( solids content, types of solvents used) of end seal compounds differs significantly from other coatings. Emissions from end lining operations are not controlled because the curing rate of end seal compounds is slow. Controlling such volatile HAP emissions is not cost effective, since it would result in a high volume, low concentration emission stream requiring significant auxiliary fuel usage to achieve a high destruction efficiency. As with side seam stripes, some end seal compounds must withstand aseptic processing while others do not have to meet that requirement. There are significant differences in formulation and HAP content ( and emissions) for end seal compounds for aseptic and non aseptic applications. For that reason the end lining subcategory is divided into two coating type segments: aseptic and non aseptic.

B. How Did We Select the Regulated Pollutants? Organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the proposed rule show that the primary organic HAP emitted from metal can surface coating operations include EGBE and other glycol ethers, xylenes, hexane, MEK, and MIBK. Those compounds account for 95 percent of that source category's nationwide organic HAP emissions. Other significant organic HAP emissions include isophorone, ethyl benzene, toluene, trichloroethylene, formaldehyde, and naphthalene. Because coatings used by metal can surface coating operations contain many combinations of those and other organic HAP, it is not practical to regulate them individually. Therefore, the proposed rule would regulate emissions of all organic HAP. Inorganic HAP. Based on information reported during the development of the proposed rule, inorganic HAP contained in the coatings used by that source category include chromium, manganese, and antimony compounds. Because these inorganic compounds are in the coating solids, they are retained in the dry ( film) coating on the substrate to which the coating is applied. The only opportunity for any quantifiable solids material to enter the ambient air is if they are spray applied and emitted as overspray. Because of the atomization of the coating during spray application, inorganic compounds become airborne and are either deposited on the substrate, fall to the floor in the spray application area, or enter the air and become susceptible to transport to other areas in the building or outside into the ambient air. The data available to EPA indicate that the facilities in that source category that use spray application techniques in rare instances apply coatings that contain inorganic HAP compounds. However, because they do not have emission control systems for inorganic compounds, there is no demonstrated control technology on which to base a standard. Therefore, the proposed rule would not regulate emissions of inorganic HAP.

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2122 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules C. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

In selecting the affected source( s) for emission standards, our primary goal is to ensure that MACT is applied to HAPemitting operations or activities within the source category or subcategory being regulated. The affected source also serves to determine where new source MACT applies under a particular standard. Specifically, the General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 define the terms `` construction'' and `` reconstruction'' with reference to the term `` affected source'' and provide that new source MACT applies when construction or reconstruction of an affected source occurs. The collection of equipment and activities evaluated in determining MACT ( including the MACT floor) is used in defining the affected source. When an emission standard is based on a collection of emission sources or total facility emissions, we select an affected source based on that same collection of emission sources, or the total facility, as well. That approach for defining the affected source broadly is particularly appropriate for industries where a plantwide emission standard provides the opportunity and incentive for owners and operators to utilize control strategies that are more costeffective than if separate standards were established for each emission point within an affected source. Selection of Affected Source. The affected source for the proposed standards is broadly defined for each subcategory. It includes all metal can surface coating operations and associated ancillary equipment within each of the four subcategories. Those operations include all coating application equipment, all coating and thinner storage containers and mixing vessels, all equipment and containers used for conveying coatings and thinners, and all storage containers and conveyance equipment for waste materials generated by a metal can surface coating operation. Since a facility may have coating operations in more than one subcategory and, thus, be subject to separate emission limits for each subcategory, we have defined all the coating related equipment in each subcategory as the affected source. In selecting the affected source, we considered, for each operation, the extent to which HAPcontaining materials are used and the amount of HAP that are emitted. Coating application, flash off, and curing/ drying operations account for the majority of HAP emission and are included in the affected source. We were not able to obtain data to adequately quantify HAP emissions from storage, mixing, cleaning, waste handling and wastewater treatment. However, solvents that are added to coatings as thinners, for example, may be emitted during mixing and storage. The level of emissions depends on the type of mixing and the type of storage container and the work practices used at the affected source. The magnitude of emissions from cleaning depends primarily on the type, amount, and HAP content of cleaning materials used. Emissions from waste handling operations depend on the type of system used to collect and transport organic HAP containing waste materials in the affected source. The HAP emissions from wastewater treatment depend on the quantity and types of HAP discharged to the wastewater treatment operation and the subsequent wastewater treatment processes, e. g., treatment by aeration or by biodegradation. Mixing, storage, cleaning, waste handling, and wastewater treatment operations are included in the affected source. A broad definition of the affected source was selected to provide maximum flexibility in complying with the proposed emission limits for organic HAP. In planning its total usage of HAPcontaining materials, each affected source can select among available coating, printing, thinning, and cleaning materials, as well as use of emission capture systems and add on controls for coating operations, to maximize emissions reductions in the most costeffective manner. Additional information on the metal can surface coating operations selected for regulation and other operations are included in the docket for the proposed standards.

D. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Standards for New or Reconstructed Affected Sources and Existing Affected Sources? The sections below present the rationale for determining the MACT floor, regulatory alternatives beyond the floor, and selection of the proposed standards for new or reconstructed and existing affected sources. How did we determine the MACT floor? After we identify the specific source categories or subcategories of sources to regulate under section 112 of the CAA, we must develop emission standards for each category and subcategory. Section 112( d)( 3) establishes a minimum baseline or floor for standards. For new or reconstructed affected sources in a category or subcategory, the standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source for which we have emission information. The standards for existing affected sources can be less stringent than standards for new or reconstructed sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission control achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing sources ( or the best performing five existing sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources) for which we have emission information. In the metal can surface coating industry, organic HAP emission control for surface coating operations is accomplished through the use of low or no HAP coatings and thinners and addon capture and control systems. While various emission control techniques have achieved broad use in the industry, different facilities use various combinations of low or no HAP materials and add on control equipment for different types of surface coating operations. For example, the continuous linear configuration of sheetcoating operations make them more amenable to emissions reduction with add on control equipment, while the nature of side seam stripe coating applications make add on emission control impractical. Thus, the most reasonable approach to establishing a MACT floor is the evaluation of a source's organic HAP emissions for each type of coating operation and each coating type segment it includes. To account for differences in coating volumes used in different types of operations and differences in production levels from one source to another, we normalized the organic HAP emission rate by the volume of coating solids used. We used information obtained from industry survey responses to estimate the organic HAP emission rate for each subcategory and coating type segment included in each facility. We calculated total organic HAP emissions by assuming that 100 percent of the volatile components in all coatings and thinners are emitted. Sources used for determining the MACT floor emission limits included those facilities that listed major source or synthetic minor source as their title V status on their responses to questionnaires we sent to them and that used at least 5,700 liters/ yr ( 1,500 gal/ yr) of coatings in metal can surface coating operations. Other sources were included if their data indicated that they have the capacity to increase their organic HAP emissions to at least 9.1 Mg/ yr ( 10 tpy), even though VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2123 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules they did not identify themselves as major or synthetic minor sources. Using the organic HAP emissions and the total volume of coating solids used in each subcategory and coating type segment for each survey respondent, we calculated the normalized organic HAP emissions ( emission rate) in units of kilograms ( kg) organic HAP per liter of coating solids ( pounds ( lb) organic HAP per gal of coating solids) used. The sources were then ranked from the lowest to the highest emission rate in each of the four subcategories and coating type segments. For subcategories and coating segments in which there were more than 30 sources, the existing source MACT floor was based on the top 12 percent of the sources. For subcategories and coating segments with fewer than 30 sources, the existing source MACT floor was based on the top five sources. The average emission rate for each subcategory was interpreted as the median value of the included sources. The median emission rate was selected rather than the mean or mode because it is associated with an actual emission rate being achieved by a real facility. The best performing source in each subcategory or coating segment in the database determined the MACT floor for new or reconstructed affected sources. The MACT floor analysis for new affected sources resulted in the emission limits for each subcategory and coating segment given in Table 2 of this preamble. The analysis for existing affected sources resulted in emission limits given in Table 3 of this preamble. The alternative control efficiency and outlet concentration limits for those new and existing sources using capture and control systems are given in Table 4 of this preamble. The survey data showed no appreciable differences in substrates coated, coating technologies used, or the applicability of control measures between the floor sources and the remaining sources in each subcategory and coating segment. After the floors have been determined for new or reconstructed and existing sources in a source category or subcategory, we must set emission standards that are technically achievable and no less stringent than the floors. Such standards must then be met by all affected sources within the source category or subcategory. We identify and consider any reasonable regulatory alternatives that are beyondthe floor, taking into account emissions reductions, cost, non air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Different beyond the floor alternatives may be considered for new or reconstructed affected sources and existing affected sources. The beyond the floor option considered for all the subcategories and for both new and existing sources was requiring the use of capture systems and add on control devices for all metal can surface coating operations. The add on control device chosen for the beyondthe floor analysis was a regenerative thermal oxidizer ( RTO). An RTO was chosen to reflect the highest emission reduction level possible. In evaluating the beyond the floor option, we calculated the additional costs and emission reductions associated with the use of a capture system and RTO. We calculated the cost to reduce each ton of organic HAP emissions using the more stringent level of control. Requiring sources to meet the beyond the floor level would result in an estimated additional emissions reduction of 283 Mg/ yr ( 312 tpy) at an estimated cost of $ 14.6 million per year or $ 51,600 per Mg HAP ($ 46,800 per ton HAP) reduced. Without having information on the benefits that would be achieved by reducing emissions beyond the floor, we determined that the additional emission reductions that could be achieved do not warrant the costs that each affected source would incur by using add on controls. Therefore, we are not requiring beyond the floor levels of emissions reductions at this time. After implementation of those standards, we will evaluate the health and environmental risks that may be posed as a result of exposure to emissions from the metal can surface coating source category. At that time, we will determine whether additional control is warranted in light of the available risk information. We note here that our assumption, used in the development of the MACT floors, that 100 percent of the organic HAP in the materials used are emitted by the affected source would not apply when the source sends organic HAP waste materials to a facility for treatment or disposal. We made that assumption because the industry survey responses provided little information as to the amount of organic HAP recovered and recycled or treated and disposed of as a hazardous waste. We, therefore, concluded that the practice may not be common within the metal can surface coating industry. We recognize, however, that some metal can surface coating facilities may conduct such activities and should be allowed to account for such activities in determining their emissions. Thus, the proposed rule allows you to reduce the organic HAP emissions by the amount of any organic HAP contained in waste treated or disposed of at a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility that is regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266. The alternative capture/ control efficiency limit of 95 percent for existing sources and 97 percent for new or reconstructed sources, and the 20 parts per million by volume HAP outlet concentration limit are based on the documented emission reductions in test reports provided by metal can facilities and the EPA's study of available incinerator technology, cost, and energy use. We are requesting specific comment on the usefulness and likelihood of the proposed alternative limits and the level of control required by the alternative limits.

E. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards?

We selected the primary format of the standards to be mass of HAP per volume of coating solids. We selected volume of coating solids to normalize the rate of organic HAP emissions across all sizes and types of coating operations and facilities. Volume of coating solids used is directly related to the surface area coated and, therefore, provides an equitable basis of comparison for all coatings, regardless of differences in coating densities. A format based on the mass or weight of coating solids instead of volume could result in inequitable standards for higher density coatings compared to coatings with lower densities per unit volume. To provide compliance flexibility, we also provided an alternative compliance option based on percent reduction achieved by a capture system and control device or the HAP concentration exiting a control device. We selected those alternative formats because they would achieve equivalent or greater HAP emissions reduction at those facilities using capture/ control systems while reducing the recordkeeping and reporting burden for those facilities. Those alternative limits are based on test report data provided by industry and reflect what we believe to be the achievable level of control available with control devices commonly used by the metal can surface coating industry. Another choice for the format of the standards that we considered but rejected was a usage limit ( mass of HAP per unit of production). As it is not our intent to limit a facility's production under those proposed standards, we rejected a usage limit.

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2124 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules F. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

The MACT levels of control can be achieved in several different ways. Many affected sources would be able to use low or no HAP coatings, although they may not be available to meet all needs. If an affected source also uses thinners containing organic HAP, it may be able to switch to widely available low or no HAP thinners to reduce organic HAP emissions to the MACT level of control. Other affected sources may use capture systems and add on control devices, either alone or in combination with low HAP coatings, to reduce emissions. Reflecting those alternative approaches, the proposed standards would allow you to choose among several options to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards for organic HAP, using coatings and thinners with low or noorganic HAP, using a combination of low or no HAP coatings and emission capture and control devices, or using emission capture and control devices for all surface coating operations. For the Compliant Material Option. You would be required to document the organic HAP content of all coatings and show that each is less than the applicable emission limit. You would also have to show that each thinner used contains no organic HAP. Method 311 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of organic HAP in coatings and has been used in previous surface coating NESHAP. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 311 for use in the proposed standards. Method 24 is the method developed by EPA for determining the mass fraction of volatile matter for coatings and can optionally be used to determine the nonaqueous volatile matter content as a surrogate for organic HAP. In past standards, volatile organic compound ( VOC) emission control measures have been implemented in coating industries with Method 24 as the compliance method. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over Method 24 for use in the proposed standards. The proposed methods for determining volume fraction of coating solids are either ASTM Method D2697   86( 1998) or ASTM Method D6093   97. Those are voluntary consensus standards ( VCS) determined to be appropriate for the proposed rule; they represent the consensus of coating industry and other experts involved in their development. For the Emission Rate Without Add On Controls Option. To demonstrate initial compliance using that option, you would calculate the total organic HAP emission rate for all of your coating operation( s) in each subcategory and coating type segment. Total organic HAP emission rate is based on the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners and the total volume of coating solids used during the initial compliance period. You would be required to demonstrate that the organic HAP emission rate does not exceed the applicable emission limit using the methods discussed previously. For the Emission Rate With Add On Controls Option. If you use a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery device for which you conduct a monthly liquid liquid material balance, you would be required to conduct an initial performance test of the system to determine its overall control efficiency. For a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid liquid material balance, you would determine the quantity of volatile matter applied and the quantity recovered during the initial compliance period to determine its overall control efficiency. The total monthly mass of organic HAP in all coatings and thinners used in each subcategory or coating segment with controls would be reduced by the overall control efficiency. That reduced value for total mass of organic HAP would then be used with the values from the preceding 11 months to calculate the 12 month rolling average organic HAP emission rate in kg HAP/ liter of coating solids ( lb HAP/ gal of coating solids). If you conduct a performance test, you would also determine parameter operating limits during the test. The test methods that the proposed standards would require for the performance test have been required under many standards of performance for industrial surface coating sources under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR part 63. We have not identified any other methods that provide advantages over those methods. For the Capture Efficiency/ Outlet Concentration Option. If you use a capture system and control device other than a solvent recovery device for which you conduct a monthly liquid liquid material balance, you would be required to conduct an initial performance test of the system to determine its overall control efficiency or the control device outlet concentration and meet the same initial compliance requirements described in Option 3. G. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits, you would need records of the quantity of coatings and thinners used and the data and calculations supporting your determination of their organic HAP content. If you conduct liquid liquid material balances, you would need records of the quantity of volatile matter used and the quantity recovered by the solvent recovery systems each month. To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed organic HAP emission limits and operating limits, the proposed standards would require continuous parameter monitoring of capture systems and control devices and recordkeeping. We selected the following requirements based on reasonable cost, ease of execution, and usefulness of the resulting data to both the owners or operators and EPA for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and operating limits. We are proposing that certain parameters be continuously monitored for the types of capture systems and control devices commonly used in the industry. Those monitoring parameters have been used in other standards for similar industries. The values of those parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed emission limits are established during the initial or most recent performance test that demonstrates compliance. Those values are your operating limits for the capture system and control device. You would be required to determine 3 hour average values for most monitored parameters for the affected source. We selected that averaging period to reflect operating conditions during the performance test to ensure the control system is continuously operating at the same or better control level as during a performance test demonstrating compliance with the emission limits.

H. How Did We Select the Test Methods for Determining Compliance With the Emission Limits Using Add On Control Devices?

Today's proposed rule would require you to conduct performance tests to demonstrate compliance with the compliance options using add on control devices. When determining compliance with options using add on control devices, you also would be required to determine the capture efficiency of the associated enclosures if the enclosure does not qualify as a PTE. The test methods you would have to use to measure those pollutants and capture VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2125 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules efficiency for enclosures are discussed below. We are proposing the use of EPA Method 25A, `` Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Matter Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer,'' for measuring THC emissions because most of the metal can facilities that are already required to measure THC emissions use that method. Also, most of the available emissions data that we used to evaluate THC control efficiencies were measured using Method 25A and reported on an as carbon basis. Method 25A is better suited than EPA Method 25, `` Measurement of Total Gaseous Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon ( TGNMO),'' for measuring emission streams from metal can coating lines which typically have lower THC concentrations ( less than 50 parts per million) and relatively high moisture contents. However, unlike Method 25, Method 25A does measure methane as a THC. Because many of the wellcontrolled metal can facilities are required by permit to reduce VOC emissions, those facilities generally are allowed to subtract methane emissions from the THC measurement when reporting VOC emissions because methane is not a VOC, according to EPA's definition of VOC. Therefore, we also would allow you to subtract methane emissions from measured THC values using EPA Method 18, `` Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromotography.'' Method 18 is a selfvalidating method. We are proposing the use of EPA Method 204, `` Criteria for and Verification of Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure,'' and Methods 204A through 204F for determining the capture efficiency of enclosures. Methods 204A through 204F include the following: Method 204A, `` Volatile Organic Compounds Content In Liquids Input Stream,'' Method 204B, `` Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions In Captured Stream,'' Method 204C, `` Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions In Captured Stream ( Dilution Technique),'' Method 204D, `` Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions In Uncaptured Stream From Temporary Total Enclosure,'' Method 204E, `` Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions In Uncaptured Stream From Building Enclosure,'' and Method 204F, `` Volatile Organic Compounds Content In Liquid Input Stream ( Distillation Approach).'' If the enclosure meets the criteria in EPA Method 204 for a PTE, then you may assume that its capture efficiency is 100 percent. If the enclosure is not a PTE, then you would have to build a temporary total enclosure ( TTE) around it that meets the definition of a TTE in EPA Method 204, and you would be required to determine the capture efficiency of the TTE using Methods 204A through 204F ( as appropriate). You would then have to measure emissions from both the control device and the TTE and use the combined emissions to determine compliance. Industry representatives have expressed concern with using EPA Methods 204 and 204A through F for determining capture efficiency of coating line enclosures. The industry representatives have indicated that some facilities may have difficulty retrofitting a PTE or TTE that meets the EPA Method 204 criteria. Partial enclosures may be able to achieve high capture, but Methods 204 and 204A through F are the only available methods for testing the efficiency of partial enclosures. We recognize the need for flexibility in determination of capture efficiency for metal can coating line enclosures and welcome your comments on alternative approaches for determining capture efficiency. Today's proposed rule would allow facilities to petition the Administrator for use of alternative test methods.

I. How Did We Select Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? You would be required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 5 of the proposed subpart KKKK. We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be the minimum notification, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with and effective enforcement of the proposed standards, modifying them as appropriate for the metal can surface coating category.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts The proposed standards would affect 142 major source metal can surface coating facilities. The impacts are presented relative to a baseline reflecting the level of control prior to the standards. Due to consolidation throughout the industry, there is not expected to be any net growth within the metal can surface coating industry within the next 5 years. Therefore, the estimate of the impacts is presented for existing facilities only. For a facility that is already in compliance with the standards, only monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting cost impacts were estimated. For more information on how impacts were estimated, see the BID ( EPA   453/ R   02   008). The outcome of two delisting petitions that have been submitted to EPA could significantly affect the estimated impacts of this rulemaking. These petitions are the petition to delist EGBE from the HAP list and the petition to delist the two piece beverage can subcategory from the source category list. Both petitions are being reviewed by the EPA. If granted, the delisting of either EGBE or the two piece beverage can subcategory could affect the proposed emission limits and the number of affected sources. Thus, the estimated impacts of this proposed rule could change. Once decisions on the petitions are finalized, we will evaluate whether any changes to the proposed rule are appropriate.

A. What Are the Air Impacts?

The proposed emission limits are expected to reduce nationwide organic HAP emissions from existing major affected sources by approximately 6,160 Mg/ yr ( 6,800 tpy). That represents a reduction of 71 percent from the baseline organic HAP emissions of 8,700 Mg/ yr ( 9,600 tpy). Table 5 of this preamble gives a summary of the primary air impacts for major coating segment groupings associated with implementation of the proposed rule.

TABLE 5.   SUMMARY OF PRIMARY AIR IMPACTS BY SUBCATEGORY OR COATING SEGMENT FOR EXISTING SOURCES Subcategory or or coating segment Emissions before NESHAP, Mg/ yr ( tpy) Emissions after NESHAP, Mg/ yr ( tpy) Emissions reduction, Mg/ yr ( tpy) Percent reduction Two piece D& I beverage can body coatings ................................................... 4,468 ( 4,922) 1,644 ( 1,811) 2,824 ( 3,111) 63 VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2126 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5.   SUMMARY OF PRIMARY AIR IMPACTS BY SUBCATEGORY OR COATING SEGMENT FOR EXISTING SOURCES   Continued Subcategory or or coating segment Emissions before NESHAP, Mg/ yr ( tpy) Emissions after NESHAP, Mg/ yr ( tpy) Emissions reduction, Mg/ yr ( tpy) Percent reduction Two piece D& I food can body coatings ........................................................... 765 ( 843) 139 ( 153) 626 ( 690) 82 One piece D& I aerosol can body coatings ...................................................... 16 ( 18) 16 ( 18) 0 ( 0) 0 Sheetcoatings .................................................................................................. 2,289 ( 2,522) 404 ( 445) 1,885 ( 2,077) 82 Three piece food can assembly coatings ........................................................ 370 ( 408) 285 ( 314) 85 ( 94) 23 Three piece non food can assembly coatings ................................................. 45 ( 50) 38 ( 42) 6 ( 7) 14 End lining coatings .......................................................................................... 763 ( 841) 34 ( 38) 729 ( 803) 95 Total .......................................................................................................... 8,718 ( 9,603) 2,560 ( 2,820) 6,158 ( 6,783) 71 B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

Cost impacts include the costs of recordkeeping and reporting, capital equipment costs, performance testing costs, and material costs as facilities comply with the proposed rule. Recordkeeping and reporting includes all labor hours related to the tracking of coating usage, the cost of purchasing computer equipment, the labor hours required to write and submit reports, and the labor hours required to train coating personnel. Capital equipment costs for the facilities that choose to use capture equipment and add on control devices to comply with the proposed rule include the purchase, installation, and operation of the equipment. Performance testing costs for the facilities that choose to use add on control devices to comply with the standards include the labor hours required for a contractor to conduct performance testing on each control device used and to develop the associated reports for recordkeeping and reporting purposes. Material costs include the cost of switching to low or no HAP coatings. For facilities that choose to use low or no HAP coatings to comply with the standards, coatings with lower HAP content are considered more expensive than higher HAP content coatings. The total annualized costs for the 142 existing major sources are estimated at $ 56.2 million. Those estimates are broken down as follows; monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs would contribute $ 7.3 million to the overall cost of the NESHAP, material costs would contribute $ 4.1 million, and capital equipment costs would contribute $ 44.8 million annually. C. What Are the Economic Impacts? We performed an EIA to provide an estimate of the facility and market impacts of the proposed standards as well as the social costs. The goal of the EIA is to estimate the market response of the metal can coating and production facilities to the proposed regulation and to determine the economic effects that may result due to this NESHAP. The metal can source category contains 189 potentially affected facilities that may be affected by the proposed rule. The potentially affected companies are owned by 30 companies. The NAICS code that describes the metal can manufacturing industry is 332431, Metal Can Manufacturing. Metal can production leads to potential HAP emissions during the can coating process when high concentrations of organic HAP solvents are used and dispersed. Emissions are generated during coating application, during transportation to the oven ( evaporation), and during curing. The compliance costs are associated with chemical substitution during the coating process, the installation of pollution control equipment, and recordkeeping and reporting activities. The estimated total annualized costs for the NESHAP are $ 56.2 million per year divided across 142 major source facilities. In terms of industry impacts, metal can producers experience a total projected decrease of $ 16 million in pretax earnings which reflects the compliance costs associated with the production of metal cans and the resulting reductions in revenues due to the increase in the prices of the directly affected product markets and reduced quantities purchased. Through the market impacts described above, the proposed rule will create both gainers and losers within the metal can industry. Approximately one third of the modeled facilities experience an increase in pre tax earnings as a result of increases in price that exceed their compliance costs per unit. In contrast, the remaining two thirds of metal can facilities experience losses in pre tax earnings. In addition, the EIA indicates that none of the facilities within the metal can market ( not including small businesses) are at risk of closure because of the proposed standards. Overall employment is projected to decrease by 176 employees, which represents a decrease of 8  10th of one percent as a result of the proposed rule. Based on the market analysis, the total social cost of the proposed rule is projected to be $ 53.5 million. The estimated social costs differ slightly from the projected engineering costs because social costs account for producer and consumer behavior. Consumers are projected to lose $ 33.3 million or 60 percent of the total social costs of the proposed rule. Producers will lose $ 20.2 million, or 40 percent of the total social costs. For more information, consult the EIA report supporting the proposed rule, `` Economic Impact Analysis of Metal Can MACT Standards'' ( EPA   452/ R   02   005).

D. What Are the Non Air Health, Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

Based on information from the industry survey responses, we found no indication that the use of low or noorganic HAP content coatings and thinners at existing sources would result in any increase or decrease in non air health, environmental, and energy VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 19: 04 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 15JAP2. SGM 15JAP2 2127 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules impacts. There would be no change in utility requirements associated with the use of these materials so there would be no change in the amount of energy consumed as a result of the material conversion. Also, there would be no significant change in the amount of materials used or the amount of waste produced. Since many facilities in the D& I can body coating and sheetcoating subcategories currently use add on emission control devices to meet existing requirements, we anticipate that facilities in those subcategories would use add on controls to comply with the proposed standards. Secondary air and energy impacts would result from fuel combustion needed to operate these control devices which are expected to be RTO. The RTO require electricity and the combustion of natural gas to operate and maintain operating temperatures. Byproducts of fuel combustion required to generate electricity and maintain RTO operating temperature include emission of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter ( PM10). Assuming the electricity required for RTO operation is generated at coal fired plants built since 1978 and using air pollution 42 emissions factors, generation of electricity required to operate RTO at all affected D& I can body coating and sheetcoating facilities would result in the following increases in the following air pollutants: carbon monoxide, 81 tpy; nitrogen oxides, 182 tpy; sulfur dioxide, 438 tpy; and PM10, 86 tpy. Energy impacts include the consumption of electricity and natural gas needed to operate RTO. The estimated increase in electricity consumption from the operation of RTO at all D& I can body coating and sheetcoating facilities is 36,730,000 kilowatt hours per year. Increased fuel energy consumption resulting from burning natural gas would be 1,197,000 megamillion British thermal units per year. No significant secondary water or solid waste impacts would result from the operation of emission control devices.

V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and, therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that the proposed rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5   501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include rules that 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.'' The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials to enable them to provide timely input in the development of the proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.