Browse by Year
/ 2002
/ June
/ Friday, June 21, 2002
[Federal Register: June 21, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 120)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42399-42447]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21jn02-22]
[[Page 42399]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products; Proposed Rule
[[Page 42400]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7223-7]
RIN 2060-AH02
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for wood building products surface coating
operations. The EPA estimates that there are approximately 205 major
source facilities in the wood building products (surface coating)
source category that emit hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as
xylene, toluene, ethyl benzene, ethylene glycol butyl ether (EGBE),
other glycol ethers, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl ketone
(MIBK), methanol, styrene, and formaldehyde. As proposed, the standards
are estimated to reduce HAP emissions by 3,200 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) (3,500 tons per year (tpy)) or by 61 percent. The reduction in HAP
emissions would be achieved by requiring all major source facilities
that apply a surface coating to a wood building product to meet the HAP
emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable
control technology (MACT).
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before August 20, 2002.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing, they should do so by July 11, 2002. If requested, a
public hearing will be held within approximately 30 days following
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-52, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier,
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-97-52,
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, 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 our
Office of Administration auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer
Product Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-7946, to request to speak at a public hearing or to find out if a
hearing will be held.
Docket. Docket No. A-97-52 contains supporting information used in
developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside
Mall (ground floor), 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. Vinson Hellwig, Coatings and
Consumer Products Group, Emissions Standards Division (C539-03), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number
(919) 541-2317; facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail (e-
mail) address: hellwig.vinson@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by e-mail to: a-and-r-docket@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[supreg] file format. All comments and data submitted in
electronic form must note the docket number: A-97-52. 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. Vinson Hellwig, 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 the proposed emission
standards.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by the EPA in the development of this
rulemaking. 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
Clean Air Act (CAA).) The regulatory text and other materials related
to this 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 this 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 source category, which is divided into the
five subcategories listed in Table 1, includes facilities that apply
coatings to wood building products. In general, facilities that coat
wood building products are covered under the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes listed in Table 1.
[[Page 42401]]
However, facilities classified under other SIC or NAICS codes may be
subject to the proposed standards. Not all facilities classified under
the SIC and NAICS codes in Table 1 will be subject to the proposed
standards because some of the classifications cover products outside
the scope of the NESHAP for wood building products.
Table 1.--Subcategories and Entities Potentially Regulated by the Proposed Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
entities include those
Subcategory SIC NAICS facilities that apply a
surface coating to . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Doors and Windows............... 2431, 2499 a.......... 321911, 321918, 321999 Doors and windows and any
a. millwork and moulding
associated with doors and
windows.
2. Flooring........................ 2426, 2421, 2499 a.... 321918, 321999 a...... Solid wood flooring,
engineered wood flooring,
laminated flooring, and
any millwork or moulding
associated with flooring.
3. Interior Wall Paneling and 2435, 2499 a.......... 321211, 321999 a...... Interior wall paneling or
Tileboard. tileboard.
4. Other Interior Panels........... 2435, 2436, 2493, 2499 321211, 321212, Panels used for purposes
a. 321219, 321999 a. other than interior wall
paneling, such as
sheathing, insulation
board, pegboard, and
ceiling tiles.
5. Exterior Siding, Doorskins, and 2435, 2493, 2499 a.... 321211, 321219, 321999 Panel siding, trimboard,
Miscellaneous. a. lap siding, trim
associated with siding,
doorskins, and other
miscellaneous wood
products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The subcategory of the SIC code and NAICS code depends on the final end use of the product.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding subcategories and entities likely to be
regulated by this action. To determine whether your coating operation
is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability
criteria in Sec. 63.4681 of the proposed rule. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
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 TTNWeb; the wood
building products (surface coating) docket (A-97-52); the EPA Library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919)
541-2777; or the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650.
Please refer to ``Background Information Document--National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Wood Building
Products (Surface Coating) Industry'' (EPA-453/R-00-003) and the
``Industry Profile: Wood Building Products Industry'' (EPA-453/R-01-
002).
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 are the health effects associated with HAP emissions
from surface coating of wood building products?
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
emissions?
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 provisions?
I. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the 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 and existing sources?
E. How did we select the format of the proposed standards?
F. How did we select the testing and initial compliance
requirements?
G. How did we select the proposed continuous compliance
requirements?
H. 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 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
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 Flatwood
Paneling (Surface Coating) category of major sources was listed on
July, 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) under the Surface Coating Processes
industry group. The name of the source category was subsequently
changed to Wood Building Products (Surface Coating) on November 18,
1999 (64 FR 63025) to reflect more accurately the types of surface
coating operations currently used in the industry. Major sources of HAP
are those that emit or have the
[[Page 42402]]
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 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. This 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 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 best-controlled
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 best-performing 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
emission reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP Emissions From
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products?
The primary HAP emitted from the surface coating of wood building
products include xylene, toluene, ethyl benzene, EGBE, and glycol
ethers (not including EGBE). These compounds account for more than 84
percent of the nationwide HAP emissions from this source category.
Other HAP identified in emissions include MEK, MIBK, methanol, styrene,
and formaldehyde. The HAP that would be controlled with the proposed
rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These
adverse health effects include chronic health disorders (e.g.,
irritation of the lungs, eyes, and mucus membranes and effects on the
central nervous system) and acute health disorders (e.g., lung
irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and
vomiting, and effects on the central nervous system).
We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the
facilities covered by the proposed emission standards for this
subcategory and 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 these 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 these facilities. However, to the extent the 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 wood
building products surface coating facility that uses at least 4,170
liters (1,100 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 wood building product
substrate. The surface coating operations 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 causes it to be a major source (e.g.,
the wood substrate manufacturing process), the surface coating
operations would be subject to the proposed standards.
We have defined a wood building products surface coating facility
as any facility engaged in the finishing or laminating of a wood
building product. A wood building product is any product that contains
more than 50 percent by weight wood or wood fiber and is used in the
construction, either interior or exterior, of a residential,
commercial, or institutional building. As explained later, we have
established five subcategories in the wood building products surface
coating source category, including: (1) Doors and windows; (2)
flooring; (3) interior wall paneling and tileboard; (4) other interior
panels; and (5) exterior siding, doorskins, and miscellaneous (see
Table 1 of this preamble).
Facilities that manufacture or apply surface coatings to
prefabricated/premanufactured or mobile/modular homes are not subject
to the proposed NESHAP requirements. These facilities were found to
have very low -or no-HAP emissions because coatings applied to these
homes are typically waterborne (latex) formulations. Based on the data
submitted by 70 of these facilities, no major sources of HAP emissions
were identified in the database (docket A-97-52).
You would not be subject to the proposed rule if your wood building
products surface coating facility 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.
The source category does not include research or laboratory
facilities; janitorial, building, and facility construction or
maintenance operations; or hobby shops that are operated for personal
rather than for commercial purposes. The source category also does not
include coating applications using handheld nonrefillable aerosol
containers.
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.
Some wood building products surface coating facilities also
manufacture the substrate that is subsequently coated. Any process
associated with wood building products substrate manufacturing would be
subject to the future NESHAP for plywood and composite wood products
(future 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD).
Some wood building products surface coating facilities manufacture
products that are used in the production of wood furniture or wood
furniture components. These wood building products are subject to the
NESHAP for wood furniture manufacturing operations (40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJ). The surface coating of millwork and trim associated with
cabinet manufacturing is also covered under the wood furniture NESHAP.
[[Page 42403]]
Wood treatment and preservation operations, which were delisted
from the source category list, would not be subject to the wood
building products (surface coating) NESHAP. Wood treatment and
preservation operations include wood treatment or fire retardant
operations located at wood building product facilities that involve
impregnating the wood product with the wood treatment chemicals or fire
retardant by using a retort or other pressure vessel. This includes
operations that are normally not considered coating operations. We
request specific comments on the wood treatment and fire retardant
operations.
C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
Emissions from coating application and drying/curing account for
most of the HAP emissions from wood building products surface coating
operations. The remaining emissions are primarily from mixing and/or
thinning and cleaning operations. In most cases, HAP emissions from
surface preparation, storage, handling, and waste/wastewater operations
are relatively small.
Available emission data collected during the development of the
proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the
surface coating of wood building products includes xylene, toluene,
ethyl benzene, EGBE, and other glycol ethers. These compounds account
for 84 percent of this source category's nationwide organic HAP
emissions. Other significant organic HAP identified include MEK, MIBK,
methanol, styrene, and formaldehyde.
Based on information reported in survey responses during the
development of the proposed NESHAP, inorganic HAP, including chromium,
manganese, and antimony compounds, are components of some coatings used
by this source category. No inorganic HAP were reported in thinners or
cleaning materials. Most of the coating operations do not cause the
coating material to become airborne. Where spraying is performed, most
of the inorganic HAP components remain as solids in the dry coating
film on the parts being coated or are deposited on the walls, floor,
and grates of the spray booths in which they are applied. Some of the
inorganic HAP particles are entrained in the spray booth exhaust air.
Spray booths in the wood building products industry typically have
either water curtains or dry filters to remove overspray particles.
Therefore, inorganic HAP emission levels are expected to be very low
and have not been quantified.
D. What Is the Affected Source?
We define an affected source as a stationary source, a group of
stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific
emission standard applies. The proposed rule defines the affected
source as the collection of all operations associated with the surface
coating of wood building products. These operations include preparation
of a coating for application (e.g., mixing with thinners); surface
preparation of the wood building products; coating application, curing,
and drying equipment; equipment cleaning; and storage, transfer, and
handling of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste
materials.
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. The proposed emission limits for each existing
affected source are given in Table 3. These limits are based on five
subcategories that group similar operations and types of coatings. We
request specific comments on the proposed emission limits for both
existing and new or reconstructed sources for these subcategories. You
can choose from several compliance options in the proposed rule to
achieve the emission limits. You could comply by applying materials
(coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials) that meet the emission
limits, either individually or collectively. You could also use a
capture system and add-on control device to meet the emission limits or
comply by using a combination of both approaches.
Some wood building products facilities surface coat more than one
product, and occasionally the products are in different subcategories.
For purposes of the proposed standards, those affected sources coating
multiple products covered by two or more subcategories must maintain
product-or subcategory-specific records in order to demonstrate
compliance with each applicable emission limit for all products coated
at the affected source.
Table 2.--Emission Limits for New or Reconstructed Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The organic
HAP emission
limit you must
meet, in
kilograms (kg)
For any affected source applying coating to. . . HAP/liter
solids
applying
(pounds (lb)
HAP/gal
solids), is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Doors and windows.................................... 0.06 (0.48)
2. Flooring............................................. 0.00 (0.00)
3. Interior wall paneling or tileboard.................. 0.00 (0.04)
4. Other interior panels................................ 0.00 (0.00)
5. Exterior siding, doorskins, and miscellaneous........ 0.00 (0.00)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Emission Limits for Existing Affected Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The organic
HAP emission
limit you must
meet, in kg
For any affected source applying coating to. . . HAP/liter
solids (lb HAP/
gal solids),
is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Doors and windows.................................... 0.17 (1.45)
2. Flooring............................................. 0.09 (0.78)
3. Interior wall paneling or tileboard.................. 0.18 (1.53)
4. Other interior panels................................ 0.00 (0.01)
5. Exterior siding, doorskins, and miscellaneous........ 0.01 (0.06)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. These 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 site-specific
inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer. For carbon
adsorbers for which you do not conduct a liquid-liquid material
[[Page 42404]]
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. We request specific
comments on the proposed operating limits for this source category.
Work Practice Standards. If you use an emission capture system and
control device for compliance, you would be required to develop and
implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from
mixing operations, storage tanks and other containers, and handling
operations for coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste
materials. The work practice plan must include steps to ensure that, at
a minimum: All organic HAP coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and
waste materials must be stored in closed containers; spills of organic
HAP coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste materials must be
minimized; organic HAP coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and
waste materials must be conveyed from one location to another in closed
containers or pipes; mixing vessels which contain organic HAP coatings
and other materials must be closed except when adding to, removing, or
mixing the contents; and emissions of organic HAP must be minimized
during cleaning of storage, mixing, and conveying equipment.
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.
If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you
would be required to develop and operate according to a startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.
The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) also would apply
to you as indicated in the proposed rule. 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, reporting and
recordkeeping, performance testing, and monitoring. The proposed rule
refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize
key sections that are relevant. However, unless specifically overridden
in the proposed rule, all of the applicable General Provisions
requirements would apply to you.
F. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?
Existing wood building products facilities must comply within 3
years of the date the promulgated rule is published in the Federal
Register. New sources that commence construction after today's date
must comply immediately upon initial startup or the effective date of
the rule, whichever is later.
G. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
New or reconstructed affected sources would have to be in
compliance upon initial startup of the affected source or by the
effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. Existing affected
sources would have to be in compliance with the final standards no
later than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. The
effective date is the date on which the final rule is published in the
Federal Register.
Compliance with the emission limits is based on a rolling 12-month
organic HAP emission rate determined each month. Each 12-month period
is a compliance period. The initial compliance period, therefore, is
the 12-month period beginning on the compliance date. If the compliance
date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the
initial compliance period begins on the compliance date and extends
through the end of that month plus the following 12 months. We have
defined ``month'' as a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28
to 35 days to allow for flexibility at sources where data are based on
a business accounting period.
Being ``in compliance'' means that the owner or operator of the
affected source meets the requirements to achieve the proposed emission
limitations during 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 organic HAP emission limit and other applicable
requirements 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. You would be able to use
different compliance options for different coating operations in the
affected source and also for the same coating operation at different
times.
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, thinners, and
cleaning materials used and the volume fraction of coating solids in
all coatings used each month during the initial compliance period. You
would be required to demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each
coating meets the applicable emission limit and that you use no organic
HAP thinners or cleaning materials.
To determine the mass fraction of organic HAP in coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials and the volume fraction of coating
solids, you could either rely on manufacturer's data or on test results
using the test methods listed below. You may use alternative test
methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with the NESHAP
General Provisions in 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 mass fraction of organic HAP, use Method 311 of 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A;
The proposed rule would allow you to use nonaqueous
volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP, which would include all
organic HAP plus all other organic compounds, and excluding water. If
you choose this option, then you would use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A; and
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 material used, you
would be required to demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each
coating
[[Page 42405]]
meets the applicable emission limit and that you use no organic HAP
thinners or cleaning materials.
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
fraction of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials and the volume fraction of coating solids used each month
during the initial compliance period. You would use the same methods as
described above for Option 1. You would also:
Determine the quantity of each coating, thinner, and
cleaning material used.
Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all materials
and total volume of coating solids used each month. You may subtract
the total mass of organic HAP 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 total mass of organic HAP emissions and
total volume of coating solids for the initial compliance period by
adding together all the monthly values for mass of organic HAP and for
volume of coating solids for the 12 months in the initial compliance
period.
Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP for
the materials used to the total volume of coating solids used for the
initial compliance period.
Record the calculations and results and include them in
your Notification of Compliance Status.
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. The performance
test would have to be completed by the compliance date for existing
sources and no later than 180 days after the compliance date for new or
reconstructed affected sources.
Determine the mass fraction 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 total mass of organic HAP in all materials
and total volume of coating solids used each month in the coating
operation or group of coating operations. 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 organic HAP emission reductions for 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 total mass of organic HAP emissions and
total volume of coating solids for the initial compliance period by
adding together all monthly values for mass of organic HAP and for
volume of coating solids for the 12 months in the initial compliance
period.
Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP
emissions to the total volume of coating solids used during 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 add-on 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 emission 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 (and all
materials must be applied and dried within the enclosure); or use one
of the protocols in Sec. 63.4765 of the proposed rule 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 emission 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.
Method 4 to determine stack moisture.
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 coating operations served by the
solvent recovery system 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 for the 12-month initial
compliance period 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 a capture system and
control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you
conduct liquid-liquid material balances. The operating limits are the
minimum or maximum (as applicable) values achieved 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 Sec. 63.4768 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
[[Page 42406]]
measured during the performance test, and for each consecutive 3-hour
period, the average temperature would have to be at or above this
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 before the catalyst bed and 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 these limits. 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
inches water.
Work Practices. If you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option, 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. You
would have to make the plan available for inspection if the
Administrator requests to see it. We believe work practice standards
are appropriate to further reduce emissions. We request specific
comments on the work practice standards required for this source
category.
If your affected source has an existing documented plan that
incorporates steps taken to minimize emissions from the aforementioned
sources, then your existing plan may be used to satisfy the requirement
for a work practice plan.
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.
H. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions? Emission Limits.
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 or coating material that contains organic HAP. You would
follow the same procedures for determining compliance that you used for
the initial compliance period.
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 12-
month compliance period, the ratio of total mass of organic HAP to
total volume of coating solids used 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.
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, the continuous
parameter monitoring results for each month would affect your
compliance determination. 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 emission reduction efficiency as they
did during the most recent performance test in which compliance was
demonstrated. You would then apply this percent reduction to the total
mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations
to determine the monthly mass of organic HAP emissions 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 emissions by
assuming the capture system and control device were achieving zero
emission reduction during the periods of deviation. Then, you would
determine the organic HAP emission rate by dividing the total mass of
organic HAP emissions by the total volume of coating solids used during
the 12-month compliance period. Every month, you would calculate the
emission rate for the previous 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-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
12-month organic HAP emission rate in the same manner as described
above.
Operating Limits. If you use an emission capture system and control
device, the proposed rule would require
[[Page 42407]]
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 collected by the capture system 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 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 practices. If you use the emission rate with add-on controls
option, 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, this would be a deviation from the work
practice standard.
If your affected source has an existing documented plan that
incorporates steps taken to minimize emissions from the aforementioned
sources, then your existing plan may be used to satisfy the requirement
for a work practice plan.
If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you
would be required to operate according to your SSMP during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control
device.
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 Notifications. If the proposed standards apply to you, 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 for new or reconstructed sources, or
120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later.
Existing affected sources must send the initial notification within 120
days 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 will 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 liquid-liquid material balance, you would conduct a performance test.
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 a new or reconstructed affected source and no
later than the compliance date for an existing affected source (3 years
after publication of the final rule). 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. You would send us a Notification
of Compliance Status within 30 days after the end of the initial
compliance period. Your compliance procedures would depend on which
compliance option you choose. 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, and
provide calculations supporting the compliance demonstration.
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 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 years may be kept off-site. Records pertaining to
the design and operation of the control and monitoring equipment must
be kept for the life of the equipment.
Depending on the compliance option that you choose, you may need to
keep records of the organic HAP content, volatile matter content,
coating solids content, and quantity of the coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials used during each compliance period.
If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control
device, you would also need to keep records of the following:
All required measurements, calculations, and supporting
documentation needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards;
All results of performance tests and parameter monitoring;
All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with
the requirements for minimizing emissions from mixing, storage, and
handling operations for coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials;
All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with
the affected source's SSMP when the plan procedures are followed;
The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of the emission capture system and control device;
Actions taken during startup, shutdown, or malfunction
that are different from the procedures specified in the affected
source's SSMP; and
Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or
inoperative (including out-of-control periods).
The proposed rule would require you to collect and keep records
according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. 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.
[[Page 42408]]
Deviations, as determined from these records, will 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, is 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 will 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 reporting 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 limits.
Report each deviation from the work practice standards if
you use a emission capture system and control device.
If you use a emission capture system and control device
other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-
liquid material balances, 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 in each semiannual report an
identification of the compliance option(s) you used and of time periods
when you changed to another option.
Other Reports. You would be required to submit reports for periods
of startup, shutdown, or 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 Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii) of the NESHAP General
Provisions.
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Subcategories?
The surface coating of wood building products is a source category
that is on the 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 sources and existing major
sources. Area sources are not being regulated under the proposed rule.
The surface coating of wood building products as described in the
listing includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of wood
building products, whether they manufacture the wood building product
or not. We use wood building products lists contained in the SIC and
NAICS code descriptions to describe the vast array of wood building
products.
We intend the source category to include facilities for which the
surface coating of wood building products is either their principal
activity or is an integral part of a production process that is the
principal activity. Most coating operations are located at plant sites
such as these. However, some may be located at plant sites for which
some other activity is principal. Collocated surface coating operations
comparable to the types and sizes of the dedicated facilities, in terms
of the coating operations and applicable emission control techniques,
are included in the source category. The definition of the source
category is intended to reflect this inclusion.
Due to the broad scope of the wood building products surface
coating industry, the category definition likewise needs to be broad in
order to include the varieties of operations and activities that might
occur at these facilities. However, a broad description has the
potential to unintentionally include coating operations that we would
not consider part of the category. Therefore, we reviewed the available
data and information to identify a descriptor common to all the sources
in the database that would further help to describe the category. Based
on our review, we believe that the quantity of coating usage is the
most equitable description for purposes of defining the scope of the
category. Other descriptions that could have been used but that we have
chosen not to propose because they would be too difficult to implement
or they are not as equitable as coating usage include production rate,
quantity of emissions, and solvent usage.
Facilities in the affected source category for which the data were
available to us reported annual usage of coatings to be higher than
4,170 liters per year (1,100 gal per year). Therefore, the types of
coatings and coating application methods that were evaluated in
developing these proposed standards represent only those known to be
used at facilities applying more than 4,170 liters (1,100 gal) of
coatings per year.
To be consistent with the available data, we propose to define the
source category to include any wood building products surface coating
operation that is a major source of HAP emissions or that is located at
or is part of a major source and uses at least 4,170 liters per year
(1,100 gal per year) of coatings annually. This definition is intended
to include all facilities dedicated to wood building product surface
coating operations, and similar types and sizes of surface coating
operations that are collocated at major sources for which the principal
activity is something other than surface coating. The source category
does not include research or laboratory facilities; janitorial,
building, and facility construction or maintenance operations; or hobby
shops that are operated for personal rather than for commercial
purposes. The source category also does not include coating
applications using handheld nonrefillable aerosol containers. We
request specific comments on the source category definition.
Subcategory Selection. The statute gives us discretion to determine
if and how to subcategorize. Once the floor has been determined for new
or reconstructed and existing affected sources for a source category or
subcategory, we must set MACT standards that are no less stringent than
the MACT floor. Such standards must then be met by all sources within
the source category or subcategory. 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
between 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
[[Page 42409]]
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 wood building products surface coating industry may be
grouped into five subcategories with differing coating and performance
requirements. The five subcategories are: (1) Doors and windows; (2)
flooring; (3) interior wall paneling and tileboard; (4) other interior
panels; and (5) exterior siding, doorskins, and miscellaneous.
We specifically invite comments on the selection of subcategories
in the proposed rule. For example, we are interested in whether there
may be significant differences in product quality or manufacture that
could appropriately be addressed by additional subcategories. The EPA
notes that cost-effectiveness estimates for some of the subcategories
covered by the proposed rule suggest that achieving the MACT floor will
be expensive in comparison to the volume of organic HAP controlled. The
data suggest that there is a great deal of variation in emission rates
even within many of the subcategories. The EPA is interested in data or
information that can be used to better address subcategorization and on
the costs of the proposed rule and any alternative approaches that
commenters may suggest.
Doors and Windows. The doors and windows subcategory typically
includes the priming and sometimes prefinishing of doors and/or
windows, including associated door and window components such as
moulding or trim. Moulding and trim are decorative or ornamental wood
products that are assembled with doors and windows to create a fixture.
Facilities typically produce both doors and windows and door and window
components at the same site. This is primarily to achieve consistency
in the appearance of the coatings applied and to aid in the assembly of
the end product or complete fixture (e.g., door or window assembly).
Door and window manufacturing and assembly operations are not
typically performed at the same site as doorskin manufacturing due to
the different manufacturing operations and types of coatings used.
Doors are manufactured by applying adhesive to a core and frame and
then pressing a doorskin on either side of the core and frame.
Doorskins are thin pieces of wood, such as veneer or fiberboard, which
are typically only primed at the doorskin manufacturing location prior
to being sent to a location that manufactures a door.
The doors and windows segment of the industry is faced with two
separate coating problems due to the exposure to both inside and
outside environments, which require substantially different performance
requirements. First, the primers and prefinishes that will be subject
to exterior conditions must have weather resistant properties similar
to those of exterior siding. Second, the coatings subject to interior
conditions must have stain and scrub resistant properties similar to
interior coatings that may or may not be pigmented, but must still
resist ultraviolet (UV) (sunlight) damage.
Related to those performance requirements, doors and windows are
the only products in the industry that require solvent-borne wood
treatment/preservative coatings prior to finishing. More than half of
the coatings (57 percent) reported by the facilities in the database
are high-HAP content wood treatment/preservative coatings. These are
low-solids solvent-borne coatings that must penetrate the wood to
protect from moisture and decay. There are no known low- or no-HAP
alternatives for these coatings, and the average organic HAP content
was 2.34 kg HAP/liter solids (19.5 lb HAP/gal solids), based on a
sample of door and window facilities.
The sharp angles, small areas, and openings associated with
moulding and trim of doors and windows are more difficult to coat than
the other relatively flat surfaces coated in the other subcategories of
this industry. Door and window surface coating operations utilize
either hang or flat lines and coat using spray systems due to non-flat
surfaces that prevent the use of roll coating. Line speeds for doors
and windows are also much slower than most ``flat'' products (e.g., 100
doors per day versus 70,000 doorskins per day). Dip tanks are sometimes
used for the wood treatment/preservative coatings, which allows the
product to soak in the coating.
Although some doors are marketed with only a factory-applied
primer, most are coated with a prefinish system that must meet industry
performance standards. The prefinish system used is either solvent-
based aminoplast technology or conventional solvent-based coating
technology. Conventional solvent-based coating systems are typically
used for interior doors while solvent-based aminoplast technology is
used primarily for exterior doors to impart weather resistance
characteristics without compromising aesthetic requirements. The
commercial resin systems available for mixing with aminoplast coats are
diluted with xylene and/or toluene. We believe that the performance
requirements and various coating operations of this industry segment
warrant creation of a subcategory.
Flooring. The flooring subcategory includes facilities involved in
the finishing or lamination of a wood building product to be used as
hardwood or wood laminate flooring. Hardwood flooring is cut and
grooved and typically finished in 8-foot or 12-foot strips. Laminate
flooring is becoming increasingly popular in the United States and is
manufactured using adhesives (typically urea formaldehyde or melamine
formaldehyde) that are applied to a paper backing to one side of a thin
piece of particleboard and a decorative laminate.
Flooring is limited by the coating types used, including the
predominant use of solvent-borne stains and UV sealers and topcoats.
Based on a sample of flooring operations, UV sealers and topcoats
accounted for approximately 65 percent of all coatings and zero organic
HAP emissions. Stains made up the other 35 percent of coatings and
averaged 2.82 kg HAP/liter solids (23.5 lb HAP/gal solids). No other
industry segment has this unique finishing scenario. Solvent-based
stains are prevalent in the industry, and some industry representatives
state they are needed in order to obtain the clarity of the wood grain.
Recent technology advancements over the past few years have moved to
water-borne stains, which in the past have tended to cause
``fuzziness'' in the appearance of the wood grain. In addition to the
hardwood flooring products, the use of adhesives in laminated flooring
distinguishes this operation from the remainder of the industry. For
these reasons, we believe that a separate subcategory is appropriate
for flooring.
Interior Wall Paneling and Tileboard. The interior wall paneling
and tileboard subcategory includes the application of a coating to a
panel used only as a wall covering. Interior wall paneling is usually
grooved, frequently embossed, and sometimes grain printed to resemble
various wood species. The substrate can be hardboard, plywood, medium
density fiberboard (MDF), or particleboard. Tileboard is a premium
interior wall paneling product used in areas of the home such as
kitchens and bathrooms. If tileboard is manufactured at a facility,
then interior wall paneling is typically manufactured at the same
facility. Tileboard, however, is not always manufactured at facilities
that manufacture interior wall paneling.
[[Page 42410]]
Interior wall paneling and tileboard are the primary components of
the interior panel product subgroup of wood building products. Product
specifications are established by consensus standards for both interior
wall paneling and tileboard. Interior wall paneling has more decorative
coating requirements than other products and is typically manufactured
at the same facilities as tileboard, although in much smaller
quantities. Tileboard has even more stringent product performance
requirements (i.e., adhesion and hardness standards, household stain,
scrub and moisture resistance, while maintaining a relative smooth
surface) compared to standard interior wall paneling.
Decorative appearance (embossed, grooved, or grain-printed) and
performance of the intermediate and end products require multiple
coating layers and coating steps far exceeding other subcategories.
Production speeds of 30 to 35 boards per minute require that coalescent
solvents be used that come out of the wet film without leaving cure
blisters and without leaving residual solvent in the coating film or
substrate. Residual solvents can cause product ``blocking'' (products
sticking together) during storage. Tileboard coatings average 0.71 kg
HAP/liter solids (5.9 lb HAP/gal solids), and interior wall paneling
coatings average around 0.19 kg HAP/liter solids (1.6 lb HAP/gal
solids). Both products utilize high-temperature aminoplast
crosslinkable coatings that are used on substrates that can tolerate
higher processing temperatures. These coatings have traditionally been
tied to solvent-borne technology where the main resins are supplied in
toluene, xylene, and butyl alcohols. The aforementioned coating
elements of this industry segment support the creation of a separate
subcategory.
Other Interior Panels. The other interior panels subcategory
typically includes the application of a coating to interior panels that
are sold for uses other than wall paneling, such as sheathing,
insulation board, pegboard, and ceiling tiles. Panels in this category
are normally not embossed, grooved, or grain-printed. Other interior
panels are frequently cut to size after coating either by the coater or
the purchaser. In addition to hardwood plywood and hardboard
substrates, softboard, fiberboard, particleboard, and MDF are other
substrates that are shipped to, or produced at, wood building products
facilities and used to produce coated interior panels.
Some facilities produce interior panels that are used in final
products such as shelving, drawersides, cabinetry, store fixtures,
display cases, and many other wood furniture components. These types of
facilities that are major sources of organic HAP emissions will not be
covered under the wood building products (surface coating) NESHAP
because they are already covered under the wood furniture NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart JJ).
Other interior panels make up the rest of the interior panels
subcategory of wood building products. In this segment of the industry,
product specifications are established between the buyer and seller and
not by consensus standards. These products are used for interior
applications other than wall paneling or tileboard and use fewer
coating layers. Other interior panels typically are produced with a
single color and have fewer coating steps, less stringent product
performance requirements, and some UV applications that provide low
organic HAP emission rates. Primers and basecoats comprise 32 percent
of all the coatings used on these products and average 0.21 kg HAP/
liter solids (1.8 lb HAP/gal solids); prefinishes (clearcoats, paints/
inks, sealers, stains, and topcoats) make up 47 percent of the coating
usage and average 0.20 kg HAP/liter solids (1.7 lb HAP/gal solids).
These product differences support a separate subcategory.
Exterior Siding, Doorskin, and Miscellaneous. Exterior siding may
be made of solid wood, hardboard, or waferboard. Siding made of solid
wood and hardboard is typically primed at the manufacturing facility
and finished in the field, although some finishing may be performed
during manufacturing on a limited basis. Exterior trim (material made
out of siding panels and used for edges and corners around the siding)
is typically manufactured at the same facility and coated with the same
coatings as siding.
Facilities that produce waferboard or oriented strandboard siding
typically use a coated paper overlay with a water-borne primer. Since
the coating paper overlay is often added prior to the press, which is
considered to be part of the substrate manufacturing process, these
facilities will not be covered under the wood building products
(surface coating) NESHAP, but will be covered under the plywood and
composite wood products NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD).
Doorskins are thin pieces of wood, such as veneer or fiberboard,
used on the outside surfaces or facings of a door. Doorskin
manufacturing is almost always performed at a separate location from
door manufacturing. Also, many facilities manufacture and finish both
exterior siding and doorskins at the same site.
There are several miscellaneous wood building products that are
surface coated and for which there is little or no emissions or product
performance information available. However, several of the
miscellaneous wood building products are used on the exterior of
buildings or structures, which would require similar protection as
exterior siding. These miscellaneous wood building products include,
but are not limited to, shutters, shingles, awnings, laminated veneer
lumber, and millwork that is not associated with doors and windows or
flooring.
This industry segment involves exterior products that must have
coatings able to withstand extreme and long-term weather conditions.
The predominant use of primers (82 percent of all coatings) relates to
a compatibility issue for all subsequent coating layers and warranty
provisions. These primers are low-HAP content coatings that average
0.01 kg HAP/liter solids (0.1 lb HAP/gal solids). The prefinishes,
including basecoats, sealers, stains, and topcoats, have a higher
average HAP content, 0.07 kg HAP/liter solids (0.6 lb HAP/gal solids),
and comprise the remaining 18 percent of the coatings used by these
facilities. The typical siding facility produces mainly primed siding,
but has a small percentage of prefinished material as well. Also, many
exterior siding facilities coat doorskins at the same location.
In summary, an important aspect in the determination of
subcategories for wood building products surface coating operations
relates to the differences in the performance requirements of the
coatings used, which relates to the type and the amount of coatings
required to meet the end-product specifications. The effectiveness of
an applied coating system depends on the extent to which the adhesion
of the coating to the substrate or other coating layers can take place,
the chemical nature and physical properties of the coating material,
and the severity of service environment. The durability and quality of
coatings depend on cohesion and adhesion properties. The EPA believes
that coatings and surface multiplicity differences, as outlined above,
warrant establishing subcategories for the wood building products
source category.
B. How Did We Select the Regulated Pollutants?
Available emission data collected during the development of the
proposed NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the
surface coating of
[[Page 42411]]
wood building products include xylene, toluene, ethyl benzene, EGBE,
and glycol ethers (not including EGBE). These compounds account for 84
percent of this source category's nationwide organic HAP emissions.
However, many other organic HAP are used in wood building products
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials. Therefore, the proposed
rule would regulate emissions of all organic HAP.
Although most of the coatings used in this source category do not
contain inorganic HAP, some special purpose coatings used by this
source category do contain inorganic HAP such as chromium, manganese,
and antimony. Emissions of these materials to the atmosphere are
minimal because the facilities in this source category employ either
water curtains or dry filters that remove overspray particles from the
spray booth exhaust. Therefore, at this time, it does not appear that
emissions of inorganic HAP from this source category warrant Federal
regulation.
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 HAP-emitting
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'' (40 CFR 60.2) and provide that new source MACT
applies when construction or reconstruction of an affected source
occurs (40 CFR 60.5). The collection of equipment and activities
evaluated in determining MACT (including the MACT floor) is used in
defining the affected source.
When emission standards are based on a collection of emission
sources, or total facility emissions relative to products with similar
coating operations, we select an affected source based on that same
collection of emission sources, or the total facility emissions
relative to products with similar coating operations, as well. This
approach for defining the affected source broadly is particularly
appropriate for industries where affected source-wide emission
standards provide the opportunity and incentive for owners and
operators to utilize control strategies that are more cost effective
than if separate standards were established for each emission point
within a facility.
The affected source for these proposed standards is broadly defined
to include all operations associated with the surface coating of wood
building products and the cleaning of coating operation equipment. In
selecting the affected source, we considered, for each operation, the
extent to which HAP materials are used and the amount of HAP that are
emitted. The organic HAP emissions from surface coating operations at
wood building products facilities originate from the surface coating
application, drying/curing, thinning and/or mixing, and cleaning
operations; storage, handling, and transfer of coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials; and waste materials related to the various coatings
applied to the wood building products. Consequently, the magnitude of
emissions depends heavily on the amount and HAP content of the coatings
used, the application method used, the amount and HAP content of
solvents used, the drying/curing operations used, and the efficiency of
any capture systems and add-on control devices. These factors are
determined by the purpose or function of the coating, the wood building
products surface coating method, and specific requirements related to
the end use of the wood building product.
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 organic HAP materials, each
affected source can select among available coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials to comply with the proposed limits. Additional
information on the wood building products 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 and Existing Sources?
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 sources in a category or subcategory, the standards
cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice
by the best-controlled similar source for which we have emission
information. The 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 limitation achieved by the
best-performing 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.
Within the wood building products industry, organic HAP emission
control for cleaning and surface coating operations is accomplished
primarily through the use of low- or no-HAP coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials. Add-on capture and control systems for organic HAP
are rarely used by the industry. While low- or no-HAP materials have
achieved broad use throughout the industry, each particular coating
technology is not used at every facility. Rather, facilities use
various combinations of low- or no-HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials. Thus, we judged the most reasonable approach to establishing
a MACT floor to be the evaluation of a facility's organic HAP emissions
from all coating-related operations. To account for differences in
production levels from one facility to another, we normalized the
organic HAP emission rate by the volume of coating solids used. We
believe coating solids usage is an appropriate indicator of overall
production levels.
We used information obtained from industry survey responses to
estimate the sourcewide organic HAP emission rate from each survey
respondent. We calculated total organic HAP emissions by assuming that
100 percent of the volatile components in all coatings (including
adhesives), thinners, and cleaning materials are emitted. Sources used
for determining the MACT floor emission limits were identified as those
facilities that listed ``major source'' or ``synthetic minor source''
as their title V status on their questionnaire response, and other
facilities whose data indicated that they have the capacity to increase
their organic HAP emissions to at least 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy), even though
they did not identify themselves as major or synthetic minor sources.
The survey response information was used to determine the total
volume of coating solids used by each source. We included decorative,
protective, and functional coatings in this total.
Using the sourcewide organic HAP emissions and the total volume of
coating solids used for each survey respondent, we calculated the
normalized organic HAP emissions (emission rate) in units of kg organic
HAP per liter of coating solids (lb
[[Page 42412]]
organic HAP per gal of coating solids) used. The facilities were then
ranked from the lowest to the highest emission rate in each of the five
subcategories.
For two of the five subcategories, the existing source MACT floor
was based on the top 12 percent of the facilities because the
subcategories were projected to have more than 30 sources. The existing
source MACT floor for the other three subcategories was based on the
top five facilities because the subcategories were projected to have
fewer than 30 sources. The ``average'' emission rate for each
subcategory was interpreted as the median emission rate. 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 facilities in each subcategory in the database
achieved the emission limits for new or reconstructed sources in Table
2 of this preamble. The MACT floor process for existing sources
resulted in the emission limits identified in Table 3 of this preamble
by subcategory. The survey data showed no appreciable differences
between the floor facilities and the remaining facilities in each
subcategory in terms of the substrates coated, the coating technologies
used, or the applicability of control measures across the various
operations. Therefore, we believe the floor levels of control are
achievable by the sources in each subcategory.
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
sources within the source category or subcategory. We identify and
consider any reasonable regulatory alternatives that are ``beyond-the-
floor,'' taking into account emission reductions, cost, non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. These
alternatives may be different for new or reconstructed and existing
sources because of different MACT floors, and separate standards may be
established for new or reconstructed and existing sources.
We identified and considered control levels more stringent than the
MACT floor level of control for organic HAP. The more stringent option
was the use of capture systems and add-on control devices at every
facility. The add-on control device chosen for the beyond-the-floor
analysis was a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). An RTO was chosen
to achieve the highest 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. Since most affected sources do not have any
form of add-on control to reduce organic HAP emissions from surface
coating operations, we believe that almost all of the facilities,
including the few facilities with existing add-on control, would need
to install a new capture system and an RTO to achieve the more
stringent level of control.
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 results in an estimated emission reduction
of 4,800 Mg/yr (5,300 tpy) at an estimated cost of $133.5 million per
year or $27,900 per Mg HAP ($25,300 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 existing source could incur by using add-on
controls. Therefore, we are not requiring beyond-the-floor levels of
emission reductions at this time. After implementation of these
standards, we will evaluate the health and environmental risks that may
be posed as a result of exposure to emissions from the wood building
products source category. At that time, we will determine whether the
additional costs are warranted in light of the available risk
information.
For new or reconstructed sources, the organic HAP emission limits
are zero or near zero kg HAP/liter of solids (lb HAP/gal of solids).
These limits will achieve 100 percent or nearly 100 percent organic HAP
emission reductions. Therefore, there are no other control technologies
that need to be considered as a beyond-the-floor option for controlling
organic HAP from new or reconstructed sources.
For new or reconstructed sources, we based the proposed standards
on the new source MACT floor. For existing sources, we based the
proposed standards on the existing source MACT floor. As described
earlier, we determined that the beyond-the-floor option was not
technically or economically feasible for all existing sources.
The MACT levels of control for new or reconstructed and existing
sources can be achieved in several different ways. Many sources would
be able to use low- or no-HAP coatings, although they may not be
available to meet the needs of every source. If a source is also using
thinners or cleaning materials that contain organic HAP, then it may be
able to switch to low- or no-HAP thinners and cleaning materials, which
are widely available, to reduce the sourcewide organic HAP emissions
rate to the MACT level. Other available options are the use of UV
coatings or capture systems and add-on control devices to reduce
emissions.
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. We, therefore, concluded that the
practice may not be common within the wood building products surface
coating industry. We recognize, however, that some wood building
products 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 at a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility that is
regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266.
E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Standards?
We selected the format of the standards to be mass of organic HAP
per volume of coating solids. The proposed format would allow wood
building products surface coating operation owners and operators
flexibility in choosing any combination of means (including coating
reformulation, use of low- or no-HAP materials, solvent elimination,
work practices, and add-on control devices) to comply with the
applicable emission limit that is workable for their particular
situations.
We selected volume of coating solids as a component of the proposed
standards to normalize the rate of organic HAP emissions across all
sizes and types of facilities. We also selected the volume of coating
solids used because it is directly related to the surface area coated
and, therefore, provides an equitable basis 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 pigmented
[[Page 42413]]
coatings, such as basecoats or enamels, compared to coatings with lower
densities per unit volume.
Other choices for the format of the standards that we considered,
but chose not to propose, included a usage limit (mass per unit of
production) and a percent reduction limit based on a capture system and
add-on control device. As it is not our intent to limit a facility's
production under the proposed standards, we are not proposing a usage
limit. We also evaluated, but are not proposing, a percent reduction
limit, as most wood building products facilities are not expected to
use capture systems and add-on control devices for compliance.
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 wood building products facilities use some
type of work practice measure to reduce HAP emissions from mixing,
cleaning, storage, and waste handling areas as part of their standard
operating procedures. They use these measures to decrease solvent usage
and minimize exposure to workers. However, we do not have data to
quantify accurately the emission reductions achievable by the work
practice measures. The level of emissions depends on the type of
equipment and the work practices used at the facility and would be very
site-specific. For example, emissions from solvent-laden rags used to
clean spray booths would depend on the method used to isolate and store
such rags. In addition to lacking adequate data and information to
quantify an emissions level for such operations, it is not practicable
to measure emissions from these operations since they often occur in
large open areas not amenable to testing. Therefore, work practice
standards are appropriate for such operations under section 112(h) of
the CAA.
We request specific comments on work practice standards and their
applicability to this source category.
Under the option where emissions are reduced by using low- or no-
HAP materials, we assume that all the organic HAP in the materials
entering the affected source are volatilized (emitted). Therefore,
emissions from operations occurring within the affected source (e.g.,
mixing operations) are accounted for in the determination of total
materials usage at the affected source. However, when you comply by
using capture systems and add-on control devices, emissions from
mixing, storage, and waste handling operations are often not routed to
the control devices and would not be practicable to measure for
inclusion in a determination of compliance with emission limits.
Therefore, the proposed rule would require development and
implementation of an emission reduction work practice plan to assure
that emissions are reduced from such operations.
F. How Did We Select the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
The proposed standards would allow you to choose among several
options to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards for
organic HAP.
Option 1: 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 and cleaning material 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 be used if you choose
to determine the nonaqueous volatile matter content as a surrogate for
organic HAP. In other NESHAP, volatile organic compound 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.
These are voluntary consensus standards (VCS) determined to be
appropriate for the proposed rule; they represent the consensus of the
coating industry and other experts involved in their development.
Option 2: Emission rate without add-on controls option. To
demonstrate initial compliance using this option, you would calculate
the organic HAP emission rate for one or more of your coating
operation(s) in the affected source, based on the mass of organic HAP
in all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials and the 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.
Option 3: 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 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. For both cases, the overall control efficiency
would be combined with the monthly mass of organic HAP in the coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials used to calculate the monthly 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 in 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
these methods.
G. How Did We Select the Proposed Continuous Compliance Requirements?
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits, you
would need records of the quantity of coatings, thinners, and cleaning
materials 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
system 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
[[Page 42414]]
for the types of capture systems and control devices commonly used in
the industry. These monitoring parameters have been used in other
standards for similar industries. The values of these parameters that
correspond to compliance with the proposed emission limits are
established during the initial or most recent performance test that
demonstrates compliance. These 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 this
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 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 4 of the proposed subpart QQQQ. 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 wood building products
surface coating category.
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
The proposed standards will affect an estimated 205 major source
facilities that surface coat wood building products. 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 wood building products
surface coating industry during the next 5 years. Therefore, there are
no projected impacts for new sources. For a facility that is already in
compliance with the proposed standards, only monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting cost impacts were estimated. For more information on how
impacts were estimated, see the BID in the docket.
A. What Are the Air Impacts?
The proposed emission limits are expected to reduce nationwide
organic HAP emissions from existing major sources by 3,200 Mg/yr (3,500
tpy). This represents a reduction of 61 percent from the baseline
organic HAP emissions of 5,100 Mg/yr (5,600 tpy).
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
We have estimated the costs related to complying with the emission
limitations and meeting the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. The costs to comply with the emission limitations include
the increased cost of low- or no-HAP coating materials and, for sources
that choose to use existing emission capture and control systems,
performance testing costs. We have assumed for this analysis that all
affected sources will use low- or no-HAP coatings, thinners, and
cleaning materials, and that these materials can be utilized without
the need for capital expenditure. Annual costs to meet the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of the proposed rule have
also been included.
To comply with the proposed standards, existing sources will likely
use low- or no-HAP coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials.
Compliance costs were estimated based on an incremental cost difference
between the materials currently used and the complying materials. For
purposes of the proposed rule, low- or no-HAP coatings used to comply
with the standard are expected to be more expensive than the higher-HAP
content coatings that are currently being used.
Performance testing costs for the facilities that choose to use
existing control devices to comply with the standard include the labor
hours required to conduct performance testing and monitoring on each
emission capture system and control device used, and to develop the
associated data elements for recordkeeping and reporting purposes.
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 the coating personnel.
The total annual costs for the approximate 205 existing major
sources are estimated at $27.3 million. According to estimates,
recordkeeping and reporting costs will contribute $5.5 million to the
overall cost of these proposed NESHAP; material costs will contribute
$21.6 million; and performance testing and monitoring will contribute
$246,000. We specifically invite comments on how the EPA might reduce
the overall cost and cost by subcategory for the proposed rule and
thereby increase the rule's cost-effectiveness.
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.
In general, we expect the economic impacts of the proposed standards to
be minimal, with price increases for affected wood building products
surface coating facilities of only 0.04 percent.
For affected sources, the median profit margin will remain
unchanged, with small entities being slightly more affected by the
proposed standards. The median profit margin for small entities is
expected to decrease from 2.8 percent to 2.7 percent while the median
profit margin for large entities is expected to decrease from 3.3
percent to 3.2 percent. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse economic
impact on the industry as a whole.
The distribution of costs across wood building products surface
coating facilities is slanted toward the lower impact levels with many
facilities incurring costs related only to annually recurring
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, and for only a few sources
that choose to use their existing add-on controls, initial performance
testing, and parameter monitoring. The EIA indicates that these
regulatory costs are expected to represent only 0.2 percent of the
value of coating services, which should not cause producers to cease or
alter their current operations. Hence, no firms or facilities are at
risk of closure because of the proposed standards. For more
information, refer to the ``Industry Profile: Wood Building Products
Industry'' (docket A-97-52).
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 no-organic-HAP content coatings,
thinners, and cleaning materials at existing sources would result in
any increase or decrease in non-air health, environmental, and energy
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.
[[Page 42415]]
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 review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) 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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
B. 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 regulations 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.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation.
The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Pursuant to the terms of
Executive Order 13132, it has been determined that the proposed rule
does not have ``federalism implications'' because it does not meet the
necessary criteria. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the
Executive Order do 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.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
tribal governments own or operate wood building products surface
coating facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the
proposed rule.
D. 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, the 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 does not establish
environmental standards based on an assessment of health or safety
risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative
technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a
reasonable cost. Furthermore, the proposed rule has been determined not
to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order
12866.
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that the proposed rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects. Affected sources are expected to comply with
the proposed rule through pollution prevention rather than end-of-pipe
controls, and therefore, there would be no increase in energy usage.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
[[Page 42416]]
Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under
section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an
EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the
UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when
they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows
EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of the
proposed rule has been estimated to be less than $27.3 million. Thus,
today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this
proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
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.
The RFA generally requires us to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other
statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
whose parent company has no more than 500 employees; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.
In accordance with the RFA and SBREFA, EPA conducted an assessment
of the proposed standards on small businesses within the wood building
products surface coating industry. Based on Small Business
Administration size definitions and reported sales and employment data,
EPA's survey identified 4 out of 44 known facilities (4 out of 19 known
companies) as being owned by small businesses that will be affected by
the proposed standards. Small businesses own 9 percent of the
facilities and represent 21 percent of the companies within the source
category that will be affected by the proposed standards and are
expected to incur less than 10 percent of the total industry compliance
costs of $27 million. There are no small firms with compliance costs
equal to or greater than 1 percent of their sales. The EPA believes the
sample of firms included in this small entity analysis is
representative of the small firms that may be affected by the proposed
rule.
The EPA also notes that, while economies of scale will require
individual small firms to pay a somewhat higher proportion of revenues
than large firms for compliance, the burden on most small firms is
quite low nevertheless. The median compliance cost is well below 1
percent of sales for both small and large firms affected by the
proposed standards (0.18 and 0.02 percent of sales for small and large
firms, respectively). After reviewing the range of costs to be borne by
small businesses, EPA has determined the costs are typically small and,
thus, certifies that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, EPA has
determined that the certification that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
does not change if this analysis is done using the NAICS-based small
business size standards and NAICS industry data. For more information,
please consult the memorandum ``Small Entity Impact Analysis Results
Comparison for Proposed Wood Building Products NESHAP'' (docket A-97-
52).
Although the proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA |
