Browse by Year
/ 2003
/ December
/ Thursday, December 11, 2003
[Federal Register: December 11, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 238)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69163-69201]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de03-17]
[[Page 69163]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Miscellaneous
Coating Manufacturing; Final Rule
[[Page 69164]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178; FRL-7554-3]
RIN 2060-AK59
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous coating
manufacturing facilities. The final rule establishes emission limits
and work practice requirements for new and existing miscellaneous
coating manufacturing operations, including process vessels, storage
tanks, wastewater, transfer operations, equipment leaks, and heat
exchange systems, and implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emission standards reflecting application of the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT). The HAP emitted from
miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities include toluene, xylene,
glycol ethers, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone.
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse
health effects such as irritation of the lung, eye, and mucous
membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and cancer. We do not
have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities and
the people living around the facilities covered by the final rule for
this source category that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to
determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these
facilities and the 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, and the final rule reduces
emissions, subsequent exposures will be reduced. The final rule will
reduce HAP emissions by 4,900 tons per year (tpy) for existing
facilities that manufacture miscellaneous coatings.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 11, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Docket ID. No. OAR-2003-0178 and A-96-04 are located at the
U.S. EPA, Office of Air & Radiation Docket & Information Center
(6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., room B108, Washington, DC
20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy McDonald, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-C504-04), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5402, electronic mail (e-mail) address mcdonald.randy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS\*\ Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... 3255 Manufacturers of coatings,
including inks, paints, or
adhesives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7985 of the
final 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.
Docket. The EPA has established official electronic public dockets
for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178 and A-96-04. The
official public docket consists of the documents specifically
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other
information related to this action. Although a part of the official
docket, a public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that
is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/
to view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Portions of the docket materials are available electronically through
Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number. You may still
access publicly available docket materials through the Docket ID No. A-
96-04.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the rule will be placed 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.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by February 9, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under CAA section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by the final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceeding brought to enforce these
requirements.
Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for
miscellaneous coating manufacturing on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154), and
received 81 comment letters and comments from 8 speakers at a public
hearing on the proposal. A background information document (BID)
(``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing Industry, Summary of Public
Comments and Responses,'') containing EPA's responses to each public
comment is available in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178.
[[Page 69165]]
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 is the history of the source category?
D. What are the health effects associated with the pollutants
emitted from miscellaneous coating manufacturing?
E. How did we develop the final rule?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
B. What are the emission limitations and work practice
standards?
C. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
D. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
E. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air emission reduction impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the non-air quality health and environmental impacts
and energy impacts?
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. What changes to applicability did the commenters suggest?
B. How Did We Develop the Standards?
C. Standards for Process Vessels
D. Standards for Storage Tanks
E. Standards for Wastewater
F. Standards for Equipment Leaks
G. Standards for Transfer Operations
H. Pollution Prevention
I. Initial Compliance
J. Ongoing Compliance
K. Recordkeeping and Reporting
L. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review 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 some area sources of HAP and to
establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories.
Major sources of HAP are those that are located within a contiguous
area and under common control and have the potential to emit greater
than 9.1 megagrams per year (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 and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control
is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology or
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 all major sources achieve the level of control
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in
each source category or subcategory. For new 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 sources,
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources for
which the Administrator has emissions information (or the best-
performing five sources for which the Administrator has or could
reasonably obtain emissions information for categories or subcategories
with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. In considering whether to establish standards
more stringent than the floor, we must consider cost, non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Is the History of the Source Category?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish rules for
categories of emission sources that emit HAP. On July 16, 1992, we
published an initial list of 174 source categories to be regulated (57
FR 31576). The listing was our best attempt to identify major sources
of HAP by manufacturing category. Following the publication of that
listing, we published a schedule for the promulgation of emission
standards for each of the 174 listed source categories. At the time the
initial list was published, we recognized that we might have to revise
the list from time to time as better information became available.
Based on information we collected in 1995, we realized that several
of the original source categories on the list had similar process
equipment, emission characteristics and applicable control
technologies. Additionally, many of these source categories were on the
same schedule for promulgation, by November 15, 2000. Therefore, we
decided to combine a number of source categories from the original
listing into one broad set of emission standards. On November 7, 1996,
we published a Federal Register notice combining 21 source categories
from the initial list of 174 into the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
Processes source category (61 FR 57602). One of the 21 source
categories was the manufacture of paints, coatings, and adhesives.
On November 18, 1999, we published a Federal Register notice
describing changes to the source category list (64 FR 63035). At that
time, we also described our intent to group the source categories into
two new source categories instead of one. The two new source categories
are called the miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing source
category and the miscellaneous coating manufacturing source category.
We proposed the NESHAP for both source categories on April 4, 2002 (67
FR 16154).
Today's action establishes final standards for miscellaneous
coating manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH). Final standards
for miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFF) will be published separately.
D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With the Pollutants Emitted
From Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing?
The CAA was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality
of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and
welfare and the productive capacity of the population'' (see section
101(b) of the CAA). These NESHAP will protect public health by reducing
emissions of HAP from miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities.
Miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities emit an estimated
6,900 Mg/yr (7,600 tpy) of HAP. Approximately 30
[[Page 69166]]
percent of the HAP emitted by miscellaneous coating manufacturing
facilities is toluene, 30 percent is xylene, and glycol ethers, methyl
ethyl ketone, and methyl isobutyl ketone account for approximately 25
percent. The final rule reduces total HAP emissions from miscellaneous
coating manufacturing facilities by 64 percent. As a result of
controlling these HAP, the final NESHAP will also reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC). A summary of the potential health
effects caused by exposure to these pollutants is presented in the
preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 16154).
E. How Did We Develop the Final Rule?
We proposed the NESHAP for the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing
source category on April 4, 2002 (67 FR 16154) and provided an 85-day
comment period. We received public comments on the proposed
miscellaneous coating manufacturing NESHAP from 81 sources consisting
of paint, ink, and adhesives manufacturers, industry trade
associations, a federal government agency, an environmental group, and
other interested parties. In addition, a public hearing was held, at
which 8 of 11 speakers provided testimony related to the proposed
miscellaneous coating manufacturing rule. A copy of each of the comment
letters is available in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0178.
The final rule reflects full consideration of all the comments we
received on the proposed subpart HHHHH, as well as our reassessment of
certain data in the rulemaking record. A detailed response to all
comments is included in the BID for the promulgated standards (Docket
ID No. OAR-2003-0178).
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?
The affected source for the miscellaneous coating manufacturing
source category is the miscellaneous coating manufacturing operations
at the facility. These operations include storage tanks, process
vessels, equipment components, wastewater treatment and conveyance
systems, transfer operations, and ancillary sources such as heat
exchange systems.
The final standards for miscellaneous coating manufacturing cover
vents from process vessels, storage tanks, wastewater, transfer
operations, equipment leaks, and ancillary heat exchange operations.
Total baseline HAP emissions for the miscellaneous coating
manufacturing source category are estimated to be 6,900 Mg/yr (7,600
tpy).
B. What Are the Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards?
Process Vessel Vents
For stationary process vessels with capacities greater than or
equal to 0.94 cubic meters (m3) (250 gallons (gal)) at
existing sources, the final rule requires an overall reduction,
adjusting for capture and control efficiency based on enclosure tests,
as applicable, of at least 75 percent by weight for HAP with a vapor
pressure greater than or equal to 0.6 kilopascals (kPa) (0.09 pounds
per square inch absolute (psia)), and at least a 60 percent reduction
by weight for HAP with a vapor pressure less than 0.6 kPa (0.09 psia).
The final rule also provides an emissions averaging alternative for
stationary process vessels at existing sources that are equipped with a
tightly-fitting vented cover. The overall mass reduction in HAP
emissions for vessels in the averaging group must be equal to or
greater than the reduction that would have resulted if each of the
covered vessels were vented to a control device that achieves a 75
percent emissions reduction for HAP with a vapor pressure greater than
or equal to 0.6 kPa (0.09 psia) or a 60 percent emissions reduction for
HAP with a vapor pressure less than 0.6 kPa (0.09 psia). The final rule
requires that portable process vessels at existing sources with
capacities greater than or equal to 0.94 m3 (250 gal) be
equipped with a cover. Stationary and portable vessels at new sources
must be equipped with a tightly-fitting vented cover, and the vented
organic HAP emissions must be reduced by at least 95 percent by weight.
Alternatively, for stationary process vessels with capacities greater
than or equal to 0.94 m3 (250 gal) at existing and new
sources and portable process vessels with capacities greater than or
equal to 0.94 m3 (250 gal) at new sources, you may install a
tightly-fitting vented cover and vent emissions to a condenser operated
at specified temperature limits to satisfy the overall control
requirement. Another option for meeting the standards for stationary
process vessels at existing sources is to use the vessels to produce
coatings with less than 5 percent HAP by weight; no additional control
of process vessel vents is required when producing such coatings.
We did not specifically request information on process vessels with
capacities less than 0.94 m3 (250 gal). Thus, we do not have
information indicating that a sufficient number of sources are using
control devices or other HAP emission reduction techniques to enable us
to set a MACT floor based on such devices or techniques. Therefore, the
MACT floor for process vessels with capacities less than 0.94
m3 (250 gal) is no emissions reduction. We examined one
regulatory alternative that would require the same 75 percent emissions
reduction as for larger process vessels. We concluded that the total
impacts of this alternative, including cost, non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements, are unreasonable in
light of the HAP emission reductions achieved. Thus, we did not develop
standards for process vessels with capacities less than 250 gal.
Storage Tanks
The standards for storage tanks at existing sources require either
organic HAP emissions reductions of 90 percent by weight or more, or
the use of floating roofs, or vapor balancing if the storage tanks have
capacities greater than or equal to 75 m3 (20,000 gal) and
store material with an organic HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal
to 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia). The standards for storage tanks at new sources
require either organic HAP emissions reductions of at least 80 percent
by weight, the use of floating roofs, or vapor balancing if the storage
tanks have capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal and store
material with an organic HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal to
0.02 psia. The standards for new sources also require either organic
HAP emissions reductions of at least 90 percent by weight, the use of
floating roofs, or vapor balancing for storage tanks that have
capacities equal to or greater than 75 m3 (20,000 gal) but
less than 94 m3 (25,000 gal) and store material that has an
organic HAP vapor pressure greater than or equal to 10.3 kPa (1.5
psia), and tanks with capacities greater than 94 m3 (25,000
gal) storing material that has an organic HAP vapor pressure greater
than or equal to 0.7 kPa (0.1 psia). The final rule does not include
standards for storage tanks smaller than 20,000 gal at existing sources
or for storage tanks smaller than 10,000 gal at new sources because the
MACT floor for these tanks was determined to be no emissions reduction.
Wastewater
For existing sources, the final rule requires that wastewater
containing a total partially soluble and soluble HAP load of 750 pounds
per year (lb/yr) and a concentration of 4,000 parts per million by
weight (ppmw) or greater be treated as hazardous waste or in an
[[Page 69167]]
enhanced biological treatment unit. The final rule also allows for
offsite treatment provided the affected sources that ship their
wastewater to an offsite facility for treatment as a hazardous waste
note this fact along with the name of the facility to which the
wastewater is shipped in their notification of compliance status
report. If the wastewater is shipped offsite for treatment in an
enhanced biological treatment unit, the offsite facility must comply
with the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in
subpart HHHHH. For new sources, the applicability triggers for control
are more stringent, affecting all streams that contain partially
soluble and soluble HAP at a concentration greater than or equal to
1,600 ppmw.
Transfer Operations
Standards for transfer operations at existing and new sources
require 75 percent control of HAP emissions from product loading to
tank trucks and railcars if the amount of material transferred contains
at least 11.4 million liters per year (l/yr) (3.0 million gal/yr) of
HAP, and the material has a HAP partial pressure greater than or equal
to 10.3 kPa (1.5 psia). Acceptable control strategies also include
routing displaced vapors back to the process, or the use of condensers
operated below specified temperature limits.
Equipment Leaks
The final rule requires compliance with leak detection and repair
(LDAR) programs for equipment leaks. Existing sources must comply with
the sensory-based LDAR provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart R, the
NESHAP for Gas Distribution Facilities. Alternatively, existing sources
may comply with the LDAR program in 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT, or
subpart UU (the National Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks--
Control Level 1 and Control Level 2, respectively) because these
alternatives are equivalent to or more stringent than the sensory-based
LDAR program. New sources must comply with either the subpart TT or
subpart UU LDAR provisions. For heat exchange systems at existing and
new sources, the final rule requires a leak detection program,
consistent with the program in 40 CFR 63.104 (the Hazardous Organic
NESHAP (HON)).
Cleaning operations are considered part of the miscellaneous
coating manufacturing operations at existing and new sources.
Therefore, cleaning fluids are considered to be process fluids, and the
requirements for process vessels, storage tanks, equipment leaks, and
wastewater systems that apply to other process operations also apply to
cleaning operations.
C. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?
To verify that the required reductions have been achieved, you must
either test or use calculation methodologies, depending on the emission
stream characteristics, control device, and the type of process vent.
Initial compliance demonstration provisions for stationary process
vessels at miscellaneous coating manufacturing sources reference the 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS, closed vent system and performance test
provisions and the capture efficiency Method 204 in appendix M to 40
CFR part 51. Control devices handling greater than 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy)
of HAP must be tested, while engineering assessments are allowed for
control devices with lower loads and for condensers. Performance test
provisions are based on worst case operating conditions for devices
controlling process vents.
The initial compliance demonstration procedures reference 40 CFR
part 63, subpart SS, for storage tanks complying using control devices
and transfer operations, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW, for storage
tanks complying using floating roofs.
D. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
The final rule requires monitoring to determine whether you are in
compliance with emission limits on an ongoing basis. This monitoring is
done either by continuously measuring HAP emissions reductions or by
continuously measuring a site-specific operational parameter, the value
of which you would establish during the initial compliance
demonstration. These parameters are required to be monitored at 15-
minute intervals throughout the operation of the control device. For
control devices that do not control more than 1 tpy of HAP emissions,
only a daily verification of the operating parameter is required, as is
provided in 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGG. To demonstrate compliance with
work practice standards, such as the requirement to maintain floating
roofs, inspection of equipment serves as the monitoring demonstration.
E. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
The final rule requires recordkeeping and initial and semiannual
reporting. The initial notification is required within 120 days of the
effective date of the NESHAP. That report, which is very brief, serves
to alert appropriate agencies (State agencies and EPA Regional Offices)
of the existence of your affected source and puts them on notice for
future compliance actions. The precompliance report details compliance
alternatives that require preapproval and is required 6 months prior to
the compliance date. The notification of compliance status (NOCS)
report, which is due 150 days after the compliance date of the NESHAP,
is a comprehensive report that describes the affected source and the
strategy being used to comply. The final rule also incorporates a
number of provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 (General
Provisions), among them the startup, shutdown and malfunction
provisions.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts?
We estimate nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the
miscellaneous coating manufacturing sources to be 6,900 Mg/yr (7,600
tpy). We project that the final rule will reduce HAP emissions by about
4,400 Mg/yr (4,900 tpy). Because many of the HAP emitted by
miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities are also VOC, the
proposed NESHAP will also reduce VOC.
Combustion of fuels to generate electricity and steam will increase
secondary emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) by about 25 Mg/yr
(27 tpy). These impacts were estimated assuming electricity is
generated in coal-fired power plants and steam is produced in natural
gas-fired industrial boilers.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The cost impacts include the capital cost to install control
devices and monitoring equipment, and include the annual costs involved
in operating control devices and monitoring equipment, implementing
work practices, and conducting performance tests. The annual cost
impacts also include the cost savings generated by reducing the loss of
product or solvent in the form of emissions. The total capital costs
for existing sources are estimated to be $57 million, and the total
annualized costs for existing sources are estimated to be $16 million.
Total capital costs for new sources are estimated to be $1.3 million
per new facility and total annualized costs are estimated to be $.25
million per new facility. Three new facilities were estimated in the
first 3 years after promulgation of this rule.
[[Page 69168]]
We estimate that in the first 3 years after the effective date of
40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHH, that the annual cost burden will average
$3,500/yr per respondent for recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for an estimated 129 sources. Most of these costs are for new and
reconstructed sources that must be in compliance upon startup; other
costs are for existing sources to prepare initial notifications and
plans. In the fourth year after the effective date, existing facilities
must begin to monitor and record operating parameters to comply with
operating limits and prepare compliance reports. These activities will
significantly increase the nationwide annual burden.
We expect that the actual compliance cost impacts of the NESHAP
will be less than described above because of the potential to use
common control devices, upgrade existing control devices, implement
emissions averaging, or comply with the preset temperature limits for
condensers. Because the effect of such practices is highly site-
specific and data were unavailable to estimate how often the lower cost
compliance practices could be utilized, we could not quantify the
amount by which actual compliance costs will be reduced.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The economic impact analysis shows that the expected price increase
for affected output would be 0.3 percent as a result of the NESHAP for
miscellaneous coating manufacturers. The expected change in production
of affected output is a reduction of 0.1 percent as a result of the
final rule. One plant closure is expected out of the 127 facilities
affected by the final rule. It should be noted that the baseline
economic conditions of the facility predicted to close affect the
closure estimate provided by the economic model, and that the facility
predicted to close appears to have low profitability levels currently.
Therefore, no adverse impact is expected to occur for those industries
that produce output affected by the NESHAP, such as paints, inks, and
adhesives.
D. What Are the Non-Air Quality Health and Environmental Impacts and
Energy Impacts?
We do not expect wastewater, solid waste, or hazardous waste to be
generated from controlling HAP emissions from miscellaneous coating
manufacturing facilities. Thus, we expect no non-air quality health
impacts from controlling HAP emissions from miscellaneous coating
manufacturing facilities. We expect the overall energy demand (i.e.,
for electricity generation and steam production) to increase by an
estimated 32,000 gigajoules per year (30.0 billion British thermal
units per year (Btu/yr).
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. What Changes to Applicability Did the Commenters Suggest?
Comment: A number of commenters opposed regulation of activities
such as mixing additives and other ingredients, thinning, and adjusting
tint by facilities that are the end-users of coatings and are subject
to any of the surface coating NESHAP; several of the commenters
described these activities as ``affiliated operations,'' and they
concurred with the definition and draft preamble language for the Paper
and Other Web Coating (POWC) NESHAP that were discussed during POWC
stakeholder meetings on May 22 and June 26, 2002.\1\ For example,
several of the commenters requested specific exemptions for affiliated
operations at facilities subject to surface coating rules in subpart GG
(National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
Facilities), subpart KK of 40 CFR part 63 (NESHAP for the Printing and
Publishing Industry), and/or subpart JJJJ of 40 CFR part 63 (NESHAP:
Paper and Other Web Coating). Another commenter requested an exemption
for the onsite formulation and mixing of specialty, ablative coatings
that are applied to space vehicles at a National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) site and are exempt from control under subpart GG
of 40 CFR part 63. Two commenters requested specific language in either
the preamble or final rule to clarify that operations at facilities
subject to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 (the plywood and composite
wood products NESHAP) are not subject to subpart HHHHH of 40 CFR part
63. Another commenter also suggested extending the provision to all
equipment associated with a process for which another 40 CFR part 63
standard has been promulgated. One commenter stated that end users,
particularly those at facilities subject to subpart MMMM of 40 CFR part
63 (NESHAP: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products),
should be exempt because subpart MMMM already addresses emissions
associated with the use of diluents at such facilities. Another
commenter noted that the exemption in Sec. 63.7985(a)(4) of operations
that are part of an affected source under another subpart of 40 CFR
part 63 should apply to end-users subject to subparts MMMM, IIII (auto
surface), and PPPP (plastic parts and products) because affiliated
operations are part of the affected sources under those rules. One
commenter requested clarification that the exemption in Sec.
63.7985(a)(4) is not limited only to operations that are required to
implement controls under other standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The final POWC NESHAP was published on December 4, 2002 (67
FR 72330).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters requested exemptions for affiliated operations at
facilities subject to any of the surface coating NESHAP. According to
the commenters, the exemption is necessary because we obtained no
information on end-users while developing subpart HHHHH, some of the
regulated community would not have an opportunity to comment on the
proposal because some of the surface coating rules will not be
published until after subpart HHHHH is finalized, and we considered
emissions from affiliated operations in some surface coating source
categories to be insignificant when we were developing the surface
coating NESHAP. To exclude end users in general, one commenter
recommended more clearly defining ``coatings manufacturing'' with a
definition similar to that for ``batch process'' in subpart GGG of 40
CFR part 63, using a more narrow listing of Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) and North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes, and adding specific exemptions for temporary
activities such as mixing prior to painting a tank or structure at a
major source.
Response: The final rule does not apply to activities conducted by
end users of coating products in preparation for application. As noted
by some of the commenters, we have decided to exempt affiliated
operations at POWC facilities from subpart HHHHH. In the preamble to
the final POWC surface coating MACT rule (67 FR 72330, December 4,
2002), we define affiliated operations at POWC facilities and indicate
that they are part of the POWC source category, but they are not part
of the POWC affected source for a variety of reasons. We also examined
other surface coating rules, and determined that the exemption for
affiliated operations should also be applied to sources that are
subject to the printing and publishing rule (subpart KK), the aerospace
manufacturing rule (subpart GG), the metal coil coating rule (subpart
SSSS of 40 CFR part 63), and the miscellaneous metal parts and products
rule (subpart MMMM). These five rules lack requirements for affiliated
[[Page 69169]]
operations, but affiliated operations were considered during the
development of the rules and controls were determined not to be
warranted. We have not extended this exemption to other surface coating
rules (or certain other rules) that already include affiliated
operations as part of the affected source under the applicable subpart
because operations that are part of another affected source are exempt
from the final subpart HHHHH according to Sec. 63.7985(a)(4). One
commenter's assumption that this exemption is not limited to those
operations within another affected source that must implement controls
is correct. Preparations for painting equipment or structures at a
facility are not part of a manufacturing process and thus are not
subject to subpart HHHHH.
Comment: Several commenters recommended clarifying the provision in
Sec. 63.7985(c)(3) of the proposed rule that would exempt all
equipment associated with a process that has less than 5 percent HAP in
process vessels. One commenter noted that this provision will not
exempt all water-based coating manufacturing because the actual HAP
content in the process vessel varies during the process. To be useful,
this commenter stated the determination must be based on the HAP
content of the final product. According to another commenter, the
exemption should be based on ``organic'' HAP, and sources should be
allowed to determine this percentage based on material safety data
sheets (MSDS) or other available information as an alternative to
chemical analysis. One commenter suggested that the exemption would be
less confusing if it were applied to individual vessels rather than a
``coating process'' because equipment is generally associated with a
specific process vessel and the definition of ``process'' is too broad.
One commenter also stated that if a process vessel is not subject to
control because its capacity is less than 250 gallons or the HAP
emissions are less than 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv), then it
is also reasonable that no other requirements should apply to any of
the equipment associated with that process vessel (i.e., the storage
tank, equipment leak, and wastewater standards).
To minimize the compliance burden, one commenter requested
exemptions for impurities and trace constituents present in quantities
less than 0.1 percent by weight for carcinogens and less than 1.0
percent by weight for all other HAP, values which are consistent with
the levels that must be provided on MSDS. The commenter stated that
this would reduce the burden of determining the HAP content in a vessel
for comparison with the 5 percent exemption level and for determining
the HAP content in process vessel vents for comparison to the 50 ppmv
limit.
Response: Under the proposed rule, whenever the contents of a
process vessel contain less than 5 percent HAP by weight, the owner or
operator would be exempt from all requirements for the process vessel
and related equipment. Under the final rule, this provision has been
replaced with a provision that provides for compliance with the
stationary process vessel standards at existing sources when the vessel
is being used to manufacture a coating that contains less than 5
percent HAP by weight. Our rationale for allowing the mass limit as an
alternative standard is based on an estimated equivalent reduction in
HAP emissions as compared to complying with the process vessel
standards. Although we did not collect specific data on coatings
content, we reviewed information that we collected in the development
of standards for other coating manufacturing source categories. Based
on these data, we concluded that we could achieve equivalent reductions
in HAP emissions if coating manufacturers reduce the HAP content of
final products to less than 5 percent by weight. In order to achieve
equivalent reductions of 75 percent for process vessels, the average
HAP content of coatings would have to be greater than 20 percent. Other
data collection efforts support the conclusion. For example, the
average HAP levels in all the solventborne coatings reported in the
metal can and wood building products source categories are 32 and 28
percent, respectively. On a consumption-weighted basis, the HAP content
of coatings in the metal can source category is 20 percent. Further,
although the HAP content of many water-based coatings is less than 5
percent by weight, we did not include an explicit exemption for
waterborne coatings because the HAP content of some waterborne coatings
could be relatively high as long as the HAP is soluble in water.
In developing this alternative, we are persuaded by one commenter's
suggestion to apply it to all vessels that are associated with the
manufacturing of the final product. Although another commenter
suggested that identifying all process vessels in a manufacturing
process would be confusing, we think that this alternative would
actually simplify compliance for most owners and operators. As long as
the process vessel meets the definition in the final rule, an owner or
operator could comply with the alternative standard when the vessel was
processing material that would ultimately contain less than 5 percent
HAP by weight as final product.
To further eliminate confusion, we clarified that the alternative
applies only to process vessels. Storage tanks are not considered
because their control requirements are determined based on the size of
the tank and the HAP partial pressure, not whether the tank is used for
an individual product. Transfer operations are not considered because
their control requirements are determined based on the total annual
quantity of coating that is loaded and its weighted average partial
pressure. Equipment leaks also are not considered because the need for
control is determined by the number of hours a particular component is
in organic HAP service within the affected source, not the specific
product being produced. Also, we did not exempt wastewater streams from
process vessels smaller than 250 gal because we have no evidence that
such vessels are cleaned by a different procedure than larger vessels
or that the wastewater streams from such cleaning operations are kept
separate.
We did not allow in the final rule a de minimis exemption of 0.1 or
1 weight percent HAP for trace constituents. This exemption is not
relevant to the 5 weight percent HAP product alternative standard.
Further, we do not feel that an additional de minimis or trace
constituent exemption for compliance with the remaining standards is
necessary.
Comment: One commenter recommended establishing applicability based
on the affected source rather than the major source so that small
coating manufacturing operations co-located with large surface coating
sources are not subject to subpart HHHHH.
Response: We have not made the suggested change because the
definition of a ``major source'' encompasses an entire plant site
without being subdivided according to industrial classifications or
activities. This definition is contained in section 112(a)(1) of the
CAA, which includes ``any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that
emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the
aggregate, 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.''
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for processes with
uncontrolled emissions less than 10,000 lb/yr.
[[Page 69170]]
Response: We have not incorporated the requested exemption because
it is not supported by the available data.
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for waterborne
coatings.
Response: We have not included an explicit exemption for waterborne
coatings because the HAP content of a waterborne coating could be
relatively high as long as the HAP is soluble in water. However, a
source can reformulate coatings to contain less than 5 percent HAP as a
means of meeting the process vessel vent emission limits and work
practice standards for existing sources.
Comment: One commenter requested an exemption for low vapor
pressure HAP.
Response: We did not provide an exemption for low vapor pressure
HAP materials because we could not justify a no emissions reduction
MACT floor for these materials based on our information. We did not
collect information that could be used to support the concept that
process vessels containing only low vapor pressure materials would not
be controlled to the same levels as those containing higher vapor
pressure materials. Further, we reviewed HAP storage tank throughput at
facilities that reported control of process vessels, and noted that
lower vapor pressure HAP, such as glycol ethers and ethylene glycol,
were also used at these facilities. However, for the final rule, we
have written the standard for stationary process vessels at existing
sources to require 75 percent reduction only for HAP with a vapor
pressure greater than or equal to 0.6 kPa. We made this change based on
a revised analysis that showed the total impacts of the regulatory
alternative are unreasonable for HAP with vapor pressures less than 0.6
kPa. Thus, these HAP must be controlled to the MACT floor level of 60
percent.
Comment: Three commenters requested clarification of how to
determine whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFF, or 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHH, applies to their operations. One commenter noted that
the proposed definition of ``coating manufacturing'' is expansive and
would unnecessarily subject facilities to both subparts.
Response: If the product being manufactured is a coating, and the
manufacturing steps involve blending, mixing, diluting, and related
formulation operations, without an intended reaction, then the process
is subject to subpart HHHHH. If a reaction as well as various other
operations are involved, then the process typically is subject to
subpart FFFF. However, if the downstream formulation operations are
distinct from the preceding synthesis process(es), (perhaps because the
synthesized product is isolated and some of it is sold or transferred
offsite), then the formulation operations are subject to subpart HHHHH,
and the synthesis operations are subject to subpart FFFF. In the event
that equipment used for manufacturing products in processes that are
subject to subpart FFFF is also used for coating manufacturing
operations that are subject to subpart HHHHH, then the primary use of
the equipment determines applicability.
B. How Did We Develop the Standards?
Comment: According to one commenter, the lack of standards for all
HAP is unlawful. The commenter cited hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen
fluoride, chlorine, potassium compounds, and maleic and phthalic
anhydrides as examples of HAP that are not regulated. Another commenter
recommended listing the HAP that are subject to the final rule, or
cross-referencing Table 2 in subpart F of the HON.
Response: The standards in subpart HHHHH apply to all HAP that are
used in coating manufacturing. Of the six compounds cited by the first
commenter, only HCl and phthalic anhydride are listed in our database.
All process vessels larger than 250 gallons that emit any HAP,
including the six cited by the first commenter, must be controlled. We
did not list the HAP in the final rule because the rule applies to all
HAP listed in the Clean Air Act.
Comment: One commenter stated that the thresholds in the proposed
subpart HHHHH unlawfully exempt emission points from control. According
to the commenter, all emission points must be controlled.
Response: We disagree that every emission point at a major source
must be required to reduce emissions. First, section 112(a) of the CAA
defines ``stationary source'' (through reference to section 111(a)) as:
* * * any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or
may emit any air pollutant * * * .'' (42 U.S.C. 7412(a)(3) and
7411(a)(3)). The General Provisions for the MACT program define the
term ``affected source'' as * * * the collection of equipment,
activities, or both within a single contiguous area and under common
control that is included in a section 112(c) source category or
subcategory for which a section 112(d) standard or other relevant
standard is established pursuant to section 112 * * *.'' (40 CFR 63.2).
Nothing in the definition of ``stationary source'' or in the regulatory
definition of ``affected source'' states or implies that each emission
point or volume of emissions must be subjected to control requirements
in standards promulgated under CAA section 112.
Further, even under the commenter's interpretation of ``stationary
source,'' the Agency would still have discretion in regulating
individual emission sources. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the
Administrator to * * * distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of
sources within a category or subcategory in establishing such standards
* * *.'' We interpret this provision for the miscellaneous coating
manufacturing NESHAP, as we have for previous rules, as allowing
emission limitations to be established for subcategories of sources
based on size or volume of materials processed at the affected source.
Under the discretion allowed by the CAA for the Agency to consider
sizes of sources, we made the determination that certain small-capacity
and low-use operations (e.g., smaller storage tanks) can be analyzed
separately for purposes of identifying the MACT floor and determining
whether beyond-the-floor requirements are reasonable. In addition, our
MACT floor determinations for certain categories (e.g., stationary
process vessels), which are set according to section 112(d)(3) of the
CAA, reflect the performance levels of the best-performing sources for
which we had information, including vapor pressure thresholds or
cutoffs below which the best-performing sources do not reduce
emissions.
In general, our MACT floor determinations have focused on the best-
performing sources in each source category, and they consider add-on
control technologies as well as other practices that reduce emissions.
As part of our information collection effort, we requested information
on emission reduction measures. We generally did not receive
information indicating that, for the emission points covered by 40 CFR
part 63, subpart HHHHH, sources are currently reducing emissions
through measures other than control technologies (e.g., by fuel
switching or raw materials or process changes) in sufficient numbers to
support a MACT floor based on such measures. Accordingly, our standards
include a performance level that represents the level achieved by the
best control technology, and a threshold or cutoff that represents the
lowest emission potential that is controlled by the best 12 percent of
sources. Because the miscellaneous coating manufacturing source
category is broad in terms of the
[[Page 69171]]
numbers and types of processing operations that are covered, one
challenge was to develop a format by which all sources could be
compared to each other to establish the best-performing sources. The
performance level generally is of the format that can be applied to
different types of control technology and processes and is generally
consistent with existing State and local rules. Thus, different types
of control technology and emission levels resulting from existing rules
are captured in our MACT floor analysis. The cutoff allows owners and
operators that have reduced their emissions below a certain level using
one or more methods, including process changes to reduce or eliminate
pollution at the source, to comply without additional control. Both
performance levels and cutoffs have been set to account for variations
in emission stream characteristics so that the standards can be applied
consistently across the source category. This approach is consistent
with the language of CAA section 112(d)(3) that requires us to set the
MACT floor based on the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources.
C. Standards for Process Vessels
Comment: One commenter is not convinced that the existing source
MACT floor for portable vessels should be only a cover because some
portable vessels have a cover plus add-on control devices, and the
actual performance of a covered vessel varies depending on the type of
cover and other factors such as the HAP content and vapor pressure of
the material being processed. Similarly, the commenter also objected to
the existing source MACT floor for stationary process vessels, claiming
that it does not reflect the actual performance of the best performers,
and that we have not accounted for various factors that affect the
performance.
Other commenters indicated that the existing source MACT floor is
too stringent, or at the very least the control level should not be
increased from 60 percent to 80 percent. For example, one commenter is
not convinced that 6 percent, or the average of the best performing 12
percent, are controlled because many of the controls are applied only
to vessels with specific characteristics rather than facility-wide.
Another commenter questioned the validity of averaging uncontrolled
sources with controlled sources in developing the MACT floor, and
concluded that the floor should be no control. In response to a
solicitation for comment regarding the setting of the floor based on
the mean or the median of controlled vessels (i.e., 60 percent versus
80 percent control, respectively), the commenter stated the mean is
appropriate for several reasons: (1) There are sufficient data points
to use the mean, (2) 60 percent represents a real-world technology, (3)
EPA claimed in MACT floor memoranda that the mean is a better measure
of the central tendency of the data, (4) EPA indicated during the
stakeholder process that the mean would be used as it is representative
of the industry and consistent with Congress' intent under the CAA, and
(5) EPA guidelines for MACT determinations under CAA section 112(j)
state that the MACT floor should be based on the mean unless there is a
large discrepancy between the emission reductions achieved by available
control options (which the commenter indicated is not the case here
because control efficiencies are uniformly distributed between 2 and 99
percent). Numerous other commenters simply stated that the MACT floor
has been adequately characterized, and should not be revised
Nearly all of the commenters objected to the apparent requirement
for 100 percent capture of emissions for the new and existing source
MACT floors for stationary process vessels, and they stated the floor
control levels should specify only the efficiency of the control
device. They expressed particular concern with a statement in the
preamble to the proposed rule that indicated covers must be sealed and
gasketed. The commenters noted that 100 percent capture is not feasible
(and, therefore, not achieved in practice except possibly if using
chemical reaction type vessels and closed solids charging systems)
because covers often must include an opening for an agitator shaft, and
vessels must be opened periodically to take samples, add material, and
perform inspections. They also noted that this requirement contradicts
our position in stakeholder meetings and background memoranda, and they
concluded that the information collection request (ICR) data do not
support a capture component to the floor (i.e., only information about
the control efficiency was requested). Even if actual capture
efficiencies are allowed, they noted that the proposed overall capture
plus control efficiency of 95 percent for process vessels at new
sources would be virtually impossible to achieve because it effectively
requires nearly 100 percent capture.
Numerous commenters objected to the requirement that emissions from
cleaning are subject to control, at least if the vessel does not have
an automatic wash system. One commenter noted that most vessels are
cleaned by hand, but even vessels that have automatic wash systems must
be opened for inspections after cleaning.
Response: We did not adjust the MACT floors for portable or
stationary vessels. For portable vessels, the MACT floor is to equip
each vessel larger than 250 gal with a cover. Our data show that less
than 6 percent of portable vessels are equipped with add-on control
devices, but over 90 percent are equipped with covers. We did not
receive information regarding any other emission reduction techniques
besides the use of covers or add-on control devices for portable
vessels in responses to our ICR request for such information. Thus, we
do not have information indicating that a sufficient percentage of
sources to set a floor are using any emission reduction techniques
other than covers, and we cannot support a floor determination based on
the use of any other techniques.
Our database includes information for 4,628 stationary process
vessels larger than 250 gal. Six percent of all stationary process
vessels corresponds to a total of 278 vessels. A total of 368 vessels
are equipped with some type of add-on device, or about 8 percent. The
average control of the best-performing 12 percent (60 percent
reduction) represents a technically feasible level of control and,
therefore, we disagree with the assertion that the floor should be no
control. The average control efficiency was determined for 368 vessels,
including 278 controlled vessels and factoring in no control for the
remaining 187 top records.
The commenters also contended that reported efficiencies do not
consider capture efficiency. Of the 378 vessels that are controlled,
over 278 (6 percent of the stationary process vessels) reported either
direct ventilation to control devices, reported closed vent systems to
control devices, or reported operating essentially 100 percent capture
(routing building exhausts to an incinerator a capture system) and
control. Therefore, we concluded that it is appropriate to set the
existing source MACT floor for stationary process vessels larger than
250 gal on an overall control efficiency based on the reported
efficiencies.
The new source MACT floors for portable and stationary process
vessels larger than 250 gal are based on the best-performing source.
For both portable and stationary process vessels, the best-performing
source covers the vessels and vents emissions through a closed-vent
system to a thermal incinerator with an overall control efficiency of
95
[[Page 69172]]
percent. Thus, the MACT floors are based on these conditions.
We recognize that basing MACT floors for stationary and portable
vessels on capture and control does not overtly consider fuel,
materials, process, or similar changes that could result in lower
overall mass emissions. However, based on the information we have, we
cannot accurately quantify a level of mass emissions that could result
from such emission reduction techniques as a MACT floor and that could
be achieved by all coating manufacturers given the variability in
processing operations, the scale of processing operations, and products
manufactured.
We did not specifically request information for portable or
stationary process vessels with capacities less than 250 gal, and we do
not have any such information. We set a MACT floor of no emissions
reductions because we do not have information indicating that a
sufficient percentage of sources are using emission reduction
techniques or add-on controls to enable us to set a MACT floor.
The MACT floor for stationary process vessels at existing sources
is based on overall control. Thus, the final rule specifies that these
process vessels must either be equipped with tightly-fitting vented
covers and closed vent systems meeting the requirements of subpart SS
of 40 CFR part 63. We have decided to exempt some emissions releases
that result from safety and hygiene practices because it is unlikely
that these vents would reach the 50 ppmv concentration level defined to
be a process vessel vent. The exemption also will relieve owners and
operators from the burden of demonstrating that they meet the
concentration level. Specifically, the definition of process vessel
vent excludes flexible elephant trunk systems that draw ambient air
(i.e, systems that are not ducted, piped, or otherwise connected to the
unit operations) away from operators that could be exposed to fumes
when vessels are opened. As an alternative, capture efficiency must be
considered in the overall control efficiency determination if vessels
are not equipped with tightly-fitting vented covers and closed vent
systems. Opening of covers for addition of materials, sampling, etc.,
is included as part of the capture efficiency demonstration. For new
sources, the final rule requires the use of tightly-fitting vented
covers to controls; determining capture is not an option because, as
the commenters noted, achieving 95 percent overall control would
require nearly 100 percent capture.
Finally, we have not required control of cleaning that is
accomplished manually. However, emissions resulting from automatic wash
systems are required to be considered and controlled. Similarly,
control is required for emissions resulting from flushing of lines or
other equipment with solvent at the end of a batch because these are
closed operations.
Comment: Most of the commenters stated that the standard for
stationary process vessels at existing sources should be set at the
MACT floor. According to the commenters, the cost of the regulatory
alternative is unreasonable because our analysis overstated the
uncontrolled emissions, used unrealistic model plant and emission
stream characteristics, and understated the costs.
The commenters disputed our estimate of uncontrolled emissions for
a number of reasons. Their primary argument is that using the Emission
Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) equations would give a more
accurate estimate of the HAP emissions than the AP-42 VOC emission
factor. They noted that EPA has identified the EIIP equations as the
preferred method, companies use them as the basis for title V permits,
States prefer them for permitting and compliance demonstrations, and
EPA specifies the use of similar equations in 40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG. Conversely, they noted that the AP-42 VOC emission factor is
inappropriate because, typically, half or less of the VOC is HAP; the
factor is meant to estimate emissions from the entire process, not just
stationary process vessels; and the industry has shifted to less
volatile solvents in recent years. One commenter provided data showing
that the EIIP methodology, calibrated with stack testing, results in
emissions equal to about 0.2 to 0.6 percent of HAP throughput. Another
commenter also noted that our baseline emissions estimate exceeds
facility-wide Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) emissions (which also
include non-HAP, fugitives, emissions from portable vessels, and
emissions from other processes) by factors between 3 and 36. The
commenter also does not believe that 5 facilities generate half of the
emissions in the source category. For example, the commenter contacted
the facility in our database with the highest estimated emissions and
determined that only 2 percent of the solvent throughput is
attributable to the manufacture of inks and coatings; the remainder is
associated with the distribution of paint thinners and paint reducers.
The commenters considered many of the model plant parameters and
emission stream characteristics to be unrealistic. Related to their
concerns that 100 percent capture is infeasible, they noted that local
exhaust ventilation systems usually convey large volumes of air to
minimize worker exposure, reduce the risk of fires, and contain dust.
As a result of the high air flow rates, they noted that the HAP
concentration is much lower than the 40,000 ppmv in our impacts
analysis. Based on stack test data, one commenter stated that actual
concentrations are less than 1,200 ppmv. Another commenter indicated
the concentrations are in the hundreds of ppmv. The commenters noted
that for toluene, the surrogate HAP used in our analysis, 40,000 ppmv
is within the flammable range, which poses safety concerns and would
necessitate the use of expensive fire/explosion prevention equipment
and inerting systems. One commenter stated that xylene should be used
as the surrogate HAP because it is now four times more prevalent than
toluene. The commenters noted that the model included emissions only
from filling, but emissions also result from other process steps such
as mixing, gas sweep, heat-up, holding, emptying, and cleaning. They
also disagreed with the assumption that a control device needs to be
sized to handle emissions from only 5 vessels at a time. For example,
one commenter indicated that many facilities have dozens of process
vessels being filled simultaneously (as much as 50 to 75 percent of all
vessels onsite). Another commenter noted that each vessel would have to
have its own condenser because a common header poses safety and product
quality risks. One commenter objected to the assumption that condensers
can be used to control all process vessels because water cooled
condensers will not be effective for the low concentration (and high
flow) streams in the industry, and condensers are meant to operate for
long periods of time under steady-state conditions, not intermittently
during filling steps.
According to this commenter, our cost analysis included a number of
errors and deficiencies. For example, the analysis did not include the
cost to replace existing vessels with chemical reaction type tanks and
raw material addition equipment, which would be needed to even approach
100 percent capture. If cleaning emissions must be controlled, the
commenter indicated that a cost for automatic wash systems must be
included. Fire and safety instrumentation and systems would be needed
since the model operates with toluene in the flammable range.
Even if condensers are assumed to be applicable for all process
vessels (which
[[Page 69173]]
the commenter opposed), the commenter noted the following concerns with
the analysis: (1) Solvent recovery is not feasible because the
condensed solvent is contaminated with condensed water vapor (and must
be disposed of as hazardous waste); (2) the amount of coolant piping
and valves per condenser is underestimated; (3) baghouses will be
needed upstream of the condenser to remove particulate if solid
materials are added to the process vessel; (4) two-stage rather than
single stage condensers will be required to operate at the model
operating temperature of 32[deg]F; (5) the refrigeration unit needs to
be large enough to service 75 percent of the facility's condensers; and
(6) costs are needed for foundations and supports, electrical
components, instrumentation, insulation, site preparation, and
buildings.
The commenter also stated the analysis understates the incremental
cost effectiveness relative to the floor because it used uncontrolled
emissions rather than baseline emissions; the condenser count is
incorrect for more than 30 facilities; the costs for covers were not
included for the vessels that do not currently have them; the results
reported in $/Mg are actually in $/ton; and the saturation toluene
concentration is 37,370 ppmv, not 40,000 ppmv. Based on a sensitivity
analysis that incorporates some of these suggested changes and looks at
a range of emission stream flows, HAP concentrations, and control
devices, the commenter estimated that costs are at least 5 to 20 times
higher than our estimate. The commenter noted that these estimates are
conservatively low because they do not include costs for chemical
reaction tanks, raw material addition equipment, and fire safety
equipment; they also do not consider the impact of using a less
volatile surrogate HAP on emission reductions. Even without changing
the elements in the analysis, the commenter stated that we should
consider the average facility cost effectiveness value rather than the
nationwide value because a majority of the facilities in the analysis
have incremental costs above $3,500/Mg; typically, these facilities are
small or produce predominately water-based coatings.
Response: We agree that the EIIP guidance is appropriate for use in
estimating emissions from coating manufacturing process sources. We did
not use EIIP models because we did not have the level of detail
required to conduct emission estimates from the facilities in our
database. We considered the 1 to 2 percent solvent throughput values
contained in the Chapter 5 AP-42 documentation to be adequate in
characterizing the level of emissions for nationwide impacts. And,
although one commenter indicated that the EIIP methodology would result
in HAP emissions between 0.2 and 0.6 percent of HAP throughput for his
facilities, this commenter also calculated a loss of 1.3 percent for
one facility due to more conservative assumptions associated with that
facility's operations. While our 1 percent factor may be conservative,
it was a reasonable value for the impacts analysis. The commenters
noted that the AP-42 VOC emission factor is inappropriate because,
typically, half or less than half of the VOC is HAP; however, because
the factor is based on HAP throughput, only the portion of solvent that
is HAP is considered, and therefore, basing the emissions on HAP
throughput appropriately limits the estimates to HAP, not VOC.
Regarding the comment that our baseline emissions estimate exceeds
facility-wide TRI emissions, we note that one commenter indicated that
baseline HAP emissions total 6.3 million pounds for all 127 facilities
in the database, as compared to our estimate of 13.5 million pounds,
roughly a factor of two. Because of the uncertainty associated with
estimation methods, and varying operational practices from site to
site, these estimates are reasonable.
Regarding assumptions made in our cost analysis of the regulatory
alternative for stationary process vessels, we note that the low
overall control efficiency (75 percent) enables numerous control
scenarios for achieving compliance, including those scenarios where air
flows are increased to enable proper capture of emissions from opening
in vessels. While we did not cost out this alternative for presentation
of impacts, it would likely be a scenario employed by owners and
operators. As discussed previously, the two predominant types of
control devices are condensers and thermal incinerators. Therefore, to
further examine the cost effectiveness of the regulatory alternative,
we evaluated the cost effectiveness of applying a capture and control
system using thermal incineration. We started with the analyses
generated by one commenter, which are based on EPA's COST-AIR control
cost spreadsheets for regenerative thermal oxidizers and included the
commenter's estimated installation costs for ductwork, auxiliary
equipment, vapor collection systems and lids for tanks. The commenter
also noted that cost calculations did not include chemical reaction
type tanks to approach 100 percent capture, automatic cleaning systems,
raw material addition equipment, baghouses or fire control system
costs. We also excluded chemical reaction tanks and raw material feed
equipment because they would not be needed when high air flow rates and
a capture system are used to collect and route emissions from the
existing tanks to a thermal incinerator.
The commenter apparently generated an industry-wide cost
effectiveness estimate for thermal oxidizers from average flow and
concentration value ranges. The commenter did not provide enough
information to methodically step through the procedure to arrive at the
resulting value of $16,138/Mg. In fact, it was not clear whether the
commenter selected ranges of concentrations and flowrates corresponding
to 36 stack test data points and then calculated cost effectiveness
values from the midpoints of these ranges or whether the commenter
calculated the cost effectiveness of 36 stack test data points and
developed an arithmetic average. We note that the table supplied by the
commenter identifying concentration and flowrate ranges indicates that
flowrates and concentrations were considered to be independent of each
other and produced a counterintuitive result that flowrate and
concentrations would be directly proportional, as opposed to inversely
proportional. For example, the low flow rate range midpoint values were
listed as 300 cubic feet per minute (cfm) and 50 ppmv, while the high
flowrate range midpoints were listed as 7,500 cfm and 1,750 ppmv. We
would expect that as flowrates increased, concentrations would
decrease, and we concluded that an analysis resulting from the use of
these ranges would likely not represent the actual emission stream
characteristics. Further, we estimated the cost effectiveness of
incinerator controls for these 5 ranges and obtained values ranging
from $290,000/Mg for the 300 cfm, 50 ppmv concentration stream to $400/
Mg for the stream with 7,500 cfm and 1,750 ppmv, indicating a wide
range of cost effectiveness.
We reasoned that a more representative evaluation would be based on
a selected model emission stream. This model stream was based on a
common value resulting from the histogram presented by the commenter;
we selected as model emission stream characteristics a flowrate of
5,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) waste gas and a
concentration of 500 ppmv. Our analysis indicated that the cost
effectiveness value for this model stream would be $2,200/Mg, assuming
only 75 percent reduction of potential HAP emission was achieved. Based
on
[[Page 69174]]
this result, we concluded that an evaluation of capture and control
systems using thermal incineration would result in reasonable costs.
Our original analysis that was the basis for selecting the 75
percent regulatory alternative based on condenser control is still
valid and the total impacts, considering the emission reduction
achieved as well as cost, non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements, are reasonable. Thus, we continue to
base the standard for stationary process vessels at existing sources on
the regulatory alternative. However, the commenter has pointed out
valid concerns regarding our assumptions. Upon review, we agree that we
mistakenly overestimated reductions from the regulatory alternative by
approximately 15 percent from the uncontrolled levels. Therefore, our
estimated total reductions for the regulatory alternative should be on
the order of 4,400 Mg/yr, not 5,000 Mg/yr. The revised incremental HAP
reduction achieved by the regulatory alternative is about 1,000 Mg/yr,
and it reduces costs by an estimated $130/Mg of HAP controlled. The
incremental electricity consumption to operate the refrigeration unit
for the condensers is about 1.7 million kilowatt hours per year (kWh/
yr), and the fuel energy to generate the electricity is about 16
billion Btu/yr. Total CO, NOX, and SO2 emissions
from combustion of the additional fuel to generate the electricity is
14 Mg/yr. There would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air
quality health or environmental impacts.
Regarding concerns expressed by the commenter on the system design
requirements, such as the required size of the refrigeration units, the
amount of piping and valves per condenser, and various installation
cost elements, we recognize that these costs could be higher, depending
on the site specific situation. In general, the costs would increase
for the MACT floor condenser system as well as the regulatory
alternative condenser system. The basis for selecting the 75 percent
regulatory alternative is that the incremental cost between the MACT
floor of 60 percent and the regulatory alternative is reasonable when
considered in light of the non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements. In our original analysis based on
condensation of toluene, the difference in total annual cost of the two
model systems, one rendering an exit gas temperature of 36[deg]F and
one rendering an exit gas temperature of 50[deg]F, was about the same,
$45,100 for the regulatory alternative, and $43,417 for the MACT floor
alternative; our costs did not specifically assume that the condenser
system rendering an outlet gas temperature of 36[deg]F would require a
precooler; however, our conservative approach to estimating condenser
costs based on a minimum surface area would account for the precooler
costs, since the calculated surface area of the model condenser system
was lower than the minimum size for which costs are available. Given
all the cost elements, we note that the significant factor in
annualized cost differences between the two alternatives is the
recovery credit, which for the regulatory alternative was $37,063 while
the recovery credit for the MACT floor alternative was $29,650. When
subtracted from the total annual cost, the annualized cost for the
regulatory alternative was $8,038, while the annualized cost for the
MACT floor alternative was $13,766. Because cost effectiveness is
expressed as total annualized cost divided by emissions reductions,
recovery credit factors in not only by lowering the total cost of the
option, but increases the denominator in the cost effectiveness term.
The incremental difference between the two models, and also between the
nationwide impacts that were essentially extrapolated from these two
models, is negative. Further, the effect of the recovery credit
essentially drives this decision, and is valid for our analysis. We
assumed that each vessel would be equipped with a condenser and the
condensed material could be returned directly to the vessel without
further refinement; we do not agree that cross contamination would be a
problem under this scenario; further, moisture generated from
condensation of humid air does not appear to be a concern currently as
indicated by the predominance of air systems and lack of nitrogen
blanketing systems on storage tanks.
The commenters suggested that our cost analysis would have yielded
different conclusions had we designed the model condensation systems
for xylene, rather than toluene. We agree that cost effectiveness of
implementing the model condensation systems largely depends on emission
potential, which in turn varies according to the volatility of the HAP
materials. Therefore, we decided to expand the commenter's issue and
determine the HAP materials for which incremental costs for the 75
percent regulatory alternative are reasonable. We conducted an
additional analysis on a model set of emission events consisting of
identical processing steps, but processing a different HAP. For the
analysis we evaluated the following HAP: Toluene, xylene, cumene,
phenol, and ethylene glycol. These compounds represent a range of vapor
pressures for common HAP in the industry. We found that the incremental
cost impacts of going above the MACT floor are unreasonable for HAP
with vapor pressures less than that of cumene. Therefore, we revised
the regulatory alternative and standard for stationary process vessels
at existing sources to include a HAP vapor pressure threshold of 0.6
kPa at 25[deg]C. Emissions of HAP with vapor pressures above the
threshold must be controlled to the regulatory alternative level of 75
percent, whereas HAP with lower vapor pressures must be controlled to
the MACT floor level of 60 percent. About 1 percent of the total HAP
throughput in the industry consists of HAP with vapor pressures below
the threshold; thus, we did not revise the incremental impacts for the
regulatory alternative.
Note that we could not do a similar analysis for thermal
incinerators because the efficiency of incinerators is generally
assumed at 98 percent, and the analysis becomes dependent on
assumptions made about incremental costs of capture efficiency.
Instead, we assumed that the incremental analysis based on condenser
control alone could also be used to justify the regulatory alternative.
We examined the feasibility of a regulatory alternative for
portable process vessels with capacities greater than or equal to 250
gal at existing sources that would require the same 75 percent overall
control as the regulatory alternative for stationary process vessels
with capacities greater than or equal to 250 gal at existing sources.
Using the same condenser cost analysis, we concluded that the total
impacts of this option are unreasonable in light of the emissions
reductions achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved by this
beyond-the-floor option is approximately 400 Mg/yr, and the incremental
cost was estimated to be approximately $21,000/Mg of HAP controlled. In
addition, electricity consumption to operate refrigeration units would
increase from zero at the MACT floor to nearly 2.0 million kwh/yr. Fuel
consumption (coal) to generate the electricity would increase by more
than 19.0 billion Btu/yr; collectively, CO, NOx, and
SO2 emissions would increase by about 16.5 Mg/yr; and there
would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air quality health or
environmental impacts.
We also evaluated a regulatory alternative for portable and
stationary process vessels smaller than 250 gal at existing sources
that would require the
[[Page 69175]]
same 75 percent overall control as the regulatory alternative for
stationary process vessels larger than 250 gal at existing sources. We
do not know the number of such vessels or their size distribution.
Therefore, we conducted the analysis for a model 250 gal vessel with a
tightly-fitting vented cover at baseline that is used in the production
of a coating that is manufactured using toluene. As for the other
analyses, we assumed the vessel is controlled using a condenser to meet
the regulatory alternative, and the condenser can be served by the same
refrigeration unit as for the stationary process vessels. We concluded
that the total impacts of this alternative are unreasonable in light of
the emission reduction achieved. The incremental HAP reduction achieved
by this beyond-the-floor alternative is 0.07 Mg/yr, and the incremental
cost is over $25,000/Mg of HAP controlled. If the vessel at baseline
does not have a tightly-fitting vented cover, the baseline emissions
would be greater by an unknown amount, but the total costs would still
be unreasonable. We also assumed that there would be no additional
electricity or energy impacts because they are based on sized
refrigeration systems, and addition of one or more vessels smaller than
250 gal would not require additional refrigeration capacity. Also,
there would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air quality
health or environmental impacts.
Comment: One commenter requested flexibility in the control
requirements for process vessels. The commenter noted that the proposed
standard was tailored to the use of condensers on every process vessel,
but it is not suited for the use of other control technologies or
varying control levels among process vessels. The commenter also urged
us to provide flexible averaging provisions that would allow different
levels of control on different vessels while achieving overall control
equivalent to that achieved by requiring the same control efficiency
for each vessel. Furthermore, the commenter stated the proposed
emissions averaging provisions are not useful because most vessels are
not larger than 10,000 gallons; too few emission points are allowed in
the average; it is too complex and burdensome; submitting a plan in the
precompliance report 18 months before the compliance date is infeasible
because facilities would not have determined how to comply by that
date, and the requirement to obtain approval prior to making changes is
cumbersome and restricts operations; it does not account for changes in
the mix of processes being run; and it should be available for use at
anytime, not just when demonstrating initial compliance.
Response: The final rule includes an emissions averaging option for
stationary process vessels at existing sources that may address the
commenter's concerns. To demonstrate initial compliance with the
emissions averaging option, an owner or operator must estimate three
sets of emissions for each vessel in the averaging group. First, the
owner or operator must determine the uncontrolled emissions. Procedures
for estimating uncontrolled emissions are specified in Sec.
63.1257(d)(2), except that for purging events the final subpart HHHHH
specifies a procedure for estimating the specific partial pressure of
each HAP rather than allowing an assumption of saturation or 25 percent
of saturation. Second, the owner or operator must estimate emissions
from each vessel in the averaging group as if it were controlled in
accordance with the percent reduction standard (i.e., 60 percent or 75
percent reductions depending on the vapor pressure of the HAP in the
emission stream). Third, the owner or operator must determine the
actual emissions, which may range from uncontrolled for some vessels to
control levels significantly higher than those determined in the
previous step. The owner or operator must include these data and
calculations in the precompliance report along with rationale for why
the sum of the actual emissions on a quarterly basis will be less than
the sum of the emissions if 60 percent or 75 percent, as applicable,
were achieved for each individual vessel. To demonstrate ongoing
compliance, the owner or operator must track the number of batches
produced, calculate the quarterly actual emissions and emissions under
the regular percent reduction standard for each vessel, and sum the two
sets of quarterly emissions. Compliance is demonstrated if the sum of
the actual emissions is lower than the sum of emissions under the
regular percent reduction standard.
D. Standards for Storage Tanks
Comment: One commenter stated the MACT floor for storage tanks was
determined incorrectly because we did not consider the actual
performance of scrubber controls. The commenter also stated that the
standard must be revised because tank capacity and HAP partial pressure
cutoffs are illegal.
Response: None of the storage tanks containing organic HAP at the
surveyed facilities was controlled with a scrubber. Therefore, the MACT
floors for both existing and new sources are based on the actual
reported performance of sources' controls and our consideration of
whether sources are reducing emissions by other means besides controls.
Regarding tank capacity cutoffs, we considered two subcategories of
storage tanks in our floor analysis: tanks with capacities less than
10,000 gal and storage tanks with capacities greater than or equal to
10,000 gal. We did not specifically request information for storage
tanks with capacities less than 10,000 gal, and we did not receive any
information about such smaller tanks. However, since the costs relative
to the amount of control achieved tend to increase as the size of the
storage tank decreases, we consider it highly unlikely that the
industry is reducing emissions from tanks with capacities smaller than
10,000 gal when they are not reducing emissions from tanks with larger
capacities. Thus, we concluded that the existing source and new source
MACT floors for storage tanks with capacities less than 10,000 are no
emissions reduction. We did not set beyond-the-floor standards for
these smaller tanks because the total impacts to reduce emissions from
storage tanks smaller than 20,000 gal were found to be unreasonable,
and impacts for smaller tanks would be even less favorable.
With respect to storage tanks with capacities greater than or equal
to 10,000 gal, fewer than 6 percent of the storage tanks in our
database use controls or reduce emissions by any other means. Thus, we
concluded that the existing source MACT floor for all storage tanks
with capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal is no emissions
reduction.
In setting the MACT floor for existing sources, we considered
whether some facilities may implement emission reduction measures to
reduce emissions from storage tanks, instead of using control
technologies. Internal and external floating roofs are used to minimize
emissions in many other industries, and vapor balancing when filling
the tank is another common technique in other industries. However, we
did not obtain any information in the responses to the ICR or from
other resources that such measures are being used in the miscellaneous
coating manufacturing industry. Another factor that can affect the
emissions level is the color of the tank, but we have no information to
suggest that any facilities are not already using the most favorable
color scheme. Also, we have no information that any other measures are
being used to reduce emissions. Therefore, because we lack information
indicating that a sufficient number of storage tanks employ measures
other
[[Page 69176]]
than control technologies to reduce HAP emissions to set a floor, we
were unable to set a MACT floor based on emission reduction measures.
We examined two regulatory alternatives for storage tanks with
capacities greater than or equal to 10,000 gal at existing sources,
both of which would require the use of either a floating roof or
venting to a control device that reduces emissions by 90 percent. The
first alternative would apply to storage tanks with capacities greater
than or equal to 20,000 gal that store material with a HAP partial
pressure greater than or equal to 1.9 psia. The second alternative uses
a size cutoff of 10,000 gal with the same HAP partial pressure cutoff.
We set the standard at the level of the first regulatory alternative
because, considering the level of emission reduction achieved, the
total impacts of that alternative were determined to be reasonable,
whereas the total impacts of the second alternative were determined to
be unreasonable. Specifically, the first regulatory alternative reduces
HAP emissions by 2.5 Mg/yr at an incremental cost of $2,700 to $4,900
per Mg of HAP controlled, depending on the characteristics of the tank.
In addition, because this option can be achieved by using floating
roofs, there are no non-air quality health or environmental impacts,
including wastewater impacts and solid waste impacts, and no energy
impacts. The second alternative reduces emissions by 7.5 Mg/yr at an
incremental cost of at least $17,000 per Mg of HAP controlled,
depending on the characteristics of the tank. The second regulatory
alternative also has no non-air quality health or environmental
impacts, including wastewater impacts and solid waste impacts, and no
energy impacts for tanks that can be controlled with floating roofs.
However, horizontal tanks (all of which in our database are smaller
than 20,000 gal) must be controlled with an add-on control device such
as a condenser. The incremental electricity consumption to run the
condensers and fuel energy consumption to generate electricity would be
31,000 kwh/yr and 300 million Btu/yr, respectively. Total CO,
NOX, and SO2 emissions from combustion of
additional fuel to generate the electricity would be about 0.26 Mg/yr.
There would be no wastewater, solid waste, or other non-air quality
health and environmental impacts.
The new source MACT floor for storage tanks is based on the control
achieved by the best-performing source. The proposed floor consisted of
90 percent control of emissions from storage tanks with capacities
greater than or equal to 20,000 gal that store material with a HAP
partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia and 90 percent
control of emissions from storage tanks with capacities greater than or
equal to 25,000 gal that store material with a HAP partial pressure
greater than or equal to 0.1 psia. However, another facility reduces
emissions by 80 percent from storage tanks with capacities of 10,000
gal that store material with a HAP vapor pressure of 0.02 psia. Upon
further consideration since proposal, we determined that we cannot
exclude these tanks from the floor analysis simply because the HAP
vapor pressure is extremely low. Thus, the revised new source MACT
floor for storage tanks consists of venting through a closed-vent
system to a control device that reduces HAP emissions by at least 80
percent for storage tanks with a capacity greater than or equal to
10,000 gal that store material with a HAP partial pressure greater than
or equal to 0.02 psia; the new source floor also consists of venting
emissions through a closed-vent system to a control device that reduces
HAP emissions by at least 90 percent for storage tanks with either
capacities greater than or equal to 20,000 gal that store material with
a HAP partial pressure greater than or equal to 0.1 psia or capacities
greater than or equal to 25,000 gal that store material with a HAP
partial pressure greater than or equal to 1.5 psia. Each of these new
source standards reflects, or is equivalent to, the performance of the
best-controlled source because the control levels for existing tanks
increase with both increasing tank capacity and increasing HAP partial
pressure.
The revised emission limits for storage tanks at new sources are
based on the MACT floor because the MACT floor is more stringent than
the second regulatory alternative for existing sources, which we
determined to have unreasonable impacts.
E. Standards for Wastewater
Comment: Four commenters disagreed with our determination that the
MACT floor for wastewater is HON-equivalent management and treatment
procedures for wastewater that contains more than 4,000 ppmw of HAP
listed in Table 9 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart G. One commenter stated
that the floor should be recalculated to be based on the actual
performance of the best sources, not simply set at the median
concentration of controlled streams. According to one commenter, the
floor should be no control because no add-on control is used by more
than 6 percent of all wastewater streams. One commenter indicated that
we have obtained accurate information on 30 wastewater streams, and all
of the data must be used in setting the floor, including data for
streams that contain less than 1,000 ppmw of HAP and streams that
contain only inorganic HAP. Further, the commenter stated that flow is
needed as well as concentration to determine the best performers. Flow
is needed to convert concentrations to mass loadings, and it, or total
volume, has been used to determine applicability in past rules and is
the determining factor in disposal costs. According to the commenter,
our assumptions that coating manufacturing facilities are only small
quantity generators, and only the concentration drives the cost of
disposal, are incorrect. The commenter noted that our database includes
wastewater streams that have higher flows than the five top-performing
streams that we used to set the MACT floor, but these streams are not
sent offsite for treatment because the cost to do so would be
prohibitive. In addition, if our assumption that concentration drives
the cost of disposal were true, the commenter stated that other streams
in the database with concentrations similar to those of the top 5
streams would also be treated offsite, but they are actually treated
onsite, sent to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), or sent
offsite for solidification. Taking all of these factors into account,
the commenter concluded the floor should be no control.
The commenter also provided additional comments in the event that
we maintain that a floor exists and develop a standard, despite their
objections noted above. First, the commenter stated that applicability
thresholds must be based on the mean rather than the median because our
hierarchy is to use the mean first when it results in a standard that
matches real world technology. Second, if the standard still requires
management and treatment procedures like those in the HON, the
commenter requested an exemption from the steam stripping requirement
for streams containing soluble HAP because steam stripping is
inefficient and expensive for such streams; the commenter also stated
that enclosed sewers are unnecessary for such streams. Third, two
commenters requested that offsite RCRA waste treatment facilities not
be required to certify that they will meet the requirements for
wastewater in the final rule because such facilities are already
stringently controlled. One commenter was concerned that RCRA
facilities may
[[Page 69177]]
decline to accept wastewater if they are unnecessarily burdened with
compliance requirements under the final rule. The commenter noted that
a similar change was made recently to the NESHAP for Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) in response to litigation.
Response: The miscellaneous coating manufacturing database contains
ten streams from nine facilities. The 30 streams cited by one commenter
was a preliminary draft value that was subsequently changed because it
was incorrect.
After consideration of the comments, we decided to make two changes
to the MACT floor analysis. First, to simplify the analysis, we have
focused on only the actual management and treatment techniques used for
the top performing five streams rather than calling them HON-
equivalent. All five of these streams are collected and shipped offsite
for destruction by combustion at a RCRA hazardous waste treatment
facility. Second, we have decided that specifying only a concentration
cutoff for determining which streams are subject to control is
insufficient. Specifying only the concentration means even very small
streams would be subject to control as long as the concentration of HAP
listed on Table 9 of the HON (i.e., partially soluble and soluble HAP
in the final rule) is greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw, but this is
inconsistent with the statutory requirement to base the floor on the
average of the top five streams. We considered specifying either load
or flow rate in addition to the concentration, and we decided that load
is the best choice. For the top five streams, the load tracks better
with the concentration (i.e., ranking the controlled streams by
increasing load is the same as ranking by increasing concentration).
Of the top five streams, the median stream has a HAP concentration
of 4,000 ppmw and a HAP load of 750 lb/yr. We continue to use the
median rather than the mean because the median better represents the
central tendency of the data. The top five streams (as well as the
other five streams in the database) are skewed towards low
concentrations; three of the five have relatively similar low
concentrations, but the other two streams have concentrations ten or
more times higher. A mean would be closer to the midpoint of the range,
but it would not represent the bulk of the data. Therefore, the revised
existing source MACT floor for wastewater consists of treatment as a
hazardous waste for all streams with partially soluble and soluble HAP
at a concentration greater than or equal to 4,000 ppmw and a load
greater than or equal to 750 lb/yr. We estimate that a standard based
on the MACT floor will reduce HAP emissions by 12.9 Mg/yr (14.2 tpy) at
a cost of $306,000 per year.
The revised new source MACT floor is based on the requirements for
the best performing stream, which is a stream that contains 1,600 ppmw
and 12 lb/yr of partially soluble and soluble HAP. Since this load is
negligible, the new source MACT floor consists of treatment as a
hazardous waste for wastewater streams that contain partially soluble
and soluble HAP at a concentration greater than or equal to 1,600 ppmw
at any load.
In setting the MACT floor, we considered whether some facilities
may implement emission reduction measures other than control
technologies to reduce HAP emissions from wastewater. We requested
information on emission reduction measures in our CAA section 114
information collection request. Several facilities reported that they
have implemented changes in the type or quantity of cleaning solution
used, or in the method of cleaning. However, we do not know how
effective these changes were in reducing HAP emissions, and we have no
information to conclude that similar measures could be implemented by
the facilities that reported HAP in their wastewater. Further, some HAP
in the wastewater is HAP that is used in coatings products, and this
HAP cannot be reduced without impacting the coating products produced.
Therefore, we were unable to set a MACT floor based on emission
reduction measures other than treatment.
We examined one regulatory alternative beyond the floor for
existing sources that would require treatment as a hazardous waste for
wastewater containing partially soluble and soluble HAP at a
concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and a load greater
than or equal to 100 lb/yr. We concluded that the total impacts of this
alternative are unreasonable because the incremental cost would be
about $280,000/Mg; it would increase electricity consumption by 640
kwh/yr; increase fuel consumption by 182 million Btu/yr; and increase
CO, NOX, and SO2 emissions by 0.02 Mg/yr. There
would be no wastewater or solid waste impacts. Therefore, the standard
for wastewater in the final rule is based on the revised MACT floor.
In addition, analyses for the HON and other projects concluded that
enhanced biotreatment for soluble HAP compounds could achieve
reductions as high as 99 percent. Because wastewater containing soluble
HAP is generated at miscellaneous coating manufacturing facilities, the
final rule also allows onsite or offsite treatment in an enhanced
biological treatment unit as an effectively equivalent alternative for
soluble HAP. This alternative also may prove to be less costly than
treatment as a hazardous waste for high-volume wastewater streams.
Finally, we agree with the comment that Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities do not need to certify that they are
meeting the requirements of subpart HHHHH; therefore, the final rule
requires affected sources that ship their wastewater to an offsite
facility for treatment as a hazardous waste to note this fact along
with the name of the facility to which the wastewater is shipped in
their notification of compliance status report.
F. Standards for Equipment Leaks
Comment: One commenter objected to our determination that the MACT
floor is a LDAR program. According to the commenter, the actual
performance of the best sources was not determined, and the selected
program was simply borrowed from another rulemaking. If we make a
determination of the floor based on the actual performance of relevant
sources, the commenter noted that we must provide the public an
opportunity to comment on it, or the rule would be unlawful, and
arbitrary and capricious.
Response: The proposed floor was based on actual performance, but
this concept takes a different form for equipment leak controls than
for controls on other types of emission points because equipment leaks
are essentially malfunctions, which are not predictable. However, a
program of inspections and repair will ensure that any leaks that do
occur are identified and fixed. We rate the performance of different
LDAR programs based on the type of leak detection method, leak
definition, and leak frequency. Specifically, performance is higher for
instrument-based programs (i.e., using portable organic vapor analyzers
and EPA Method 21 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60) than sensory
programs, lower leak definitions, and increased inspection frequency.
Based on the ICR responses from coating manufacturers, more than 12
percent of the facilities are implementing some type of LDAR program.
One facility reported using an organic vapor analyzer (OVA), a 10,000
ppmv leak definition, and various monitoring frequencies for the
different types of components; this program appears to be similar to
the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart TT (National Emission
Standards for
[[Page 69178]]
Equipment Leaks--Control Level 1) and 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV
(Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry). The others reported using a
sensory-program, with most of them conducting inspections monthly. No
facilities are capturing all of their equipment leak emissions and
venting them through a closed-vent system to a control device. Thus,
the MACT floor for existing sources was determined to be a sensory-
based LDAR program with monthly inspections of all components. The new
source MACT floor was determined to be an LDAR program based on 40 CFR
part 63, subpart TT, consistent with the program implemented by the
best-performing source.
Comment: One commenter objected to the standard being based on an
LDAR program because it is a work practice standard rather than an
emission limit. According to the commenter, the CAA requires us to set
an emission limit rather than a work practice standard unless it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission limit, and the commenter
found no evidence or analysis in the record suggesting that it
infeasible to do so.
Response: We determined that an LDAR program is the most reasonable
option for control of leaking components. Unlike other emission
sources, leaking components are not deliberate emission sources but
rather result from mechanical limitations associated with process
piping and machinery. A well-managed facility follows a preventive
maintenance program to minimize leaks but in all practicality cannot
guarantee that no leaks will occur. Therefore, an emission standard for
equipment leaks would be difficult to enforce or prescribe. In order to
develop such an option, all processes and equipment containing process
piping that could potentially leak would require complete capture and
control. While the practice of enclosing components and venting to
control is allowed as an alternative to LDAR, it is not practiced
except in limited cases.
Comment: Many commenters stated the standard should be based on the
MACT floor (i.e., a sensory-based LDAR program). According to the
commenters, we assumed leak frequencies and leak rates that are too
high and costs that are too low; changing these assumptions will show
the regulatory alternative (i.e., an LDAR program requiring monitoring
using Method 21) is not cost effective. According to the commenters,
the SOCMI average factors are not representative of the coatings
manufacturing industry because coatings processes generally use less
volatile HAP, operate at lower temperatures and pressures, and all
operation is in the liquid phase. The commenters considered coatings
process conditions to be similar to those for gasoline distribution
facilities, which they noted are required to comply with a sensory-
based LDAR program. To support their position that leak frequencies and
emission rates for coatings manufacturing processes are low, one
commenter provided monitoring data for 13 facilities in the industry,
including bagging sample data for a few of the pumps, valves, and
connectors at one facility.
Response: We reviewed the leak data submitted by the commenter for
13 facilities, including three facilities from which data was recently
collected by a fugitive emissions contractor. The three-facility study
was well documented and conducted by the same contractor and using the
same monitoring instrument that was calibrated on methane. Data from
the remaining ten facilities was not as well documented and in some
cases, the monitoring data appear to have been based on various
instruments and that were calibrated on compounds other than methane.
While these data may have been adequate for the individual facility
purposes, we did not consider them in our analysis because we felt
these data were not consistently obtained. The commenter also conducted
a bagging study at one of the three plants for which screening data was
collected. Using the results of the bagging study, the commenter
calculated emission factors that are 0.00054 kilograms per hour (kg/
hr)-source for valves, 0.0025 kg/hr-source for pumps, and 0.0000422 kg/
hr-source for connectors. In developing the emission factors, the
commenter essentially took an arithmetic average of the VOC emission
rates for all components in the bagging study.
After reviewing the information, we decided to recalculate the
emission factors according to the method documented in both American
Petroleum Institute (API) and EPA publications (``Development of
Fugitive Emission Factors for Petroleum Marketing Terminals,''
Publication Number 4588, March 1993, Prepared by Radian Corporation for
API; and ``Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates,'' EPA
Publication EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995). Using the bagging study
and the corresponding screening data, we developed emission rate
equations for pumps, valves, and connectors that relate the VOC
emission rate (in kg/hr) to the average screening value (in ppmv) for
each component. As a second step, we used the data from the three-
facility screening study to calculate average emission factors. Our
analysis resulted in average emission factors of 0.000412 kg/hr-source
for valves, 0.0042 kg/hr-source for pumps, and 0.000015 kg/hr-source
for connectors. When we applied these emission factors to our model
plant that was the basis for the cost analysis, we found that the
uncontrolled HAP emissions are 0.70 tpy, versus the 4.03 tpy that was
used in the original analysis. For comparison, if we had used the
commenter's calculated emission factors, we would have estimated 0.66
tpy HAP, a slightly lower value but well within the same order of
magnitude as the factor we developed. In either case, we note that the
revised estimate is only about 20 percent of the previous uncontrolled
estimate.
We revised our impacts calculation by conservatively assuming that
the relative reductions achieved by the MACT floor sensory LDAR program
and the regulatory alternative (40 CFR part 63, subpart UU program)
would be the same as assumed in prior analyses. For the model
facilities, our previous analysis assumed a 29 percent reduction from
uncontrolled baseline for the MACT floor and a 62 percent reduction for
the subpart UU regulatory alternative. We multiplied the previously
estimated nationwide reductions of implementing the MACT floor and the
regulatory alternative by the ratio of model facility revised
uncontrolled emission over the earlier estimate of uncontrolled
emissions, or 0.7/4.03, to obtain revised emissions reductions. We
assumed that the capital and total annual cost estimates would be
unchanged from the previous analysis. The incremental cost
effectiveness of going beyond the floor using this analysis was
estimated to be $15,800, and there are essentially no energy impacts or
non-air quality health and environmental impacts associated with the
regulatory alternative. Therefore, we cannot justify going beyond the
floor in the final rule.
G. Standards for Transfer Operations
Comment: One commenter stated we must set a MACT floor for transfer
operations at existing sources. According to the commenter, not setting
a MACT floor because no State regulations apply to transfer operations
is unlawful.
Response: In setting the MACT floor for existing sources, we
considered the available information. We did not specifically request
information for transfer operations in our CAA section 114 information
request. Based on
[[Page 69179]]
follow-up conversations with representatives from five facilities with
high solvent throughput rates that potentially are the most likely to
control emissions from transfer operations, we determined that these
facilities are not controlling their emissions from transfer
operations. We also examined State regulations and determined that they
apply only to throughput rates above those at coating manufacturing
facilities, and they apply only to loading of tank trucks and railcars,
which is less common than filling of smaller containers at coating
manufacturing facilities. There are no other known means by which
sources may be reducing emissions from transfer operations. Therefore,
we concluded that the MACT floor for transfer operations at existing
sources is no emissions reductions. Because we lack information
indicating that any source is implementing or required to implement any
measures to reduce HAP emissions from transfer operations, we concluded
that the new source MACT floor also is no emissions reductions.
Comment: One commenter opposed the beyond-the-floor standard for
existing and new sources. This commenter also claimed that we have not
demonstrated that emissions from transfer operations warrant regulation
because the facility on which impacts were estimated is not
representative of the industry. The commenter contacted that facility
and learned they primarily repackage and distribute paint stripper,
thinners, and spray gun cleaning solvent. According to the commenter,
we generally overestimated emissions from transfer operations because
we assumed that the industry transfers pure solvents or mixtures with
high vapor pressures when in fact the industry transfers primarily
materials with low vapor pressures, including waterborne products.
Furthermore, the commenter stated that the regulatory alternative
cannot be justified based on cost because the impacts are based on
incorrect assumptions. For example, the commenter suggested the
following changes: (1) Use the AP-42 saturation factor of 0.6 for
submerged loading in dedicated vapor balance service instead of the
assumption that displaced vapors are saturated; (2) use a tank truck
filling rate of 25 gal/min instead of 150 gallons per minute (gal/min);
(3) use characteristics of toluene (or better yet, xylene) instead of
an arbitrary HAP with a molecular weight of 80 and a vapor pressure of
3.93 psia; (4) use a gas flow rate of 100 scfm instead of less than 4
scfm; (5) include capital costs for a refrigeration unit and auxiliary
equipment such as a precooler, ductwork, a fan, and pump for collected
solvent; and (6) conduct the analysis over a range of coating
throughput rates to bracket the actual operations in the industry.
Taking these changes into account, the commenter estimated a cost of
more than $30,000/Mg for bulk loading tank trucks at rates between 1.8
million gal/yr and 7.3 million gal/yr. Another commenter stated that
the standard should be no control.
Response: It appears that the first commenter thinks we used the
results of the impacts analysis for one facility as the basis for our
decision to set the existing and new source standards at a level beyond
the floor. This is not correct. We actually conducted two analyses. The
first was a sensitivity analysis, comparable to that suggested by the
commenter, to determine the characteristics of emission streams for
which the total impacts associated with a regulatory alternative that
reduces emissions by 75 percent (the same level as the standard for
stationary process vessels at existing sources) was reasonable. The
second analysis involved estimating the impacts for existing facilities
that met the characteristics from the first analysis.
Based on the results of our sensitivity analysis, we concluded that
the total impacts are reasonable in light of the emissions reductions
achieved if the coating products that are bulk loaded contain at least
3.0 million gal/yr of HAP with a partial pressure of at least 1.5 psia.
The incremental HAP reduction achieved to meet the regulatory
alternative for a model facility with these characteristics was
estimated to be 10.8 Mg/yr, and the incremental cost was estimated to
be $3,200/Mg of HAP removed. These estimates assume the emissions are
controlled using a condenser, and that the refrigeration unit used in
the process vessels analysis can be replaced by one with a slightly
larger capacity to accommodate all of the condensers. The incremental
electricity consumption to operate the enlarged refrigeration unit is
3,200 kwh/yr, and the incremental fuel energy consumption to generate
the electricity is 31 million Btu per year. Total CO, NOx,
and SO 2 emissions from combustion of the additional fuel is
0.03 Mg/yr. The condensed HAP would be a hazardous waste. There would
be no wastewater or other non-air quality health or environmental
impacts.
At the maximum product loading volume cited by the commenter, we
estimate the HAP or solvent throughput would be about 2.0 million gal/
yr (i.e., based on an average 1.75 lb HAP/gal coating); thus, none of
the bulk loading scenarios evaluated by the commenter would be subject
to control under the standard. However, we provide the following
discussion of the analysis in the event that a facility may expand
production beyond the rates used in the commenter's analysis, or the
quantity of HAP in their product is higher than the average value that
we used.
In our analysis, we assumed the emission stream is saturated
because emissions occur only as a result of vapor displacement, and the
vent from the tank truck or rail car can be hard-piped to a control
device. Because our analysis assumes that the control is a condenser
with coolant supplied from the same refrigeration unit that we assumed
would be used with condensers for process vessel emissions, we did not
include the cost of a separate refrigeration unit in this analysis. We
also included a smaller maintenance labor factor than would be used for
a separate refrigerated condenser system. These assumptions mean the
costs for overhead, taxes, and capital recovery are lower in our
analysis than the commenter's.
Although we agree that adding costs for a precooler, ductwork, and
a pump would be reasonable, we note that the overall cost of the
auxiliary equipment in our analysis equals more than 50 percent of the
cost for all auxiliary equipment in the commenter's analysis, even
though we have a much smaller condenser. Furthermore, based on the
commenter's data, it appears that we overestimated the cost of the
condenser and waste solvent storage tank, which offsets our lack of
costs for other auxiliary equipment.
We assumed a fill rate of 30 gal/min, which we consider to be
consistent with the commenter's suggested rate of 25 gal/min. This rate
also defines the gas flow into the condenser in our analysis because
the system can be hard-piped, and there is no need to include
supplemental dilution air at a rate 25 times the flow of the displaced
volume. As the commenter noted, we assumed the coating product consists
only of HAP solvent and solids. This was done to simplify the analysis.
Also, products that contain little HAP or less volatile HAP are not
likely to meet the thresholds that we set. Finally, we note that our
analysis likely overestimates the actual costs because we assumed a
waste disposal unit cost four times higher than the cost the commenter
considers to be realistic. Therefore, we maintain that for transfer
operations meeting the specified flow rate and partial pressure levels
in the regulatory alternative, the incremental cost to
[[Page 69180]]
control emissions (relative to the floor of no emissions reduction) is
reasonable.
In our second analysis, we searched the database for any facilities
with HAP throughput and partial pressure that meet the cutoffs
established for the regulatory alternative. We identified only one
facility that potentially met the criteria. The estimated impacts for
this facility are comparable to those for the model facility. Assuming
the commenter is correct that most of the reported throughput at this
facility is not associated with coating manufacturing, then the impacts
of the standard may be lower than we estimated.
H. Pollution Prevention
Comment: One commenter stated that the exemption for equipment that
contain less than 5 percent HAP is not a viable pollution prevention
alternative. Several commenters consider the lack of a viable pollution
prevention alternative to be a serious shortcoming in the rule as
proposed, and they suggested several options for consideration. First,
numerous commenters favored an option that allows manufacturers to take
credit for reductions achieved by voluntarily choosing to manufacture
lower HAP coatings or making other changes in production technology.
Second, two commenters suggested exempting any compliance coating
manufacturing from subpart HHHHH if the facility certifies that the
coatings are manufactured to meet the surface coating rules. Third, one
commenter suggested that we consider allowing delayed implementation of
subpart HHHHH or provide an opt-out provision for facilities whose
emissions drop below major source thresholds; this would minimize the
impact of the ``once-in, always-in'' policy. Fourth, if none of the
preceding options is acceptable, one commenter requested that the
stringency of the standards be reduced because the industry has already
achieved reductions as great as or greater than those expected by the
proposed standards. Many commenters cited numerous changes in the
industry over the past few years that have reduced emissions from
coating manufacturing and have not been accounted for in setting the
standards. For example, the shift in production to waterborne, UV cure,
and high solids coatings, some of which has been driven by other
regulatory requirements, contribute to reducing emissions from coating
manufacturing as well as from coating application. One commenter
estimated that the shift to manufacturing compliant coatings to meet
the surface coating MACT will reduce HAP content of coatings by 265,000
tpy, which also translates into the same reduction in HAP throughput
for the manufacturing processes. Assumi |
