[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22754-22794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09080]
[[Page 22753]]
Vol. 83
Wednesday,
No. 95
May 16, 2018
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products Residual Risk and Technology Review;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 22754]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678; FRL-9977-32-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT71
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Wood Building Products to
address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR)
that the EPA is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act (CAA). We
found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from this
source category and determined that the current NESHAP provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. We identified no new
cost-effective controls under the technology review to achieve further
emissions reductions. The EPA is proposing: To add an alternative
compliance demonstration equation; to amend provisions addressing
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM); to amend provisions
regarding electronic reporting; and to make technical and editorial
changes. The EPA is proposing these amendments to improve the
effectiveness of the NESHAP. This action also proposes a new EPA test
method to measure isocyanate compounds in certain surface coatings.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2018
unless a public hearing is requested by May 21, 2018. If a public
hearing is requested, comments must be received on or before July 2,
2018. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the
information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your
comments on or before June 15, 2018.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by May 21, 2018,
then we will hold a public hearing on May 31, 2018 at the location
described in the ADDRESSES section. The last day to pre-register in
advance to speak at the public hearing will be May 29, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. Regulations.gov is our
preferred method of receiving comments. However, other submission
formats are accepted. To ship or send mail via the United States Postal
Service, use the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. Use the
following Docket Center address if you are using express mail,
commercial delivery, hand delivery or courier: EPA Docket Center, EPA
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20004. Delivery verification signatures will be available only
during regular business hours.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Send or deliver information
identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control
Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Attention EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system).
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested, it will be held
at the EPA's Washington DC Campus located at 1201 Constitution Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC. If a public hearing is requested, then we will
provide details about the public hearing on our website at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-wood-building-products-national-emission-standard-1. The EPA does not intend
to publish another document in the Federal Register announcing any
updates on the request for a public hearing. Please contact Ms. Aimee
St. Clair at (919) 541-1063 or by email at [email protected] to
request a public hearing, to register to speak at the public hearing,
or to inquire as to whether a public hearing will be held.
The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who
arrive and register. If a hearing is held at a U.S. government
facility, individuals planning to attend should be prepared to show a
current, valid state- or federal-approved picture identification to the
security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. An expired
form of identification will not be permitted. Please note that the Real
ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for
entering federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by a
noncompliant state, you must present an additional form of
identification to enter a federal facility. Acceptable alternative
forms of identification include: Federal employee badge, passports,
enhanced driver's licenses, and military identification cards.
Additional information on the Real ID Act is available at https://www.dhs.gov/real-id-frequently-asked-questions. In addition, you will
need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring
with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return
this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed
in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building, and
demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security
reasons.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed
action, contact Mr. John Bradfield, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone
[[Page 22755]]
number: (919) 541-3062; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email address:
[email protected]. For specific information regarding the risk
modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881; fax
number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in Regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.
Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0678. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The
http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include
special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BACT best available control technology
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CAP criteria air pollutant
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHIEF Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors
CO catalytic oxidizers
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
GACT generally available control technology
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HDI hex methylene 1,6 diisocyanate
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
HF hydrogen fluoride
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
LAER lowest achievable emission rate
m\3\ cubic meter
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDI methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
MI methyl isocyanate
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
No. Number
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PDF portable document format
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
RACT reasonably available control technology
RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TDI 2,4 toluene diisocyanate
TO thermal oxidizers
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
UF uncertainty factor
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compounds
VOHAP volatile organic hazardous air pollutants
WebFIRE Web Factor Information Retrieval System
XML extensible markup language
Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support
this action?
[[Page 22756]]
D. What other relevant background information and data are
available?
III. Analytical Procedures
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
B. How do we perform the technology review?
C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source
category?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability,
ample margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our
technology review?
D. What other actions are we proposing?
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated
industrial source category that is the subject of this proposal. Table
1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for
readers regarding the entities that this proposed action is likely to
affect. The proposed standards, once promulgated, will be directly
applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local and tribal
government entities would not be affected by this proposed action. As
defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section
112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,
July 16, 1992), the ``Surface Coating of Wood Building Products''
source category is any facility engaged in the surface coating of wood
building products. Wood building products are defined as any product
that contains more than 50 percent by weight wood or wood fiber,
excluding the weight of glass components, and is used in the
construction, either interior or exterior, of a residential,
commercial, or institutional building. This NESHAP, 40 Code of Federal
regulations (CFR) part 63, subpart QQQQ, regulates all operations
associated with the surface coating of wood building products, which
includes preparation of the coating for application (e.g., mixing with
thinners); surface preparation of the wood building products; coating
application, curing, and drying equipment; equipment cleaning; and
storage, transfer, and handling of coatings, thinners, cleaning
materials, and waste materials.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
Proposed Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category NESHAP NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Building Products.......... Surface Coating of 321211, 321212,
Wood Building 321218, 321219,
Products. 321911, 321999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the Internet. Following signature by the
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at:
https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/surface-coating-wood-building-products-national-emission-standard-1. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version of the proposal and key technical documents at this
same website. Information on the overall RTR program is available at
http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678).
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk
or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or
CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to
one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed
as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. If
you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI
only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-
02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0678.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112
and 301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Section 112 of
the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process to develop standards
for emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing technology-
based standards
[[Page 22757]]
and the second stage involves evaluating those standards that are based
on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to determine whether
additional standards are needed to further address any remaining risk
associated with HAP emissions. This second stage is commonly referred
to as the ``residual risk review.'' In addition to the residual risk
review, the CAA also requires the EPA to review standards set under CAA
section 112 every 8 years to determine if there are ``developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies'' that may be appropriate
to incorporate into the standards. This review is commonly referred to
as the ``technology review.'' When the two reviews are combined into a
single rulemaking, it is commonly referred to as the ``risk and
technology review.'' The discussion that follows identifies the most
relevant statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the
methodology used to implement these statutory requirements. A more
comprehensive discussion appears in the document titled CAA Section 112
Risk and Technology Reviews: Statutory Authority and Methodology in the
docket for this rulemaking.
In the first stage of the CAA section 112 standard setting process,
the EPA promulgates technology-based standards under CAA section 112(d)
for categories of sources identified as emitting one or more of the HAP
listed in CAA section 112(b). Sources of HAP emissions are either major
sources or area sources, and CAA section 112 establishes different
requirements for major source standards and area source standards.
``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. All other sources are ``area sources.'' For major
sources, CAA section 112(d) provides that the technology-based NESHAP
must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). These standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a
minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ``floor.''
The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than
the floor. Standards more stringent than the floor are commonly
referred to as beyond-the-floor standards. In certain instances, as
provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numerical emission
standard. For area sources, CAA section 112(d)(5) gives the EPA
discretion to set standards based on generally available control
technologies or management practices (GACT standards) in lieu of MACT
standards.
The second stage in standard-setting focuses on identifying and
addressing any remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA
section 112(f). Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to
determine for source categories subject to MACT standards whether
promulgation of additional standards is needed to provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse
environmental effect. CAA section 112(d)(5) provides that this residual
risk review is not required for categories of area sources subject to
GACT standards. Section 112(f)(2)(B) of the CAA further expressly
preserves the EPA's use of the two-step approach for developing
standards to address any residual risk and the Agency's interpretation
of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from Maleic
Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels,
Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene
NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The EPA notified Congress in
the Risk Report that the Agency intended to use the Benzene NESHAP
approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk determinations
(EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The EPA subsequently adopted this
approach in its residual risk determinations, and the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court)
upheld the EPA's interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) incorporates
the approach established in the Benzene NESHAP. See Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The approach incorporated into the CAA and used by the EPA to
evaluate residual risk and to develop standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) is a two-step approach. In the first step, the EPA determines
whether risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR)
\1\ of approximately [1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 million].'' 54
FR 38045, September 14, 1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA must
determine the emissions standards necessary to bring risks to an
acceptable level without considering costs. In the second step of the
process, the EPA considers whether the emissions standards provide an
ample margin of safety ``in consideration of all health information,
including the number of persons at risk levels higher than
approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as other relevant factors,
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id. The EPA must
promulgate emission standards necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. After conducting the ample margin of
safety analysis, we consider whether a more stringent standard is
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ \\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR
refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer
risk, is the estimated risk if an individual were exposed to the
maximum level of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(6) separately requires the EPA to review
standards promulgated under CAA section 112 and revise them ``as
necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 years. In
conducting this review, which we call the ``technology review,'' the
EPA is not required to recalculate the MACT floor. NRDC v. EPA, 529
F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Association of Battery Recyclers,
Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The EPA may consider cost
in deciding whether to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
B. What is this source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The ``Surface Coating of Wood Building Products'' source category
includes any facility engaged in the surface coating of wood building
products, which means the application of coatings using, for example,
roll coaters or curtain coaters in the finishing or laminating of any
wood building product that contains more than 50 percent by weight wood
or wood fiber, excluding the weight of any glass components, and is
used in the construction, either interior or exterior, of a
residential, commercial, or institutional building. Regulated
operations include all processes and process units incorporating wood
building products surface coating operations. The processes include,
but are not limited to, coating application production lines, emissions
capture and exhaust ducting systems, cleanup stations, coating
preparation stations
[[Page 22758]]
(e.g., mixing with thinners), surface preparation of the wood building
products, curing and drying equipment; and storage, transfer, and
handling of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and waste
materials. This NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, regulates surface
coating of wood building products (referred to in this document as the
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP).
This proposal includes both a residual risk assessment and a
technology review of the emission sources subject to the Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP, which includes numerical
emission limits for five subcategories of wood building products:
Exterior siding and primed doorskins;
Flooring;
Interior wall paneling or tileboard;
Other interior panels; and
Doors, windows, and miscellaneous.
C. What data collection activities were conducted to support this
action?
The EPA collected data from several environmental databases that
included information pertaining to wood building products manufacturing
facilities with surface coating operations in the United States. The
primary databases were the Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO) database, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) for 2011 and 2014. Title V operating permits
were obtained from states that have facilities subject to 40 CFR part
63, subpart QQQQ. For more details of the title V operating permit
review, see the memorandum titled Preparation of the Residual Risk
Modeling Input File for Subpart QQQQ in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678). No formal information collection
request was performed.
D. What other relevant background information and data are available?
In addition to the ECHO, TRI, and NEI databases, the EPA reviewed
the additional information sources listed below and consulted with
stakeholders regulated under the Surface Coating of Wood Building
Products NESHAP to determine if there have been developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies by wood building products
surface coating sources. These include:
Permit limits and selected compliance options from permits
collected from state agencies;
Information on air pollution control options in the wood
building products surface coating industry from the reasonably
available control technology (RACT)/best achievable control technology
(BACT)/lowest achievable emission limits (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC);
Information on the most effective ways to control
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and volatile organic HAP
(VOHAP) from sources in various industries, including the wood building
products manufacturing industry;
Product Data Sheets and Material Safety Data Sheets
submitted with compliance demonstrations; and
Communication with trade groups and associations
representing industries in the affected NAICS categories and their
members.
III. Analytical Procedures
In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the
proposed decisions for the RTR and other issues addressed in this
proposal.
A. How do we consider risk in our decision-making?
As discussed in section II.A of this preamble and in the Benzene
NESHAP, in evaluating and developing standards under CAA section
112(f)(2), we apply a two-step approach to determine whether or not
risks are acceptable and to determine if the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. As explained in the Benzene
NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be reduced to
any single factor'' and, thus, ``[t]he Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is best judged on the basis of
a broad set of health risk measures and information.'' 54 FR 38046,
September 14, 1989. Similarly, with regard to the ample margin of
safety determination, ``the Agency again considers all of the health
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other
relevant factors.'' Id.
The Benzene NESHAP approach provides flexibility regarding factors
the EPA may consider in making determinations and how the EPA may weigh
those factors for each source category. The EPA conducts a risk
assessment that provides estimates of the MIR posed by the HAP
emissions from each source in the source category, the hazard index
(HI) for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer
health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to HAP
with the potential to cause noncancer health effects.\2\ The assessment
also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks within the
exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of the
potential for adverse environmental effects. The scope of the EPA's
risk analysis is consistent with the EPA's response to comment on our
policy under the Benzene NESHAP where the EPA explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The MIR is defined as the cancer risk associated with a
lifetime of exposure at the highest concentration of HAP where
people are likely to live. The HQ is the ratio of the potential
exposure to the HAP to the level at or below which no adverse
chronic noncancer effects are expected; the HI is the sum of HQs for
HAP that affect the same target organ or organ system.
``[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator permits consideration
of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure be
considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer health
effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this way,
the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be
weighed in each individual case. This approach complies with the
Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator ascertain an
acceptable level of risk to the public by employing his expertise to
assess available data. It also complies with the Congressional
intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of any
particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and
thereby implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of
health risk which the Administrator, in his judgment, believes are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health'.''
See 54 FR 38057, September 14, 1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only
one factor to be weighed in determining acceptability of risks. The
Benzene NESHAP explained that ``an MIR of approximately one in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper end of the range of
acceptability. As risks increase above this benchmark, they become
presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 112, and would be
weighed with the other health risk measures and information in making
an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the Agency may find, in a
particular case, that a risk that includes MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the light of other
health risk factors.'' Id. at 38045. Similarly, with regard to the
ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the Benzene NESHAP
that: ``EPA believes the relative weight of the many
[[Page 22759]]
factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of safety
can only be determined for each specific source category. This occurs
mainly because technological and economic factors (along with the
health-related factors) vary from source category to source category.''
Id. at 38061. We also consider the uncertainties associated with the
various risk analyses, as discussed earlier in this preamble, in our
determinations of acceptability and ample margin of safety.
The EPA notes that it has not considered certain health information
to date in making residual risk determinations. At this time, we do not
attempt to quantify those HAP risks that may be associated with
emissions from other facilities that do not include the source category
under review, mobile source emissions, natural source emissions,
persistent environmental pollution, or atmospheric transformation in
the vicinity of the sources in the category.
The EPA understands the potential importance of considering an
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. We recognize
that such consideration may be particularly important when assessing
noncancer risks, where pollutant-specific exposure health reference
levels (e.g., reference concentrations (RfCs)) are based on the
assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health effects. For
example, the EPA recognizes that, although exposures attributable to
emissions from a source category or facility alone may not indicate the
potential for increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects in a
population, the exposures resulting from emissions from the facility in
combination with emissions from all of the other sources (e.g., other
facilities) to which an individual is exposed may be sufficient to
result in increased risk of adverse noncancer health effects. In May
2010, the Science Advisory Board (SAB) advised the EPA ``that RTR
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions
from other sources in the area.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The EPA's responses to this and all other key
recommendations of the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment
methodologies (which is available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-
007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a memorandum to this rulemaking
docket from David Guinnup titled, EPA's Actions in Response to the
Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment
Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the SAB recommendations, the EPA is incorporating
cumulative risk analyses into its RTR risk assessments, including those
reflected in this proposal. The Agency is (1) conducting facility-wide
assessments, which include source category emission points, as well as
other emission points within the facilities; (2) combining exposures
from multiple sources in the same category that could affect the same
individuals; and (3) for some persistent and bioaccumulative
pollutants, analyzing the ingestion route of exposure. In addition, the
RTR risk assessments have always considered aggregate cancer risk from
all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HI from all noncarcinogens
affecting the same target organ system.
Although we are interested in placing source category and facility-
wide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all sources
combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about the
uncertainties of doing so. Because of the contribution to total HAP
risk from emission sources other than those that we have studied in
depth during this RTR review, such estimates of total HAP risks would
have significantly greater associated uncertainties than the source
category or facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate or cumulative
assessments would compound those uncertainties, making the assessments
too unreliable.
B. How do we perform the technology review?
Our technology review focuses on the identification and evaluation
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
have occurred since the MACT standards were promulgated. Where we
identify such developments, in order to inform our decision of whether
it is ``necessary'' to revise the emissions standards, we analyze the
technical feasibility of applying these developments and the estimated
costs, energy implications, and non-air environmental impacts, and we
also consider the emission reductions. In addition, we consider the
appropriateness of applying controls to new sources versus retrofitting
existing sources.
For this exercise, we consider any of the following to be a
``development'':
Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was
not identified and considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any improvements in add-on control technology or other
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of
the original MACT standards) that could result in additional emissions
reduction;
Any work practice or operational procedure that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards;
Any process change or pollution prevention alternative
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not
identified or considered during development of the original MACT
standards; and
Any significant changes in the cost (including cost
effectiveness) of applying controls (including controls the EPA
considered during the development of the original MACT standards).
In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, and control
technologies that were considered at the time we originally developed
(or last updated) the NESHAP, we review a variety of data sources in
our investigation of potential practices, processes, or controls to
consider. Among the sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various
industries that were promulgated since the MACT standards being
reviewed in this action. We reviewed the regulatory requirements and/or
technical analyses associated with these regulatory actions to identify
any practices, processes, and control technologies considered in these
efforts that could be applied to emission sources in the Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products source category, as well as the
costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use
of these technologies. Finally, we reviewed information from other
sources, such as state and/or local permitting agency databases and
industry-supported databases.
C. How did we estimate post-MACT risks posed by the source category?
The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provides estimates of the
MIR for cancer posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the
source category, the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential
to cause noncancer health effects, and the HQ for acute exposures to
HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The
assessment also provides estimates of the distribution of cancer risks
within the exposed populations, cancer incidence, and an evaluation of
the potential for adverse environmental effects. The seven sections
that follow this paragraph describe how we estimated emissions and
conducted the risk assessment. The docket for this rulemaking contains
the following document which provides more information on the risk
assessment
[[Page 22760]]
inputs and models: Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of
Wood Building Products Source Category in Support of the March 2018
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. The methods used to assess
risks (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent
with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the SAB in 2009 and described in
their peer review report issued in 2010; \4\ they are also consistent
with the key recommendations contained in that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and
Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. How did we estimate actual emissions and identify the emissions
release characteristics?
Data were extracted from the ECHO database to determine which
facilities were potentially subject to the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products NESHAP to develop a facility list. The ECHO database
provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for about
800,000 regulated facilities nationwide and it allows for the search of
information on permit data, inspection dates and findings, violations,
and enforcement actions. For more details on ECHO, see https://echo.epa.gov/resources/general-info/learn-more-about-echo. The ECHO
database identified 135 facilities as potentially subject to the
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP. Further review of the
permits for these facilities found that 64 facilities have surface
coating of wood building products operations, and 55 of those
facilities are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQ. We are interested in your comments on the development of the
facility list used in our analysis. For more details on the facility
list development, see the memorandum titled Preparation of the Residual
Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart QQQQ in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678).
As discussed in section II.C of this preamble, we used data from
facility permits, the 2014 NEI (version 1), and the TRI as the basis
for the emissions used in the risk assessment for the Surface Coating
of Wood Building Products source category. The NEI is a database that
contains information about sources that emit criteria air pollutants
(CAP), CAP precursors, and HAP. The NEI is released every 3 years based
primarily on data provided by state, local, and tribal air agencies for
sources in their jurisdictions and supplemented with data developed by
the EPA. The NEI database includes estimates of actual annual air
pollutant emissions from point and fugitive sources and emission
release characteristic data, such as emission release height,
temperature, diameter, velocity, and flow rates. The NEI database also
includes locational latitude/longitude coordinates. For more details on
the NEI, see https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei. The TRI tracks the management of certain toxic
chemicals that may pose a threat to human health and the environment
through annual facility reporting of how much of each chemical is
released into the environment. For more details on the TRI, see https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/learn-about-toxics-release-inventory.
We began compiling an initial draft residual risk modeling input
file for use in the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP
residual risk review in 2016.\5\ We made further updates to the source
category facility list to account for facilities that recently closed
or reopened, added new products covered by the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products NESHAP, and/or changed their surface coating
equipment or application techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For more information, see the memorandum in the docket
titled Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart
QQQQ. The memorandum describes the source of the inventory data,
discusses quality assurance of the 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ
data, provides actual versus allowable and acute risk multipliers
for subpart QQQQ sources, and identifies potential outliers and
suspect data for further review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimated actual emissions based on the 2014 NEI,
preferentially, and subsequent site-specific inventory revisions
provided by states or individual facilities. Where 2014 NEI data were
not available for a facility, we used data from the 2011 NEI and then
the 2014 TRI. Using this combination of EPA databases, we collected
emissions information on the 55 sources in the category. We identified
nine facilities that reported zero HAP emissions for the Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products source category, and they were
excluded from the risk modeling file. As a result, the risk modeling
file characterized the impact of emissions from 46 sources.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total HAP emissions for the source category, which were
included in the modeling file, are approximately 260 tpy. Based on the
available data, the HAP emitted in the largest quantities are methanol,
toluene, xylenes, ethyl benzene, methyl isobutyl ketone, glycol ethers,
vinyl acetate, ethylene glycol, methyl methacrylate, formaldehyde, and
dimethyl phthalate. Other than lead, persistent and bioaccumulative HAP
(PB-HAP) were not reported as being emitted from this source category.
Therefore, the only assessment of multipathway risk was for lead, and
that assessment compared the ambient air lead concentrations to the
lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Further information
about the multipathway analysis performed for this category follows in
section III.C.3.d.
2. How did we estimate MACT-allowable emissions?
The available emissions data in the RTR emissions dataset include
estimates of the mass of HAP emitted during a specified annual time
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the
emission levels allowed under the requirements of the current MACT
standards. The emissions level allowed to be emitted under the MACT
standards is referred to as the ``MACT-allowable'' emissions level. We
discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in the
final Coke Oven Batteries RTR (70 FR 19998-19999, April 15, 2005) and
in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP RTRs (71 FR 34428,
June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, respectively). In
those actions, we noted that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable
level is inherently reasonable since these risks reflect the maximum
level facilities could emit and still comply with national emission
standards. We also explained that it is reasonable to consider actual
emissions, where such data are available, in both steps of the risk
analysis, in accordance with the Benzene NESHAP approach. (54 FR 38044,
September 14, 1989.)
Actual emissions are often lower than MACT-allowable emissions due
to compliance margins, more stringent state or local rules, or over-
control due to use of control technologies, equipment, or work
practices that are significantly better than required to meet the
NESHAP limits. However, over 90 percent of wood building products
manufacturers use compliant coatings with low- or no-HAP emissions and
production rate limits. We assume that coatings in the category are
engineered to meet the standard with a reasonable compliance margin.
For those operations, we would expect actual emissions to equal MACT-
allowable emissions, because of the use of the compliant coatings and/
or low-HAP coatings. Additionally, for new sources,
[[Page 22761]]
three of five new source limits in the NESHAP are zero-HAP limits, and,
as a result, we assumed that the reported actual emissions were equal
to the MACT-allowable emissions for these sources since the MACT-
allowable emissions are zero. For facilities using an add-on control,
the operating permits indicate that the coating lines may not operate
without controls. Therefore, we assumed that MACT-allowable emissions
were equal to actual emissions. We are requesting comment on the
assumption that actual and MACT-allowable emissions are the same for
this source category.
3. How did we conduct dispersion modeling, determine inhalation
exposures, and estimate individual and population inhalation risks?
Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3). The HEM-3
performs three primary risk assessment activities: (1) Conducting
dispersion modeling to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient
air, (2) estimating long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to
individuals residing within 50 kilometers (km) of the modeled sources,
and (3) estimating individual and population-level inhalation risks
using the exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response
information.
a. Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion model AERMOD, used by the HEM-3 model, is one of
the EPA's preferred models for assessing air pollutant concentrations
from industrial facilities.\7\ To perform the dispersion modeling and
to develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year (2016) of
hourly surface and upper air observations from 824 meteorological
stations selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto
Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau census block \8\
internal point locations and populations provides the basis of human
exposure calculations (U.S. Census, 2010). In addition, for each census
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library
of pollutant-specific dose-response values is used to estimate health
risks. These dose-response values are the latest values recommended by
the EPA for HAP. They are available at https://www.epa.gov/fera/dose-response-assessment-assessing-health-risks-associated-exposure-hazardous-air-pollutants and are discussed in more detail later in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models:
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain)
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005).
\8\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Cancer
In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used
the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each HAP
emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the source
category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid
were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We
calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with
a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per
year, for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at
the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks were
calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the
ambient concentration of each HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE). The URE is an upper
bound estimate of an individual's probability of contracting cancer
over a lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the
pollutant per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we
generally use UREs from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). For carcinogenic pollutants without IRIS values, we look to
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using
California EPA (CalEPA) UREs, where available. In cases where new,
scientifically credible dose-response values have been developed in a
manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a peer
review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such dose-
response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if
appropriate.
To estimate incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated
with emissions from the facilities in the source category, the EPA
summed the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP \9\ emitted by the
modeled sources. Cancer incidence and the distribution of individual
cancer risks for the population within 50 km of the sources were also
estimated for the source category by summing individual risks. A
distance of 50 km is consistent with both the analysis supporting the
1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989) and the
limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The EPA classifies carcinogens as: carcinogenic to humans,
likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential. These classifications also coincide with the
terms ``known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible
carcinogen,'' respectively, which are the terms advocated in the
EPA's Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). In August 2000, the document,
Supplemental Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures (EPA/630/R-00/002), was published as a supplement
to the 1986 document. Copies of both documents can be obtained from
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=20533&CFID=70315376&CFTOKEN=71597944. Summing
the risks of these individual compounds to obtain the cumulative
cancer risks is an approach that was recommended by the EPA's SAB in
their 2002 peer review of the EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) titled NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics
Assessment 1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Risk From Chronic Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects
Other Than Cancer
To assess the risk of noncancer health effects from chronic
exposure to HAP, we calculate either an HQ or a target organ-specific
hazard index (TOSHI). We calculate an HQ when a single noncancer HAP is
emitted. Where more than one noncancer HAP is emitted, we sum the HQ
for each of the HAP that affects a common target organ system to obtain
a TOSHI. The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by the chronic
noncancer dose-response value, which is a value selected from one of
several sources. The preferred chronic noncancer dose-response value is
the EPA RfC (https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&vocabName=IRIS%20Glossary), defined as ``an estimate
(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a
continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including
sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk
of deleterious effects during a lifetime.'' In cases where an RfC from
the EPA's IRIS database is not available or where the EPA determines
that using a value other than the RfC is appropriate, the chronic
noncancer dose-response value can be a value from the following
prioritized sources, which
[[Page 22762]]
define their dose-response values similarly to the EPA: (1) The Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimum Risk Level
(http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp); (2) the CalEPA Chronic
Reference Exposure Level (REL) (http://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/notice-adoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0); or (3), as noted above, a scientifically credible dose-
response value that has been developed in a manner consistent with the
EPA guidelines and has undergone a peer review process similar to that
used by the EPA.
d. Risk From Acute Exposure to HAP That May Cause Health Effects Other
Than Cancer
For each HAP for which appropriate acute inhalation dose-response
values are available, the EPA also assesses the potential health risks
due to acute exposure. For these assessments, in order to avoid under-
estimating effects, the EPA makes conservative assumptions about
emission rates, meteorology, and exposure location. We use the peak
hourly emission rate,\10\ worst-case dispersion conditions, and, in
accordance with our mandate under section 112 of the CAA, the point of
highest off-site exposure to assess the potential risk to the maximally
exposed individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the absence of hourly emission data, we develop
estimates of maximum hourly emission rates by multiplying the
average actual annual emissions rates by a default factor (usually
10) to account for variability. This is documented in Residual Risk
Assessment for Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of
Wood Building Products Source Category in Support of the March 2018
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, September, 2017 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule and in Appendix 5 of the report:
Analysis of Data on Short-term Emission Rates Relative to Long-term
Emission Rates. Both are available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To characterize the potential health risks associated with
estimated acute inhalation exposures to a HAP, we generally use
multiple acute dose-response values, including acute RELs, acute
exposure guideline levels (AEGLs), and emergency response planning
guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations), if available, to
calculate acute HQs. The acute HQ is calculated by dividing the
estimated acute exposure by the acute dose-response value. For each HAP
for which acute dose-response values are available, the EPA calculates
acute HQs.
An acute REL is defined as ``the concentration level at or below
which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified
exposure duration.'' \11\ Acute RELs are based on the most sensitive,
relevant, adverse health effect reported in the peer-reviewed medical
and toxicological literature. They are designed to protect the most
sensitive individuals in the population through the inclusion of
margins of safety. Because margins of safety are incorporated to
address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL does not
automatically indicate an adverse health impact. AEGLs represent
threshold exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to
emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 8 hours.\12\ They are
guideline levels for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures to
airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.''
Id. at 21. The AEGL-1 is specifically defined as ``the airborne
concentration (expressed as ppm (parts per million) or mg/m\3\
(milligrams per cubic meter)) of a substance above which it is
predicted that the general population, including susceptible
individuals, could experience notable discomfort, irritation, or
certain asymptomatic nonsensory effects. However, the effects are not
disabling and are transient and reversible upon cessation of
exposure.'' Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure
levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient
and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Id. AEGL-2 are defined as ``the
airborne concentration (expressed as parts per million or milligrams
per cubic meter) of a substance above which it is predicted that the
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience
irreversible or other serious, long-lasting adverse health effects or
an impaired ability to escape.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CalEPA issues acute RELs as part of its Air Toxics Hot
Spots Program, and the 1-hour and 8-hour values are documented in
Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The
Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne
Toxicants, which is available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/general-info/oehha-acute-8-hour-and-chronic-reference-exposure-level-rel-summary.
\12\ National Academy of Sciences, 2001. Standing Operating
Procedures for Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous
Chemicals, page 2. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/sop_final_standing_operating_procedures_2001.pdf. Note that the
National Advisory Committee/AEGL Committee ended in October 2011,
but the AEGL program continues to operate at the EPA and works with
the National Academies to publish final AEGLs (https://www.epa.gov/aegl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERPGs are developed for emergency planning and are intended as
health-based guideline concentrations for single exposures to
chemicals.'' \13\ Id. at 1. The ERPG-1 is defined as ``the maximum
airborne concentration below which it is believed that nearly all
individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing
other than mild transient adverse health effects or without perceiving
a clearly defined, objectionable odor.'' Id. at 2. Similarly, the ERPG-
2 is defined as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is
believed that nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one
hour without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious
health effects or symptoms which could impair an individual's ability
to take protective action.'' Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ERPGS Procedures and Responsibilities. March 2014. American
Industrial Hygiene Association. Available at: https://www.aiha.org/get-involved/AIHAGuidelineFoundation/EmergencyResponsePlanningGuidelines/Documents/ERPG%20Committee%20Standard%20Operating%20Procedures%20%20-%20March%202014%20Revision%20%28Updated%2010-2-2014%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute REL for 1-hour exposure durations is typically lower than
its corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1. Even though their definitions are
slightly different, AEGL-1s are often the same as the corresponding
ERPG-1s, and AEGL-2s are often equal to ERPG-2s. The maximum HQs from
our acute inhalation screening risk assessment typically result when we
use the acute REL for a HAP. In cases where the maximum acute HQ
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ based on the next highest acute dose-
response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1).
For this source category, we did not have short-term emissions
data; therefore, we estimated the peak, short-term emissions using
available annual emissions data from the NEI. We assumed that the peak,
1-hour emission rate could exceed a facility's annual average hourly
emission rate by as much as a factor of 10, under worst-case
meteorological conditions. For facilities that used compliant coatings,
the default acute multiplier of 10 is overly conservative because
compliant coatings result in an emissions profile that is not expected
to have significant fluctuations in HAP emissions. Further review of
permits found that two facilities utilizing the compliant coating
approach only operate coating operations for one 8-hour shift per day,
therefore, an acute multiplier of 3 was used. The default multiplier of
10 was applied to all other facilities. A further discussion of why
these factors were chosen can be found in the memorandum, Preparation
of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File for
[[Page 22763]]
Subpart QQQQ, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
In our acute inhalation screening risk assessment, acute impacts
are deemed negligible for HAP where acute HQs are less than or equal to
1 (even under the conservative assumptions of the screening
assessment), and no further analysis is performed for these HAP. In
cases where an acute HQ from the screening step is greater than 1, we
consider additional site-specific data to develop a more refined
estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. For this source
category, we refined our analysis by reviewing the receptor locations
where the maximum HQ occurred. These refinements are discussed more
fully in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products Source Category in Support of the March 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this source category.
4. How did we conduct the multipathway exposure and risk screening
assessment?
The EPA conducted a tiered screening assessment examining the
potential for significant human health risks due to exposures via
routes other than inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first determined
whether any sources in the source category emitted any PB-HAP, as
identified in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library (see Volume
1, Appendix D, at http://www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library).
For the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category,
we did not identify emissions of any PB-HAP except for lead compounds,
for which the lead NAAQS was applied to assess multipathway impacts.
Because we did not identify PB-HAP emissions requiring further
evaluation, no further evaluation of multipathway risk was conducted
for this source category.
In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of
lead compounds, rather than developing a screening threshold emission
rate, we compare maximum estimated chronic inhalation exposure
concentrations with the level of the current NAAQS for lead.\14\ Values
below the level of the primary (health-based) lead NAAQS are considered
to have a low potential for multipathway risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal standard for a
primary NAAQS--that a standard is requisite to protect public health
and provide an adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))--
differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard (requiring, among other
things, that the standard provide an ``ample margin of safety'').
However, the primary lead NAAQS is a reasonable measure of
determining risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene
NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the most
susceptible group in the human population--children, including
children living near major lead emitting sources. 73 FR 67002/3; 73
FR 67000/3; 73 FR 67005/1. In addition, applying the level of the
primary lead NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is conservative,
since that primary lead NAAQS reflects an adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information on the multipathway assessment approach,
see the Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products Source Category in Support of the March 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this action.
5. How did we conduct the environmental risk screening assessment?
a. Adverse Environmental Effects, Environmental HAP, and Ecological
Benchmarks
The EPA conducts a screening assessment to examine the potential
for adverse environmental effects as required under section
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life,
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of
environmental quality over broad areas.''
The EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as
``environmental HAP,'' in its screening assessment: six PB-HAP and two
acid gases. The PB-HAP included in the screening assessment are arsenic
compounds, cadmium compounds, dioxins/furans, polycyclic organic
matter, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury), and lead
compounds. The acid gases included in the screening assessment are
hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF).
The HAP that persist and bioaccumulate are of particular
environmental concern because they accumulate in the soil, sediment,
and water. The acid gases, HCl and HF, were included due to their well-
documented potential to cause direct damage to terrestrial plants. In
the environmental risk screening assessment, we evaluate the following
four exposure media: Terrestrial soils, surface water bodies (includes
water-column and benthic sediments), fish consumed by wildlife, and
air. Within these four exposure media, we evaluate nine ecological
assessment endpoints, which are defined by the ecological entity and
its attributes. For PB-HAP (other than lead), both community-level and
population-level endpoints are included. For acid gases, the ecological
assessment evaluated is terrestrial plant communities.
An ecological benchmark represents a concentration of HAP that has
been linked to a particular environmental effect level. For each
environmental HAP, we identified the available ecological benchmarks
for each assessment endpoint. We identified, where possible, ecological
benchmarks at the following effect levels: Probable effect levels,
lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, and no-observed-adverse-effect
level. In cases where multiple effect levels were available for a
particular PB-HAP and assessment endpoint, we use all of the available
effect levels to help us to determine whether ecological risks exist
and, if so, whether the risks could be considered significant and
widespread.
For further information on how the environmental risk screening
assessment was conducted, including a discussion of the risk metrics
used, how the environmental HAP were identified, and how the ecological
benchmarks were selected, see Appendix 9 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Source
Category in Support of the March 2018 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for this action.
b. Environmental Risk Screening Methodology
For the environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA first
determined whether any facilities in the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products source category emitted any of the environmental HAP.
For the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source category, we
identified emissions of lead compounds.
Because one or more of the environmental HAP evaluated are emitted
by at least one facility in the source category, we proceeded to the
second step of the evaluation.
To evaluate the potential for adverse environmental effects from
lead, we compared the average modeled air concentrations (from HEM-3)
of lead around each facility in the source category to the level of the
secondary NAAQS for lead. The secondary lead NAAQS is a reasonable
means of evaluating environmental risk because it is set to provide
substantial protection against adverse welfare effects which
[[Page 22764]]
can include ``effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man-made
materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage
to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as
well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-
being.''
6. How did we conduct facility-wide assessments?
To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the
source category emission points of interest, but also emissions of HAP
from all other emission sources at the facility for which we have data.
For this source category, we conducted the facility-wide assessment
using a dataset that the EPA compiled from the 2014 NEI. We used the
NEI data for the facility and did not adjust any category or ``non-
category'' data. Therefore, there could be differences in the dataset
from that used for the source category assessments described in this
preamble. We analyzed risks due to the inhalation of HAP that are
emitted ``facility-wide'' for the populations residing within 50 km of
each facility, consistent with the methods used for the source category
analysis described above. For these facility-wide risk analyses, we
made a reasonable attempt to identify the source category risks, and
these risks were compared to the facility-wide risks to determine the
portion of facility-wide risks that could be attributed to the source
category addressed in this proposal. We also specifically examined the
facility that was associated with the highest estimate of risk and
determined the percentage of that risk attributable to the source
category of interest. The Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products Source Category in Support of the
March 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available through
the docket for this action, provides the methodology and results of the
facility-wide analyses, including all facility-wide risks and the
percentage of source category contribution to facility-wide risks.
7. How did we consider uncertainties in risk assessment?
Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk
assessments, including those performed for this proposal. Although
uncertainty exists, we believe that our approach, which used
conservative tools and assumptions in order to avoid under-estimating
effects, ensures that our decisions are health and environmentally
protective. A brief discussion of the uncertainties in the RTR
emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, inhalation exposure estimates,
and dose-response relationships follows below. Also included are those
uncertainties specific to our acute screening assessments, multipathway
screening assessments, and our environmental risk screening
assessments. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is
included in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of
Wood Building Products Source Category in Support of the March 2018
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this action. If a multipathway site-specific assessment was
performed for this source category, a full discussion of the
uncertainties associated with that assessment can be found in Appendix
11 of that document, Site-Specific Human Health Multipathway Residual
Risk Assessment Report.
a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions Dataset
Although the development of the RTR emissions dataset involved
quality assurance/quality control (QC) processes, the accuracy of
emissions values will vary depending on the source of the data, the
degree to which data are incomplete or missing, the degree to which
assumptions made to complete the datasets are accurate, errors in
emission estimates, and other factors. The emission estimates
considered in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain
years, and they do not reflect short-term fluctuations during the
course of a year or variations from year to year. The estimates of peak
hourly emission rates for the acute effects screening assessment were
based on an emission adjustment factor applied to the average annual
hourly emission rates, which are intended to account for emission
fluctuations due to normal facility operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
We recognize there is uncertainty in ambient concentration
estimates associated with any model, including the EPA's recommended
regulatory dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a model to estimate
ambient pollutant concentrations, the user chooses certain options to
apply. For RTR assessments, we select some model options that have the
potential to overestimate ambient air concentrations (e.g., not
including plume depletion or pollutant transformation). We select other
model options that have the potential to underestimate ambient impacts
(e.g., not including building downwash). Other options that we select
have the potential to either under- or overestimate ambient levels
(e.g., meteorology and receptor locations). On balance, considering the
directional nature of the uncertainties commonly present in ambient
concentrations estimated by dispersion models, the approach we apply in
the RTR assessments should yield unbiased estimates of ambient HAP
concentrations. We also note that the selection of meteorology dataset
location could have an impact on the risk estimates. As we continue to
update and expand our library of meteorological station data used in
our risk assessments, we expect to reduce this variability.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure Assessment
Although every effort is made to identify all of the relevant
facilities and emission points, as well as to develop accurate
estimates of the annual emission rates for all relevant HAP, the
uncertainties in our emission inventory likely dominate the
uncertainties in the exposure assessment. Some uncertainties in our
exposure assessment include human mobility, using the centroid of each
census block, assuming lifetime exposure, and assuming only outdoor
exposures. For most of these factors, there is neither an under nor
overestimate when looking at the maximum individual risks or the
incidence, but the shape of the distribution of risks may be affected.
With respect to outdoor exposures, actual exposures may not be as high
if people spend time indoors, especially for very reactive pollutants
or larger particles. For all factors, we reduce uncertainty when
possible. For example, with respect to census-block centroids, we
analyze large blocks using aerial imagery and adjust locations of the
block centroids to better represent the population in the blocks. We
also add additional receptor locations where the population of a block
is not well represented by a single location.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from
chronic exposures and noncancer effects from both chronic and acute
exposures. Some uncertainties are generally expressed quantitatively,
and others are generally expressed in qualitative terms. We note,
[[Page 22765]]
as a preface to this discussion, a point on dose-response uncertainty
that is stated in the EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the
primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly,
as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default
options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the
contrary, should be health protective'' (EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines,
pages 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the
next paragraphs.
Cancer UREs used in our risk assessments are those that have been
developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. That
is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of a
quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical confidence
limit).\15\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as low as
zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be greater.\16\
Chronic noncancer RfC and reference dose (RfD) values represent chronic
exposure levels that are intended to be health-protective levels. To
derive dose-response values that are intended to be ``without
appreciable risk,'' the methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor
(UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993 and 1994) which considers uncertainty,
variability, and gaps in the available data. The UFs are applied to
derive dose-response values that are intended to protect against
appreciable risk of deleterious effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ IRIS glossary (https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/glossariesandkeywordlists/search.do?details=&glossaryName=IRIS%20Glossary).
\16\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the UFs used to account for variability and uncertainty in
the development of acute dose-response values are quite similar to
those developed for chronic durations. Additional adjustments are often
applied to account for uncertainty in extrapolation from observations
at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to derive an acute dose-
response value at another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). Not all
acute dose-response values are developed for the same purpose, and care
must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute assessment of
human health effects relative to the dose-response value or values
being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the lack of
acute dose-response values at different levels of severity should be
factored into the risk characterization as potential uncertainties.
Uncertainty also exists in the selection of ecological benchmarks
for the environmental risk screening assessment. We established a
hierarchy of preferred benchmark sources to allow selection of
benchmarks for each environmental HAP at each ecological assessment
endpoint. We searched for benchmarks for three effect levels (i.e., no-
effects level, threshold-effect level, and probable effect level), but
not all combinations of ecological assessment/environmental HAP had
benchmarks for all three effect levels. Where multiple effect levels
were available for a particular HAP and assessment endpoint, we used
all of the available effect levels to help us determine whether risk
exists and whether the risk could be considered significant and
widespread.
Although every effort is made to identify appropriate human health
effect dose-response values for all pollutants emitted by the sources
in this risk assessment, some HAP emitted by this source category are
lacking dose-response assessments. Accordingly, these pollutants cannot
be included in the quantitative risk assessment, which could result in
quantitative estimates understating HAP risk. To help to alleviate this
potential underestimate, where we conclude similarity with a HAP for
which a dose-response value is available, we use that value as a
surrogate for the assessment of the HAP for which no value is
available. To the extent use of surrogates indicates appreciable risk,
we may identify a need to increase priority for an IRIS assessment for
that substance. We additionally note that, generally speaking, HAP of
greatest concern due to environmental exposures and hazard are those
for which dose-response assessments have been performed, reducing the
likelihood of understating risk. Further, HAP not included in the
quantitative assessment are assessed qualitatively and considered in
the risk characterization that informs the risk management decisions,
including consideration of HAP reductions achieved by various control
options.
For a group of compounds that are unspeciated (e.g., glycol
ethers), we conservatively use the most protective dose-response value
of an individual compound in that group to estimate risk. Similarly,
for an individual compound in a group (e.g., ethylene glycol diethyl
ether) that does not have a specified dose-response value, we also
apply the most protective dose-response value from the other compounds
in the group to estimate risk.
e. Uncertainties in Acute Inhalation Screening Assessments
In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that the EPA
conducts as part of the risk review under section 112 of the CAA. The
accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment depends on the
simultaneous occurrence of independent factors that may vary greatly,
such as hourly emissions rates, meteorology, and the presence of humans
at the location of the maximum concentration. In the acute screening
assessment that we conduct under the RTR program, we assume that peak
emissions from the source category and worst-case meteorological
conditions co-occur, thus, resulting in maximum ambient concentrations.
These two events are unlikely to occur at the same time, making these
assumptions conservative in the sense that they may over-estimate
effects. We then include the additional assumption that a person is
located at this point during this same time period. For this source
category, these assumptions would tend to be worst-case actual
exposures as it is unlikely that a person would be located at the point
of maximum exposure during the time when peak emissions and worst-case
meteorological conditions occur simultaneously.
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
A. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
As described above, for the Surface Coating of Wood Building
Products source category, we conducted an inhalation risk assessment
for all HAP emitted, and multipathway and environmental risk screening
assessments on the only PB-HAP emitted, lead. We present results of the
risk assessment briefly below and in more detail in the residual risk
document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of
Wood Building Products Source Category in Support of the March 2018
Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the
docket for this action.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
Table 2 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the results
of the inhalation risk assessment. As discussed in section III.C.2 of
this preamble, we set MACT-allowable HAP emission levels equal to
actual emissions. For more detail about the MACT-allowable emission
levels, see the memorandum,
[[Page 22766]]
Preparation of Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart QQQQ,\5\
which is available in the docket for this action.
Table 2--Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Inhalation Risk Assessment Results \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Maximum population at Estimated annual Maximum chronic Maximum screening
Risk assessment Number of individual cancer increased risk of cancer incidence noncancer TOSHI acute noncancer
facilities \2\ risk (in 1 cancer >=1-in-1 (cases per year) \4\ HQ \5\
million) \3\ Million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category....................... 46 6 800 0.0006 0.05 1
Facility-Wide......................... 46 30 26,000 0.004 7 .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions. For this source category, actual and allowable emissions are identical, so a separate risk assessment was
not conducted for allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. As described elsewhere, there are additional facilities included in the data set for the
technology review.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the wood building products source category is the respiratory system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of HQ values. HQ values
shown use the lowest available acute threshold value, which in most cases is the REL. When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest
available acute dose-response value.
The inhalation risk modeling performed to estimate risks based on
actual and allowable emissions relied primarily on emissions data from
the NEI. The results of the inhalation cancer risk assessment, as shown
in Table 2 of this preamble, indicate that the MIR could be up to 6-in-
1 million, with formaldehyde from the melamine laminating process as
the sole contributor (100 percent) to the MIR. The total estimated
cancer incidence from wood building product coating sources based on
actual emission levels is 0.0006 excess cancer cases per year or one
case every 1,667 years, with emissions of formaldehyde (35 percent),
naphthalene (27 percent), ethyl benzene (21 percent), and chromium (VI)
compounds (17 percent) contributing to the cancer incidence. In
addition, we estimate that approximately 800 people have cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million.
The maximum modeled chronic noncancer HI (TOSHI) value for the
source category based on actual emissions is estimated to be 0.05, with
emissions of formaldehyde from the melamine laminating process as the
sole contributor (100 percent) to the TOSHI. The target organ affected
is the respiratory system. There are not any people estimated to have
exposure to HI levels greater than 1 as a result of emissions from this
source category.
2. Acute Risk Results
Table 2 of this preamble shows the acute risk results for this
category. The screening analysis for acute impacts was based on actual
emissions, and to estimate the peak emission rates from the average
rates, an industry-specific multiplier of 3 was used for two
facilities, and a default factor of 10 was used for the remaining
facilities. The results of the acute screening analysis indicate that
the maximum off-facility-site acute HQ is 1, based on the REL value for
formaldehyde, and occurs at two facilities. One of these two facilities
used the acute factor of 3 to characterize short-term emissions, while
the other used the factor of 10. For all other HAP and facilities,
acute HQ values are less than 1. Refer to the document titled
Preparation of the Residual Risk Modeling Input File for Subpart QQQQ
(available in the docket for this action) for a detailed description of
how the acute factors were developed for this source category. For more
detailed acute risk results, refer to the residual risk document titled
Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Wood Building
Products Source Category in Support of the March 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is available in the docket for
this action.
3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results
The only PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this source category is
lead. Results of the analysis for lead indicate that based on actual
emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient lead concentration was
only 0.1 percent of the primary NAAQS for lead, and if the total annual
emissions occurred during a 3-month period, the maximum 3-month rolling
average concentration would still be only 0.5 percent of the NAAQS.
Therefore, we do not expect any human health multipathway risks as a
result of emissions from this source category.
4. Environmental Risk Screening Results
The only environmental HAP emitted by facilities in this source
category is lead. Results of the analysis for lead indicate that based
on actual emissions, the maximum annual off-site ambient lead
concentration was only 0.1 percent of the secondary NAAQS for lead, and
if the total annual emissions occurred during a 3-month period, the
maximum 3-month rolling average concentration would still be only 0.5
percent of the NAAQS. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category.
5. Facility-Wide Risk Results
An assessment of the facility-wide risks was performed to provide
context for the source category risks, using NEI data as described
above. The maximum facility-wide cancer MIR is 30-in-1 million, mainly
driven by formaldehyde, chromium (VI) compounds, and nickel compounds
emissions from wood drying and enamel coating operations. Wood drying
is regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, the Plywood and
Composite Wood Products NESHAP, and enamel coating is regulated under
40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR, the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
NESHAP. Risk and technology reviews are currently underway for both
NESHAP categories. The total estimated cancer incidence from the
facility-wide assessment is 0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one
excess case in every 250 years. Approximately 26,000 people are
estimated to have cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million from
exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT sources. The
maximum facility-wide TOSHI is estimated to be 7, mainly driven by
emissions of acrolein from industrial processes related to wood
products that are characterized as ``other, not classified'' in NEI.
Wood drying, regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, noted above,
is presumably the source of the acrolein since the facilities
identified as sources also dry wood. We estimate that
[[Page 22767]]
approximately 900 people are exposed to noncancer HI levels above 1,
based on facility-wide emissions.
6. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice (EJ) issues
that might be associated with the source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we evaluated the distribution of
HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products source category across different demographic groups
within the populations living near facilities.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk at or Population with
above 1-in-1 chronic hazard
Nationwide million due to index above 1 due
wood building to wood building
products surface products surface
coating coating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population....................................... 317,746,049 800 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 62 16 0
All Other Races........................................ 38 84 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 62 16 0
African American....................................... 12 75 0
Native American........................................ 0.8 0.0 0
Other and Multiracial.................................. 7 3 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic............................................... 18 6 0
Non-Hispanic........................................... 82 94 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................................... 14 19 0
Above Poverty Level.................................... 86 81 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma................ 14 25 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma................. 86 75 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products source
category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source
category expose approximately 800 people to a cancer risk at or above
1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than
1. The percentages of the at-risk population are greater than their
respective nationwide percentages for the following demographic groups
(excluding non-Hispanic): African American, people over 25 without a
high school diploma, and people living below the poverty level. The
other demographic groups within the exposed population were similar to
or lower than the corresponding nationwide percentages.
The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Wood Building
Products Surface Coating Facilities, available in the docket for this
action.
B. What are our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, and adverse environmental effects?
1. Risk Acceptability
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA sets standards
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation
uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on MIR of ``approximately
1-in-10 thousand'' (54 FR 38045, September 14, 1989). We weigh all
health risk factors in our risk
[[Page 22768]]
acceptability determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer
incidence, the maximum cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ,
the extent of noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer
risks in the exposed population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
For this risk assessment, the EPA estimated risks based on actual
and allowable emissions from wood building products surface coating
sources. Allowable emissions were estimated to be equal to actual
emissions. The estimated inhalation cancer risk to the individual most
exposed to emissions from the source category is 6-in-1-million.
Approximately 800 people face an increased cancer risk greater than 1-
in-1 million due to inhalation exposure to HAP emissions from this
source category. The risk analysis indicates very low cancer incidence
(0.0006 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case every 1,667
years), as well as low potential for adverse chronic noncancer health
effects. The acute screening assessment indicates no pollutants or
facilities exceeding an HQ value of 1. Therefore, we find there is
little potential concern of acute noncancer health impacts. In
evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions of
lead from the source category, the risk assessment indicates no
significant potential for multipathway effects.
Considering all of the health risk information and factors
discussed above, including the uncertainties discussed in section III
of this preamble, the EPA proposes that the risks from the Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products source category are acceptable.
2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and Proposed Controls
As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we conducted an analysis to
determine if the current emissions standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health. Under the ample margin of safety
analysis, the EPA considers all health factors evaluated in the risk
assessment and evaluates the cost and feasibility of available control
technologies and other measures (including the controls, measures, and
costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be applied to
this source category to further reduce the risks (or potential risks)
due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk assessment. In this
analysis, we considered the results of the technology review, risk
assessment, and other aspects of our MACT rule review to determine
whether there are any cost-effective controls or other measures that
would reduce emissions further to provide an ample margin of safety
with respect to the risks associated with these emissions.
Although we are proposing that the risks from this source category
are acceptable, risk estimates for approximately 800 people in the
exposed population are above 1-in-1 million, caused by formaldehyde
emissions from one facility. The maximum acute risk is an HQ of 1 also
caused by formaldehyde. As a result, we further considered whether the
MACT standards for this source category provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health.
Our technology review did not identify any new practices, controls,
or process options that are being used in this industry, or in other
industries, that would be cost effective and result in further
reduction of formaldehyde emissions.\18\ Our review of the operating
permits for major sources subject to the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products MACT did not reveal any facilities with limits set
below the current new or existing source limits (Tables 1 and 2, 40 CFR
part 63, subpart QQQQ). Limits set below the current standards would
have been an indication that improved controls or lower emission
compliant coatings were available. As discussed in the technology
review memorandum, our review of the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
(RBLC) identified three sources that are potentially covered under 40
CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ, but none contained new control methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Technology Review for the Surface Coating of Wood Building
Products Source Category--Proposed Rule; see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because no new controls, technologies, processes, or work practices
were identified to reduce formaldehyde emissions and the risk
assessment determined that the health risks associated with HAP
emissions remaining after implementation of the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products MACT were acceptable, we are proposing that the
current standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety.
3. Adverse Environmental Effects
The emissions data for this source category indicate the presence
of one environmental HAP, lead, emitted by sources within this source
category. Based on the results of our environmental risk screening
assessment, we conclude that there is not an adverse environmental
effect as a result of HAP emissions from the Surface Coatings of Wood
Building Products source category.\19\ Thus, we are proposing that it
is not necessary to set a more stringent standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The environmental screening analysis is documented in
Residual Risk Assessment for Wood Building Products Surface Coating
Sources in Support of the February 2018 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology
review?
1. How did we evaluate technological developments?
Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires a review of ``developments in
practices, processes and control technologies'' in each source category
as part of the technology review process. For this technology review,
the ``developments'' we consider include:
Add-on control technology that was not identified during
the NESHAP development;
improvement to an existing add-on control technology
resulting in significant additional HAP emissions reductions;
work practice or operational procedure that was not
previously identified;
process change or pollution prevention alternative that
was not identified; or
a coating formulation or application technique that was
not previously identified.
2. What was our analysis and conclusions regarding technological
developments?
Our review of the developments in technology for the Surface
Coating of Wood Building Products source category did not reveal any
changes that require revisions to the emission standards. In the
original NESHAP, it was noted that ``the most prevalent form of
emission control for surface coating of wood building products is the
use of low-VOC and low-HAP coatings, such as waterborne or ultraviolet-
cured coatings.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Preliminary Industry Characterization: Wood Building
Products Surface Coating. Publication No. EPA-453/R-00-004.
September 1998. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/coat/flatw/wbppic.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review did not identify any new or improved add-on control
technology, any new work practices, operational procedures, process
changes, or new pollution prevention approaches that reduce emissions
in the category that have been implemented at wood building products
surface coating
[[Page 22769]]
operations since promulgation of the current NESHAP. Consequently, we
propose that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6).
D. What other actions are we proposing?
In addition to the proposed determinations described above, we are
proposing additional revisions. We are proposing revisions to the SSM
provisions of the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent
with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), which vacated two provisions that exempted sources from the
requirement to comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d)
emission standards during periods of SSM. We also are proposing various
other changes, including an alternative compliance calculation,
electronic submittal of notifications, compliance reports, and
performance test reports, a new EPA test method, incorporation by
reference (IBR) of several test methods (listed in section IV.D.5
below), and various technical and editorial changes. Additionally, we
are requesting comment on repeat emissions testing requirements for
facilities that demonstrate compliance with the standards using add-on
control devices. Our analyses and proposed changes related to these
issues are discussed in sections IV.D.1 through 6 of this preamble.
1. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's
CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that
under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations
must be continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the
CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously.
We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule,
which appears at 40 CFR 63.4700, 40 CFR 63.4720, and in Table 4 to
Subpart QQQQ of Part 63. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are
proposing standards in this rule that apply at all times. We are also
proposing several revisions to Table 4 (the General Provisions
Applicability Table) as is explained in more detail below. For example,
we are proposing to eliminate the incorporation of the General
Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM plan. We also
are proposing to eliminate and revise certain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption as further
described below.
The EPA has attempted to ensure that the provisions we are
proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in
the absence of the SSM exemption. We are specifically seeking comment
on whether we have successfully done so. The EPA believes the removal
of the SSM exemption creates no additional burden to facilities
regulated under the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP.
Deviations currently addressed by a facility's SSM Plan are required to
be reported in the Semiannual Compliance Report, a requirement that
remains under the proposal (40 CFR 63.4720). Facilities will no longer
need to develop an SSM Plan or keep it current (Table 4, 40 CFR part
63, subpart QQQQ). Facilities will also no longer have to file special
SSM reports for deviations not described in the their SSM Plan [40 CFR
63.4720(c)(2)]. We are specifically seeking comment on whether we have
successfully removed SSM exemptions without adding unforeseen burden.
Periods of startup and shutdown. In proposing the standards in this
rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and,
for the reasons explained below, is not proposing alternate standards
for those periods.
For add-on control systems, the Surface Coating of Wood Building
Products NESHAP requires the measurement of thermal oxidizer (TO)
operating temperature or catalytic oxidizer (CO) average temperature
across the catalyst bed as well as other types of parameter monitoring.
Parameter limits apply at all times, including during periods of
startup and shutdown. The Surface Coating of Wood Building Products
NESHAP requires TO or CO operating temperature and other add-on control
device operating parameters to be recorded at least once every 15
minutes. The Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP specifies
in 40 CFR 63.4763(c) that if an operating parameter is out of the
allowed range, this is a deviation from the operating limit and must be
reported as specified in 40 CFR 63.4710(c)(6) and 63.4720(a)(7).
Our permit review of the facilities using add-on control as a
compliance approach indicated that all were required, by permit, to
have their control system in operation during all time periods when
coating processes were operational. The rule requires compliance based
on a 12-month rolling average emissions calculation. Periods of startup
and shutdown are included, but, because of operational requirements in
the category, are a very small component of the emissions calculation.
Therefore, we are not proposing separate standards for startup and/or
shutdown periods.
Periods of malfunction. Periods of startup, normal operations, and
shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's
operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither predictable nor
routine. Instead they are, by definition, sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failures of emissions control, process or
monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 63.2, definition of malfunction). The EPA
interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions that occur during
periods of malfunction to be factored into development of CAA section
112 standards and this reading has been upheld as reasonable by the
Court in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under
CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less
stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar
source and for existing sources generally must be no less stringent
than the average emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best
performing 12 percent of sources in the category. There is nothing in
CAA section 112 that directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in
determining the level ``achieved'' by the best performing sources when
setting emission standards. As the Court has recognized, the phrase
``average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of'' sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the
best units is to be calculated.'' National Association of Clean Water
Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA
accounts for variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA
section 112 requires the Agency to consider malfunctions as part of
that analysis. The EPA is not required to treat a malfunction in the
same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs during
routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of the
source to perform in ``normal or usual manner,'' and no statutory
language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting CAA section
112 standards.
As the Court recognized in U.S. Sugar Corporation, accounting for
malfunctions in setting standards would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
[[Page 22770]]
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') As such, the performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra
Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically
has wide latitude in determining the extent of data-gathering necessary
to solve a problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to `invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.''') See also,
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the
nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.''). In
addition, emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly
higher than emissions at any other time of source operation. For
example, if an air pollution control device with 99-percent removal
goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might happen if, for
example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the emission unit is a
steady state type unit that would take days to shut down, the source
would go from 99-percent control to zero control until the control
device was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As such, the
emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Although no statutory language compels the EPA to set standards for
malfunctions, the EPA has the discretion to do so where feasible. For
example, in the Petroleum Refinery Sector RTR, the EPA established a
work practice standard for unique types of malfunction that result in
releases from pressure relief devices or emergency flaring events
because information was available to determine that such work practices
reflected the level of control that applies to the best performing
sources. 80 FR 75178, 75211-14 (December 1, 2015). The EPA will
consider whether circumstances warrant setting work practice standards
for a particular type of malfunction and, if so, whether the EPA has
sufficient information to identify the relevant best performing sources
and establish a standard for such malfunctions. We also encourage
commenters to provide any such information.
In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corporation v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610
(2016).
a. General Duty
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)-(2) by redesignating it as 40 CFR
63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a ``no.'' Section
63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize emissions. Some of
the language in that section is no longer necessary or appropriate
considering the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are proposing
instead to add general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.4700(b) that
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the
reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language
in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails
during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there
is no need to differentiate between normal operations and SSM events in
describing the general duty. Therefore, the language the EPA is
proposing for 40 CFR 63.4700(b) does not include that language from 40
CFR 63.6(e)(1).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
4) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ``no'' in
column 3. Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not
necessary with the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant
with the general duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.4700(b).
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
4) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(iii) and include a ``yes'' in
column 3.
Finally, we are proposing to revise the General Provisions table
(Table 4) to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(2) and include a ``no'' in
column 3. This paragraph is reserved and is not applicable to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart QQQQ.
b. SSM Plan
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
to add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and include a ``no'' in column 3.
Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and
specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM
plan. As noted, the EPA is proposing to remove the SSM exemptions.
Therefore, affected units will be subject to an emission standard
during such events. The applicability of a standard during such events
will ensure that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve
compliance, and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer
necessary.
[[Page 22771]]
c. Compliance With Standards
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
entries for 40 CFR 63.6(f) and (h) by re-designating these sections as
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The
current language in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) excludes sources from non-opacity
standards during periods of SSM, while the current language in 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1) excludes sources from opacity standards during periods of
SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires
that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. Consistent with
Sierra Club, the EPA is proposing to revise standards in this rule to
apply at all times.
d. Performance Testing
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e) by re-designating it as 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and
including a ``yes'' in column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes
performance testing requirements. Section 63.4764(a) of the current
rule specifies that performance testing must be conducted when the
emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at
representative conditions. You must document why the conditions
represent normal operation. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests
conducted under this subpart should not be conducted during
malfunctions because conditions during malfunctions are often not
representative of normal operating conditions. The EPA is proposing to
add language that requires the owner or operator to record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operations. Section 63.7(e) requires that
the owner or operator make available to the Administrator such records
``as may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance
test'' available to the Administrator upon request, but does not
specifically require the information to be recorded. The regulatory
text the EPA is proposing to add to this provision builds on that
requirement and makes explicit the requirement to record the
information.
e. Monitoring
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by re-designating 40 CFR 63.8(c) as 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1), adding entries
for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) through (iii) and including ``no'' in column 3
for paragraphs (i) and (iii). The cross-references to the general duty
and SSM plan requirements in those subparagraphs are not necessary
considering other requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require good air
pollution control practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the
requirements of a QC program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
f. Recordkeeping
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. Section 63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping
requirements during startup and shutdown. These recording provisions
are no longer necessary because the EPA is proposing that recordkeeping
and reporting applicable to normal operations will apply to startup and
shutdown. Special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such
as a startup and shutdown plan, have been removed from the rule (with
exceptions discussed below), thereby reducing the need for additional
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v) and including a
``no'' in column 3. When applicable, the provision requires sources to
record actions taken during SSM events when actions were inconsistent
with their SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because
SSM plans will no longer be required.
We are also proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table
4) by adding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' in
column 3. The EPA is proposing that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer
applies. When applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to
use the affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the
recordkeeping requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR
63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)
through (12). The EPA is proposing to eliminate this requirement
because SSM plans would no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 CFR
63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any useful purpose for affected units.
g. Reporting
We are proposing to revise the General Provisions table (Table 4)
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting requirements for
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To replace the General
Provisions reporting requirement for malfunctions, the EPA is proposing
to replace the SSM report under 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) with the existing
reporting requirements under 40 CFR 63.4720(a). The replacement
language differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it
eliminates periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are
proposing language that requires sources that fail to meet an
applicable standard at any time to report the information concerning
such events in the semiannual report to be required under the proposed
rule. We are proposing that the report must contain the number, date,
time, duration, and the cause of such events (including unknown cause,
if applicable), a list of the affected source or equipment, an estimate
of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission
limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
Examples of such methods would include mass balance calculations,
measurements when available, or engineering judgment based on known
process parameters. The EPA is proposing this requirement to ensure
that there is adequate information to determine compliance, to allow
the EPA to determine the severity of the failure to meet an applicable
standard, and to provide data that may document how the source met the
general duty to minimize emissions during a failure to meet an
applicable standard.
We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans would no longer be required. The proposed amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross-reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
The proposed amendments also eliminate the cross-reference to 40
CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii). Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate
report for startups, shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to
meet an applicable standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will
no longer require owners and operators to report when actions taken
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not consistent with an
SSM plan, because plans would no longer be required.
[[Page 22772]]
2. Alternative Compliance Calculations
An alternative monitoring request was submitted to the EPA which
proposed utilizing a HAP emission factor to demonstrate compliance with
the emission rate without add-on controls compliance option instead of
the current emission factor in the rule which assumes that all HAP in
the coating is emitted to the atmosphere. As discussed below, we are
proposing to include this compliance calculation approach in this
rulemaking to allow any facility utilizing a similar process to use the
approach without requiring the submittal of an alternative monitoring
request to the EPA under the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8(f). The proposed
amendment adds compliance flexibility, but does not alter the emission
standard.
The coating process uses a liquid catalyst to initiate chemical and
physical change of the coating materials by the formation of a cross-
linked polymer, and involves spraying wood panels with a two-part
mixture consisting of a HAP-containing resin and a non-HAP catalyst.
The catalyst polymerizes the resin to form the applied coating within a
matter of seconds. The result is that the HAP in the resin is nearly
completely polymerized and, as a result, the air emissions of HAP are a
very small fraction of the total HAP applied.
We are proposing to add a new equation to the existing compliance
demonstration calculations to more adequately represent the HAP amounts
emitted by this type of surface coating or any similar coating. The
existing equation assumes that all of the HAP in the coating is
emitted. Facilities wishing to apply this emission calculation method
could submit to the EPA an alternative monitoring request, however,
this would add a compliance burden. To reduce the burden, we are adding
alternative compliance demonstration equations, which do not assume 100
percent of the HAP in the coating is emitted. The proposed
demonstration equations would use a HAP emission factor based on
initial stack testing of the proposed coating process. This approach
quantifies emissions in a way that is representative of the actual
emissions from this coating operation.
2. Emissions Testing
The EPA is proposing amendments to the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products NESHAP that would provide an additional compliance
demonstration equation. Facilities using the proposed alternative
compliance demonstration equation (40 CFR 63.4751(i)) of the emission
rate without add-on controls option would be required to conduct an
initial performance test to demonstrate compliance. As explained in the
technical supporting memoranda accompanying this proposal,\18\
performance testing is needed to develop process specific emission
factors to demonstrate compliance for the new alternative equation. In
addition, requiring initial performance testing under the proposed
option would be equitable with respect to sources meeting the currently
promulgated compliance demonstration requirements, as facilities
demonstrating compliance through the currently promulgated emission
rate with add-on controls option (40 CFR 63.4691(c)) are already
required to conduct a similar initial air emissions performance test to
demonstrate compliance. This amendment is expected to impact one
facility, with a one-time cost of $22,000 for the initial performance
test.
Additionally, the EPA is requesting comment on whether a periodic
emissions testing provision should be added to the rule for sources
using add-on controls. Currently, there are four existing facilities
that have operating permits indicating the use of add-on control
devices for wood building product surface coating operations. Only one
of those facilities is not conducting a performance test on at least a
5-year frequency due to state requirements. The repeat performance
testing provision on which the Agency is requesting comment would
impact this facility if the provisions were finalized, with an
estimated cost of $22,000 for each repeat performance test. The
periodic testing provision on which the Agency is requesting comment
would also require facilities utilizing the proposed alternative
compliance demonstration equations (40 CFR 63.4751(i)) of the emission
rate without add-on controls option to conduct a periodic air emissions
performance test to develop process specific emissions factors to
demonstrate continuing compliance. The periodic testing provision which
the EPA is requesting comment would require one performance test at
least every 5 years. The inclusion of a periodic repeat testing
requirement would help demonstrate that emissions control equipment is
continuing to operate as designed and that the facility remains in
compliance with the standard.
3. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is proposing that owners and operators of facilities
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ submit electronic copies of
compliance reports, which include performance test reports, semiannual
reports, and notifications, through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). Specifically, we are proposing that owners and operators
create performance test reports using the Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT) and submit the performance test reports, as well as notifications
and semiannual reports through CEDRI. The EPA believes that the
electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this proposed
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability, will
further assist in the protection of public health and the environment,
and will ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community.
Under current requirements, paper reports are often stored in filing
cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more difficult to obtain and
use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic storage of such reports
makes data more accessible for review, analysis, and sharing.
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes,
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors and providing data
quickly and accurately to affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA,
and the public.
In 2011, in response to Executive Order 13563, the EPA developed a
plan \21\ to periodically review its regulations to determine if they
should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make
regulations more effective and less burdensome. The plan includes
replacing outdated paper reporting with electronic reporting. In
keeping with this plan and the White House's Digital Government
Strategy,\22\ in 2013 the EPA issued an agency-wide policy specifying
that new regulations will require reports to be electronic to the
maximum extent possible.\23\ By requiring electronic submission of
specified reports in this proposed rule,
[[Page 22773]]
the EPA is taking steps to implement this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic
Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations, August 2011.
Available at: https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-
OA-2011-0156-0154.
\22\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government-strategy.pdf
\23\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA website that stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE,
is easily accessible to everyone and provides a user-friendly interface
that any stakeholder can access. By making data readily available,
electronic reporting increases the amount of data that can be used for
many purposes. One example is the development of emissions factors. An
emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the
quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with an activity
associated with the release of that pollutant (e.g., kilograms of
particulate emitted per megagram of coal burned). Such factors
facilitate the estimation of emissions from various sources of air
pollution and are an important tool in developing emissions
inventories, which in turn are the basis for numerous efforts,
including trends analysis, regional- and local-scale air quality
modeling, regulatory impact assessments, and human exposure modeling.
Emissions factors are also widely used in regulatory applicability
determinations and in permitting decisions.
The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many
of the EPA's emissions factors are outdated or not representative of a
particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the
emissions factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we recognize
that the quality of emissions factors varies based on the extent and
quality of underlying data. We also recognize that emissions profiles
on different pieces of equipment can change over time due to a number
of factors (fuel changes, equipment improvements, industry work
practices), and it is important for emissions factors to be updated to
keep up with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emissions
factor development improvements that include procedures to incorporate
the source test data that we are proposing be submitted electronically.
By requiring the electronic submission of the reports identified in
this proposed action, the EPA would be able to access and use the
submitted data to update emissions factors more quickly and
efficiently, creating factors that are characteristic of what is
currently representative of the relevant industry sector. Likewise, an
increase in the number of test reports used to develop the emissions
factors will provide more confidence that the factor is of higher
quality and representative of the whole industry sector.
Additionally, by making the records, data, and reports addressed in
this proposed rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated
community, and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-
required technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having
performance test reports and air emission data readily accessible, our
ability to carry out comprehensive reviews will be increased and
achieved within a shorter period of time. These data will provide
useful information on control efficiencies being achieved and
maintained in practice within a source category and across source
categories for regulated sources and pollutants. These reports can also
be used to inform the technology-review process by providing
information on improvements to add-on control technology and new
control technology.
Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) would have air emissions and
performance test data in hand; OAQPS would not have to collect these
data from the EPA Regional offices or from delegated authorities or
industry sources in cases where these reports are not submitted to the
EPA Regional offices. Thus, we anticipate fewer or less substantial
information collection requests (ICRs) may be needed in conjunction
with prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. We
expect this to result in a decrease in time spent by industry to
respond to data collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain
less extensive stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack
test data electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost
savings to industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these
required reviews more quickly, as OAQPS will not have to include the
ICR collection time in the process or spend time collecting reports
from the EPA Regional offices. While the regulated community may
benefit from a reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from
the Agency's ability to provide these required reviews more quickly,
resulting in increased public health and environmental protection.
Electronic reporting minimizes submission of unnecessary or
duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple
government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's
electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where delegated
authorities continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will
accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the
option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to
submit to the delegated authorities, and, thus, minimize the time spent
reporting to multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage
costs associated with retaining paper records could likewise be
minimized by replacing those records with electronic records of
electronically submitted data and reports.
Delegated authorities could benefit from more streamlined and
automated review of the electronically submitted data. For example,
because performance test data would be readily-available in a standard
electronic format, delegated authorities would be able to review
reports and data electronically rather than having to conduct a review
of the reports and data manually. Having reports and associated data in
electronic format facilitates review through the use of software
``search'' options, as well as the downloading and analyzing of data in
spreadsheet format. Additionally, delegated authorities would benefit
from the reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's
electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need
access, as long as they have access to the Internet. The ability to
access and review reports electronically assists delegated authorities
in determining compliance with applicable regulations more quickly and
accurately, potentially allowing a faster response to violations, which
could minimize harmful air emissions. This change benefits both
delegated authorities and the public.
The proposed electronic reporting of data is consistent with
electronic data trends (e.g., electronic banking and income tax
filing). Electronic reporting of environmental data is already common
practice in many media offices at the EPA. The changes being proposed
in this rulemaking are needed to continue the EPA's transition to
electronic reporting.
As noted above, we are proposing that 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ
performance test reports be submitted through the EPA's ERT. With the
exception of the method proposed in conjunction with this rulemaking,
all test methods listed under 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ are
currently supported by the ERT. The proposal would require that
performance test results collected using test methods that are not
supported by the ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of
the test be submitted to the Administrator at the appropriate address
listed in 40 CFR 63.13, unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies
an alternate reporting method.
[[Page 22774]]
In addition to electronically reporting the results of performance
tests, we are proposing the requirement to electronically submit
notifications and the semiannual compliance report required in 40 CFR
63.4720. The proposal would require the owner or operator use the
appropriate spreadsheet template in CEDRI for the subpart. If the
reporting template specific to the subpart is not available at the time
that the report is due, the owner or operator would submit the report
to the Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in the General
Provisions. The owner or operator would begin submitting reports
electronically with the next report that is due, once the electronic
template has been available for at least 1 year. The EPA is currently
working to develop the templates for 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ. We
are specifically taking comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the spreadsheet templates, which are presented as an Excel
spreadsheet in the docket titled Electronic Reporting for Subpart QQQQ
Semiannual Reports.\24\ We plan to finalize a required reporting format
with the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Electronic Reporting for Subpart QQQQ Semiannual Reports;
see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in 40 CFR 63.4720(d)(2), the proposal also requires that
notifications be reported electronically though CEDRI. Currently, there
are no templates for notifications in CEDRI for this subpart.
Therefore, the owner or operator must submit these notifications in
portable document format (PDF).
Additionally, we have identified two broad circumstances in which
electronic reporting extensions may be provided. In both circumstances,
the decision to accept your claim of needing additional time to report
is within the discretion of the Administrator, and reporting should
occur as soon as possible.
In 40 CFR 63.4720(d)(3), we address the situation where an
extension may be warranted due to outages of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI
which preclude you from accessing the system and submitting required
reports. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due,
and the unavailability prevents the submission of a report by the
required date, the facility may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We
consider 5 business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an
appropriate timeframe because if the system is down prior to this time,
facilities will have 1 week to complete reporting once the system is
back online. However, if the CDX or CEDRI is down during the week a
report is due, we realize that this could greatly impact the ability to
submit a required report on time. We will notify facilities about known
outages as far in advance as possible by CHIEF Listserv notice, posting
on the CEDRI Web site and posting on the CDX Web site so that
facilities can plan accordingly and still meet the reporting deadline.
However, if a planned or unplanned outage occurs and a facility
believes that it will affect or it has affected compliance with an
electronic reporting requirement, we have provided a process to assert
such a claim.
In 40 CFR 63.4720(d)(4), we address the situation where an
extension may be warranted due to a force majeure event, which is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents compliance
with the requirement to submit a report electronically as required by
this rule. Examples of such events are acts of nature, acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazards beyond the control of
the facility. If such an event occurs or is still occurring or if there
are still linger effects of the event in the 5 business days prior to a
submission deadline, we have provided a process to assert a claim of
force majeure.
We are providing these potential extensions to protect facilities
from noncompliance in cases when a facility cannot successfully submit
a report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of its control
as described above. We are not providing an extension for other
instances. Facility representatives should register for CEDRI far in
advance of the initial compliance date in order to make sure that they
can complete the identity proofing process prior to the initial
compliance date. Additionally, we recommend developing reports early,
in case any questions arise during the reporting process.
4. New EPA Test Method 326
We are proposing EPA Method 326 to address technical issues related
to VOHAP content measured in certain surface coatings containing
isocyanates. Because there is currently no EPA test method for
isocyanate emissions, as part of this action, we are proposing specific
isocyanate compound sample collection and analytical requirements as
Method 326 of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A. Method 326 is based on ``A
Method for Measuring Isocyanates in Stationary Source Emissions'' which
was proposed on December 8, 1997 (62 FR 64532) as Method 207, but was
never promulgated. Method 326 does not significantly modify the
sampling and analytical techniques of the previously proposed method,
but includes additional QC procedures and associated performance
criteria to ensure the overall quality of the measurement.
Method 326 is based on the EPA Method 5 sampling train employing a
derivatizing reagent [1-(2-pyridyl) piperazine in toluene] in the
impingers to immediately stabilize the isocyanate compounds upon
collection. Collected samples are analyzed using high performance
liquid chromatography and an appropriate detector under laboratory
conditions sufficient to separate and quantify the isocyanate
compounds.
The sampling and analytical techniques were validated at three
sources according to EPA Method 301 (40 CFR 63, Appendix A) and the
report of this validation, titled Laboratory Development and Field
Evaluation of a Generic Method for Sampling and Analysis of
Isocyanates, can be found in the docket. Under the proposed rule, this
validated technique would be used to reliably collect and analyze
gaseous isocyanate emissions from Surface Coatings of Wood Building
Products for methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), methyl isocyanate
(MI), hex methylene 1,6 diisocyanate (HDI), and 2,4 toluene
diisocyanate (TDI). This method will also provide a tool for state and
local governments, industry, and the EPA to reliably measure emissions
of MDI, MI, HDI, and/or TDI from other types of stationary sources,
such as pressed board, flexible foam, and spray booths.
5. Incorporation by Reference Under 1 CFR Part 51
The EPA is proposing regulatory text that includes IBR. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
ANSI A135.4-2012, Basic Hardboard, IBR approved for 40
CFR 63.4781.
ASTM D1475-90, Standard Test Method for Density of
Paint, Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products, IBR approved for 40
CFR 63.4741(b) and (c) and 63.4751(c).
ASTM D1963-85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at
25/25[deg]C, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
ASTM D2111-95 (2000), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
[[Page 22775]]
ASTM D2369-01, Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a) and (b) and 63.4761(j).
ASTM D4840-99, Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-
Custody Procedures, IBR approved for Method 326 in appendix A to
part 63.
ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.4741(a)
and (b) and 63.4761(j).
ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method
for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including
Annexes A1 through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for 40
CFR 63.4751(i) and 63.4766(b).
While the ASTM methods D2697-86 and D6093-97 were incorporated by
reference when 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ was originally promulgated
(68 FR 31760), the methods are being cited in additional paragraphs in
the proposed rule, requiring a revision to their IBR. The ANSI method
and the other ASTM methods are being incorporated by reference for 40
CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ for the first time under this rulemaking.
6. Technical and Editorial Changes
The following are additional proposed changes that address
technical and editorial corrections:
Revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR
63.4764 to clarify ongoing compliance provisions to address startup and
shutdown periods when certain parameters cannot be met;
Revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR
63.4730 to include the requirement to record information on failures to
meet the applicable standard;
Revised the terminology in the delegation of authority
section in 40 CFR 63.4780 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90;
Revised the references to several test method appendices;
and
Revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table
4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ) to align with those sections of the
General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.
E. What compliance dates are we proposing?
The EPA is proposing that existing affected sources must comply
with the amendments in this rulemaking no later than 180 days after the
effective date of the final rule. The EPA is also proposing that
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after May
16, 2018 must comply with all requirements of the subpart, including
the amendments being proposed, no later than the effective date of the
final rule or upon startup, whichever is later. All affected existing
facilities would have to continue to meet the current requirements of
40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ until the applicable compliance date of
the amended rule. The final action is not expected to be a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the
final rule will be the promulgation date as specified in CAA section
112(d)(10). For existing sources, we are proposing two changes that
would impact ongoing compliance requirements for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart QQQQ. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, we are proposing
to add a requirement that notifications, performance test results, and
the semiannual reports using the new template be submitted
electronically. We are also proposing to change the requirements for
SSM by removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the
standard during SSM periods and by removing the requirement to develop
and implement an SSM plan. Additionally, we are proposing to add a new
compliance demonstration equation that adds flexibility to meeting the
standard, but this change does not affect ongoing compliance. Our
experience with similar industries that are required to convert
reporting mechanisms, install necessary hardware, install necessary
software, become familiar with the process of submitting performance
test results electronically through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new
electronic submission capabilities, reliably employ electronic
reporting, and convert logistics of reporting processes to different
time-reporting parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90
days, and more typically 180 days, is generally necessary to
successfully complete these changes. Our experience with similar
industries further shows that this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter
monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update
their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA
recognizes the confusion that multiple different compliance dates for
individual requirements would create and the additional burden such an
assortment of dates would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe
needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements,
the EPA considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious
compliance period practicable, and, thus, is proposing that existing
affected sources be in compliance with all of this regulation's revised
requirements within 180 days of the regulation's effective date. We
solicit comment on this proposed compliance period, and we specifically
request submission of information from sources in this source category
regarding specific actions that would need to be undertaken to comply
with the proposed amended requirements and the time needed to make the
adjustments for compliance with any of the revised requirements. We
note that information provided may result in changes to the proposed
compliance date.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
A. What are the affected sources?
There are currently 55 wood building product manufacturing
facilities operating in the United States that conduct surface coating
operations and are subject to the Surface Coating of Wood Building
Products NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ affected source is
the collection of all the items listed in 40 CFR 63.4682(b)(1) through
(4) that are used for surface coating of wood building products. A new
affected source is a completely new wood building products surface
coating source where previously no wood building products surface
coating source had existed.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP are
approximately 260 tpy. Compared to pre-MACT levels, this represents a
significant reduction of HAP for the category. Prior to the development
of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP, the EPA
estimated HAP emissions to be 14,311 tons annually.\25\ The proposed
amendments will require all 55 major sources with equipment subject to
the Wood Building Products Coating NESHAP to operate
[[Page 22776]]
without the SSM exemption. We were unable to quantify the specific
emissions reductions associated with eliminating the SSM exemption.
However, eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM
periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the Wood Building Products (Surface Coating) Industry--
Background Information for Proposed Standards; EPA-453/R-00-003; May
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA
expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this
rulemaking.
For further information, see the memorandum titled Cost Impacts of
the Subpart QQQQ Residual Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for
this action.
C. What are the cost impacts?
We estimate that each facility in the source category will
experience costs as a result of these proposed amendments that are
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs. Each
facility will experience costs to read and understand the rule
amendments. Costs associated with the elimination of the SSM exemption
were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and
include time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems.
Costs associated with the requirement to electronically submit
notifications and semi-annual compliance reports using CEDRI were
estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include
time for becoming familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for
semi-annual compliance reports. The recordkeeping and reporting costs
are presented in section V.III.C of this preamble.
The EPA estimates that one facility will be impacted from this
proposed regulatory action. This facility will conduct an initial
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the proposed
alternative compliance equation, as proposed in their request for an
alternative monitoring method. This initial performance test has a one-
time cost of $22,000. The total estimated labor costs for the rule are
summarized in the Supporting Statement for the ICR in the docket for
this action. The estimated labor cost includes an estimated labor cost
of $36,618 for all 55 affected facilities to become familiar with the
proposed rule requirements. For further information, see the memorandum
titled Cost Impacts of the Subpart QQQQ Residual Risk and Technology
Review, in the docket for this action.
D. What are the economic impacts?
Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a
proposed rule and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to a proposed rule.
For the one facility expected to conduct an initial performance
test and become familiar with the proposed rule requirements, the costs
associated with 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ's proposed requirements
are less than 0.001 percent of annual sales revenues. For the remaining
54 facilities, the costs associated with becoming familiar with the
proposed rule requirements are also less than 0.001 percent of annual
sales revenues. These costs are not expected to result in a significant
market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to the
purchaser or absorbed by the firms.
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA did not propose changes to the emission limit requirements
and estimates the proposed changes to SSM, recordkeeping, reporting,
and monitoring are not economically significant. Because these proposed
amendments are not considered economically significant, as defined by
Executive Order 12866 and because no emission reductions were
estimated, we did not estimate any benefits from reducing emissions.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in additional data that may improve the risk assessments and
other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any
improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles
used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category
risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for
download on the RTR website at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files include detailed information for each HAP
emissions release point for the facilities in the source category.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the
RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the
data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter
email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations,
etc.).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation
to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0678 (through the method described
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or
multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all
facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all
sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated
Microsoft[supreg] Excel files that are generated by the
Microsoft[supreg] Access file. These files are provided on the RTR
website at http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action
[[Page 22777]]
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2034.07. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0678), and it is briefly summarized here.
We are proposing changes to the paperwork requirements for the
Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP in the form of
eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements, and requiring
electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance
test reports), and some notifications.
Respondents/affected entities: Respondents include wood building
product manufacturing facilities with surface coating operations
subject to the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (authorized by
section 114 of the CAA).
Estimated number of respondents: 55.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item. Responses include initial notifications,
notification of compliance status, reports of periodic performance
tests, and semiannual compliance reports.
Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for this information collection, averaged over the first 3 years
of this ICR, is estimated to total 19,600 labor hours per year. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $1,418,000 per year in labor costs and an
additional one-time cost of $22,000 for an initial performance test at
one facility. Included in the $1,418,000 per year in labor cost
estimate is a labor cost of $36,618 for all 55 facilities to become
familiar with the proposed rule requirements.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than June 15, 2018. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. We conducted an Economic Impact analysis
which is available in the docket for this proposal, EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-
0678. For all the facilities affected by the proposal, including the
small businesses, the costs associated with the proposed rule
requirements are less than 0.001 percent of annual sales revenues. Our
conclusion is that there are no significant economic impacts on a
substantial number of small entities from these proposed amendments. We
have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory
burden for all directly regulated small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule imposes requirements on
owners and operators of wood building product surface coating
facilities and not tribal governments. The EPA does not know of any
wood building product surface coating facilities owned or operated by
Indian tribal governments. However, if there are any, the effect of
this rule on communities of tribal governments would not be unique or
disproportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products Source Category in Support of the March 2018 Risk and
Technology Review Proposed Rule, in the docket for this action.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA proposes to use
ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' as an alternative to
using
[[Page 22778]]
Method 320 under certain conditions and incorporate this alternative
method by reference. Method 320 is proposed to be added for the
measurement of organic HAP emissions if formaldehyde is a major organic
HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream. Also, instead of
the current ASTM D 6348-12e1 standard, the ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved
2010) standard is referenced in the Surface Coating of Wood Building
Products NESHAP. The QC criteria in ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) are
more closely matched to the testing requirements in this NESHAP. Use of
ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) is defined in 40 CFR 63.4751(i)(4).
ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) is an extractive Fourier Transform
Infrared Spectroscopy based field test method and is used to quantify
gas phase concentrations of multiple target compounds in emission
streams from stationary sources.
ANSI A135.4-2012 is reasonably available from the Composite Panel
Association, 19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306, Leesburg, VA 20176. The
standard specifies requirements and test methods for water absorption,
thickness swelling, modulus of rupture, tensile strength, surface
finish, dimensions, squareness, edge straightness, and moisture content
for five classes of hardboard, including tileboard, part of a
subcategory in the standard.
The EPA also proposes to use ASTM D4840-99, ``Standard Guide for
Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures,'' in Method 326 for its chain of
custody procedures and incorporate this alternative method by
reference. The ASTM D4840-99 guide contains a comprehensive discussion
of potential requirements for a sample chain-of-custody program and
describes the procedures involved in sample chain-of-custody. The
purpose of ASTM D4840-99 procedures is to provide accountability for
and documentation of sample integrity from the time samples are
collected until the time samples are disposed. Method 326 is proposed
to be added for the measurement of organic HAP emissions if isocyanate
is a major organic HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream.
The EPA proposes to use the following five VCS as alternatives to
Method 24 for the determination of volatile matter content, water
content, density, volume solids, and weight solids of surface coatings
and incorporate these VCS by reference:
ASTM D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/
25[deg]C.'' This test method is used for the determination of the
specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd resins, fatty acids,
and related materials.
ASTM D2111-95 (2000), ``Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures.'' These
test methods are used for the determination of the specific gravity of
halogenated organic solvents and solvent admixtures.
ASTM D2369-01, ``Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings.'' This test method describes a procedure used for the
determination of the weight percent volatile content of solvent-borne
and waterborne coatings.
ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), ``Standard Test Method
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.'' This
test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of
nonvolatile matter in coatings.
ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), ``Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.'' This test method is used for the
determination of the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and
pigmented coatings.
The ASTM standards are reasonably available from the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post
Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org/.
While the EPA has identified another 18 VCS as being potentially
applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS
in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other import
technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Wood Building
Products, in the docket for this proposed rule for the reasons for
these determinations.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of
this preamble and the technical report titled Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Wood Building Products Surface Coating Sources, which is located in the
public docket for this action.
We examined the potential for any EJ issues that might be
associated with the source category, by performing a demographic
analysis of the population close to the facilities. In this analysis,
we evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks
from the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP source
category across different social, demographic, and economic groups
within the populations living near facilities identified as having the
highest risks. The methodology and the results of the demographic
analyses are included in a technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Wood Building Product Surface Coating Facilities, available in the
docket for this action.
The results of the Surface Coating of Wood Building Products NESHAP
source category demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the
source category expose approximately 800 people to a cancer risk at or
above 1-in-1 million and no one exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI
greater than 1. The specific demographic results indicate that the
percentage of the population potentially impacted by emissions is
greater than its corresponding national percentage for the minority
population (84 percent for the source category compared to 38 percent
nationwide), the African American population (75 percent for the source
category compared to 12 percent nationwide) and for the population over
age 25 without a high school diploma (25 percent for the source
category compared to 14 percent nationwide). The proximity results
(irrespective of risk) indicate that the population percentages for
certain demographic categories within 5 km of source category emissions
are greater than the
[[Page 22779]]
corresponding national percentage for those same demographics. The
following demographic percentages for populations residing within close
proximity to facilities with Surface Coating of Wood Building Products
source category facilities are higher than the corresponding nationwide
percentage: African American, ages 65 and up, over age 25 without a
high school diploma, and below the poverty level.
The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are low
for all populations (e.g., inhalation cancer risks are less than 6-in-1
million for all populations and noncancer HIs are less than 1). We do
not expect this proposal to achieve significant reductions in HAP
emissions. We have concluded that this proposal will not have
unacceptable adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
or low-income populations. The proposal does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. However, this
proposal, if finalized, will provide additional benefits to these
demographic groups by improving the compliance, monitoring, and
implementation of the NESHAP.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Surface Coating of Wood
Building Products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 23, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (i) through (s) as (j) through (t);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (d) as (i);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (h) as (d) through (g);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (c) as (h);
0
e. Adding new paragraph (c).;
0
f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (g)(11);
0
g. Redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(60) through (g)(105)
as (g)(64) through (g)(109);
0
h. Redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(24) through (g)(59)
as (g)(27) through (g)(62);
0
i. Redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(20) through (g)(23)
as (g)(22) through (g)(25);
0
j. Redesignating newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(18) through (g)(19)
as (g)(19) through (g)(20);
0
k. Adding new paragraphs (g)(18), (21), (26) and (63); and
0
l. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(29), (77), and (82).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(c) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 W. 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, Telephone (212) 642-4980, and
http://www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI A135.4-2012, Basic Hardboard, approved June 8, 2012, IBR
approved for Sec. 63.4781.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(11) ASTM D1475-90, Standard Test Method for Density of Paint,
Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products, IBR approved for appendix A to
subpart II and Sec. Sec. 63.4741(b) and (c) and 63.4751(c).
* * * * *
(18) ASTM D1963-85 (1996), Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related Materials at 25/
25 [deg]C, approved 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.4741(a) and
63.4761(j).
* * * * *
(21) ASTM D2111-95 (2000), Standard Test Methods for Specific
Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures, approved
2000, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
* * * * *
(26) ASTM D2369-01, Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings,
approved 2001, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.4741(a) and 63.4761(j).
* * * * *
(29) ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.3161(f), 63.3521(b), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b),
63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4761(j), 63.4941(b), and 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
(63) ASTM D4840-99, Standard Guide for Sampling Chain-of-Custody
Procedures, approved 1999, IBR approved for Method 326 in appendix A to
part 63.
* * * * *
(77) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.3161, 63.3521,
63.3941, 63.4141, 63.4741(a) and (b), 63.4761(j), 63.4941(b), and
63.5160(c).
* * * * *
(82) ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1
through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.1571(a), 63.4651(i), 63.4766(b), Tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ,
tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU
and appendix B to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
Subpart QQQQ--[Amended]
0
3. Section 63.4683 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.4683 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
* * * * *
(a) For a new or reconstructed affected source, the compliance date
is the applicable date in paragraph (a)(1), (2) or (3) of this section:
(1) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected
source is before May 28, 2003, the compliance date is May 28, 2003;
except that the compliance date for the revised requirements
promulgated at Sec. Sec. 63.4683, 63.4700, 63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730,
63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764, 63.4766, 63.4781, Table 4
of this subpart QQQQ, and Appendix A of this subpart QQQQ published on
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] is [DATE
180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].
(2) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected
source occurs after May 28, 2003, the compliance date is the date of
initial startup of your affected source; except that if the initial
startup of your new or reconstructed affected source occurs after May
28, 2003, but on or before May 16, 2018, the compliance date for the
revised requirements promulgated at Sec. Sec. 63.4683, 63.4700,
63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764,
63.4766, 63.4781,
[[Page 22780]]
Table 4 of this subpart QQQQ, and Appendix A of this subpart QQQQ
published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] is [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
(3) If the initial startup of your new or reconstructed affected
source occurs after May 16, 2018, the compliance date is [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or the date of
startup, whichever is later.
(b) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is the
date 3 years after May 28, 2003, except that the compliance date for
the revised requirements promulgated at Sec. Sec. 63.4683, 63.4700,
63.4710, 63.4720, 63.4730, 63.4741, 63.4751, 63.4761, 63.4763, 63.4764,
63.4766, 63.4781, Table 4 of this subpart QQQQ, and Appendix A of this
subpart QQQQ published on [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER] is [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
0
4. Section 63.4700 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a)(2), paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) and (ii);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.4700 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) * * *
(2) Any coating operation(s) at existing sources for which you use
the emission rate with add-on controls option, as specified in Sec.
63.4691(c), must be in compliance with the applicable emission
limitations as specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the coating operation(s) must be in
compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4690 at all
times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with
the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4690 at all times.
(ii) Prior to [DATE 181 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with
the applicable operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on
control devices required by Sec. 63.4692 at all times, except during
periods of SSM, and except for solvent recovery systems for which you
conduct liquid-liquid material balances according to Sec. 63.4761(j).
After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], the coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control
devices required by Sec. 63.4692 at all times, except for solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances
according to Sec. 63.4761(j).
* * * * *
(3) For new or reconstructed sources with initial startup after May
16, 2018, any coating operation(s) for which you use the emission rate
with add-on controls option, as specified in Sec. 63.4691(c), must be
in compliance with the applicable emission limitations and work
practice standards as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii)
of this section.
(i) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4690 at all times.
(ii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
operating limits for emission capture systems and add-on control
devices required by Sec. 63.4692 at all times, except for solvent
recovery systems for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances
according to Sec. 63.4761(j).
(iii) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the work
practice standards in Sec. 63.4693 at all times.
(b) For existing sources as of May 16, 2018, prior to [DATE 181
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must
always operate and maintain your affected source, including all air
pollution control and monitoring equipment you use for purposes of
complying with this subpart, according to the provisions in Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i). After [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for such existing sources and after [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for new or
reconstructed sources, you must always operate and maintain your
affected source, including associated air pollution control equipment
and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general
duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
(d) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if your affected
source uses an emission capture system and add-on control device, you
must develop a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP)
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3). The SSMP must address
startup, shutdown, and corrective actions in the event of a malfunction
of the emission capture system or the add-on control device. The SSMP
must also address any coating operation equipment that may cause
increased emissions or that would affect capture efficiency if the
process equipment malfunctions, such as conveyors that move parts among
enclosures.
0
5. Section 63.4710 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(8)(ii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.4710 What notifications must I submit?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) For the emission rate without add-on controls option, provide
the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for each
month; the calculation of the total volume of coating solids used each
month; and the calculation of the 12-month organic HAP emission rate,
using Equations 1 and 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, 2, and 3,
respectively, of Sec. 63.4751.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.4720 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(6)(ii) and the introductory text of paragraph
(a)(7);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(7)(i) through (a)(7)(xiv) as paragraphs
(a)(7)(i)(A) through (a)(7)(i)(N);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(7)(i) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(ii) and the introductory text of paragraph
(c); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (d).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
[[Page 22781]]
Sec. 63.4720 What reports must I submit?
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) The calculations used to determine the 12-month organic HAP
emission rate for the compliance period in which the deviation
occurred. You must provide the calculations for Equations 1, 1A (or 1A-
alt) through 1C, 2, and 3 in Sec. 63.4751; and if applicable, the
calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in waste materials
according to Sec. 63.4751(e)(4). You do not need to submit background
data supporting these calculations (e.g., information provided by
materials suppliers or manufacturers, or test reports).
* * * * *
(7) Deviations: emission rate with add-on controls option. You must
be in compliance with the emission limitations in this subpart as
specified in paragraphs (7)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you used the
emission rate with add-on controls option and there was a deviation
from an emission limitation (including any periods when emissions
bypassed the add-on control device and were diverted to the
atmosphere), the semiannual compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)(A) through (N) of this section.
This includes periods of SSM during which deviations occurred.
* * * * *
(ii) After [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] for new and reconstructed sources and after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for
existing sources, if you used the emission rate with add-on controls
option and there was a deviation from an emission limitation (including
any periods when emissions bypassed the add-on control device and were
diverted to the atmosphere), the semiannual compliance report must
contain the information in paragraphs (a)(7)(ii)(A) through (M) of this
section.
(A) The beginning and ending dates of each compliance period during
which the 12-month organic HAP emission rate exceeded the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.4690.
(B) The calculations used to determine the 12-month organic HAP
emission rate for each compliance period in which a deviation occurred.
You must provide the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP
emissions for the coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used each
month, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1C of Sec. 63.4751; and, if
applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in
waste materials according to Sec. 63.4751(e)(4); the calculation of
the total volume of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of
Sec. 63.4751; the calculation of the mass of organic HAP emission
reduction each month by emission capture systems and add-on control
devices, using Equations 1 and 1A through 1D of Sec. 63.4761, and
Equations 2, 3, and 3A through 3C of Sec. 63.4761, as applicable; the
calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions each month,
using Equation 4 of Sec. 63.4761; and the calculation of the 12-month
organic HAP emission rate, using Equation 5 of Sec. 63.4761. You do
not need to submit the background data supporting these calculations
(e.g., information provided by materials suppliers or manufacturers, or
test reports).
(C) A brief description of the CPMS.
(D) The date of the latest CPMS certification or audit.
(E) The date and time that each CPMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(F) The date, time, and duration that each CPMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(G) The date and time period of each deviation from an operating
limit in Table 3 to this subpart, date and time period of any bypass of
the add-on control device.
(H) A summary of the total duration of each deviation from an
operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart, each bypass of the add-on
control device during the semiannual reporting period, and the total
duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that
semiannual reporting period.
(I) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations from the
operating limits in Table 3 to this subpart and bypasses of the add-on
control device during the semiannual reporting period by identifying
deviations due to control equipment problems, process problems, other
known causes, and other unknown causes; a list of the affected source
or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
(J) A summary of the total duration of CPMS downtime during the
semiannual reporting period and the total duration of CPMS downtime as
a percent of the total source operating time during that semiannual
reporting period.
(K) A description of any changes in the CPMS, coating operation,
emission capture system, or add-on control device since the last
semiannual reporting period.
(L) For each deviation from the work practice standards, a
description of the deviation, the date and time period of the
deviation, and the actions you took to correct the deviation.
(M) A statement of the cause of each deviation.
* * * * *
(c) SSM reports. For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if you used
the emission rate with add-on controls option and you had an SSM during
the semiannual reporting period, you must submit the reports specified
in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) Electronic reporting. (1) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec. 63.2) required by
this subpart, the owner or operator must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedure specified in either paragraph
(d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, the owner or operator must
submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via CEDRI. (CEDRI
can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file
format generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file
format consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema
listed on the EPA's ERT website. If the owner or operator claims that
some of the performance test information being submitted is
confidential business information (CBI), the owner or operator must
submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI
and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader,
Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham,
[[Page 22782]]
NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this
paragraph.
(ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported
by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test, the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance
test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.
63.13 unless the Administrator agrees to or specifies an alternative
reporting method.
(2) You must submit notifications and semiannual compliance reports
to the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/).) You must use the appropriate electronic report
in CEDRI for this subpart or an alternative electronic file format
consistent with the XML schema listed on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). If the reporting form
specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the
report is due, you must submit the report to the Administrator at all
the appropriate addresses listed in Sec. 63.13. Once the reporting
template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, you must begin
submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be
submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the
method in which the reports are submitted.
(3) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, and due to a planned or actual outage of either
the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems within the period of time beginning 5
business days prior to the date that the submission is due, you will be
or are precluded from accessing CEDRI or CDX and submitting a required
report within the time prescribed, you may assert a claim of EPA system
outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. You
must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first knew, or through due diligence
should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay in
reporting. You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying the date, time and length of the outage; a rationale for
attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory deadline to
the EPA system outage; describe the measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by which you
propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting requirement
at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In any
circumstance, the report must be submitted electronically as soon as
possible after the outage is resolved. The decision to accept the claim
of EPA system outage and allow an extension to the reporting deadline
is solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
(4) If you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX and a force majeure event is about to occur,
occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such an
event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to the
date the submission is due, the owner or operator may assert a claim of
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting
requirement. For the purposes of this section, a force majeure event is
defined as an event that will be or has been caused by circumstances
beyond the control of the affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility that prevents you from
complying with the requirement to submit a report electronically within
the time period prescribed. Examples of such events are acts of nature
(e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or terrorism,
or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage). If you intend to
assert a claim of force majeure, you must submit notification to the
Administrator in writing as soon as possible following the date you
first knew, or through due diligence should have known, that the event
may cause or caused a delay in reporting. You must provide to the
Administrator a written description of the force majeure event and a
rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event; describe the measures taken or to
be taken to minimize the delay in reporting; and identify a date by
which you propose to report, or if you have already met the reporting
requirement at the time of the notification, the date you reported. In
any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as possible after
the force majeure event occurs. The decision to accept the claim of
force majeure and allow an extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the Administrator.
0
7. Section 63.4730 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(3) and the introductory text of paragraph
(k);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) as paragraphs (k)(1)(i)
through (iv);
0
c. Adding new introductory text of paragraph (k)(1) and new paragraph
(k)(2);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(5)(i) through (iii) as paragraphs
(k)(1)(v)(A) through (C);
0
e. Redesignating introductory text of paragraph (k)(5) as introductory
text of paragraph (k)(1)(v) and revising the newly redesignated
paragraph;
0
f. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(6)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs
(k)(1)(vi)(A) and (B);
0
g. Redesignating introductory text of paragraph (k)(6) as introductory
text of paragraph (k)(1)(vi) and revising the newly redesignated
paragraph; and
0
h. Redesignating paragraphs (k)(7) and (8) as paragraphs (k)(1)(vii)
and (viii).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.4730 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) For the emission rate without add-on controls option, a record
of the calculation of the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the
coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials used each month, using
Equations 1, 1A (or 1A-alt) through 1C, and 2 of Sec. 63.4751; and, if
applicable, the calculation used to determine mass of organic HAP in
waste materials according to Sec. 63.4751(e)(4); the calculation of
the total volume of coating solids used each month, using Equation 2 of
Sec. 63.4751; and the calculation of each 12-month organic HAP
emission rate, using Equation 3 of Sec. 63.4751.
* * * * *
(k) If you use the emission rate with add-on controls option, you
must keep the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (2) of
this section.
(1) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]:
* * * * *
(v) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the
requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.4764 and 63.4765(b) through
(e), including the records specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(v)(A) through
(C) of this section that apply to you.
* * * * *
(vi) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(vi)(A) and (B) of
this section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or
removal efficiency determination as specified in Sec. 63.4766.
* * * * *
(2) After [DATE of PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
[[Page 22783]]
REGISTER] for new and reconstructed sources and after [DATE 180 DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] for
existing sources:
(i) The records required to show continuous compliance with each
operating limit specified in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to
you.
(ii) For each capture system that is a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to support a determination that the capture
system meets the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51
for a PTE and has a capture efficiency of 100 percent, as specified in
Sec. 63.4765(a).
(iii) For each capture system that is not a PTE, the data and
documentation you used to determine capture efficiency according to the
requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 63.4764 and 63.4765(b) through
(e), including the records specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iii)(A)
through (C) of this section that apply to you.
(A) Records for a liquid-to-uncaptured-gas protocol using a
temporary total enclosure or building enclosure. Records of the mass of
total volatile hydrocarbon (TVH) as measured by Method 204A or F of
appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for each material used in the coating
operation, and the total TVH for all materials used during each capture
efficiency test run, including a copy of the test report. Records of
the mass of TVH emissions not captured by the capture system that
exited the temporary total enclosure or building enclosure during each
capture efficiency test run as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix
M to 40 CFR part 51, including a copy of the test report. Records
documenting that the enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met
the criteria in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a
temporary total enclosure or a building enclosure.
(B) Records for a gas-to-gas protocol using a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure. Records of the mass of TVH emissions
captured by the emission capture system as measured by Method 204B or C
of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 at the inlet to the add-on control
device, including a copy of the test report. Records of the mass of TVH
emissions not captured by the capture system that exited the temporary
total enclosure or building enclosure during each capture efficiency
test run as measured by Method 204D or E of appendix M to 40 CFR part
51, including a copy of the test report. Records documenting that the
enclosure used for the capture efficiency test met the criteria in
Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51 for either a temporary total
enclosure or a building enclosure.
(C) Records for an alternative protocol. Records needed to document
a capture efficiency determination using an alternative method or
protocol as specified in Sec. 63.4765(e), if applicable.
(iv) The records specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(iv)(A) and (B) of
this section for each add-on control device organic HAP destruction or
removal efficiency determination as specified in Sec. 63.4766.
(A) Records of each add-on control device performance test
conducted according to Sec. Sec. 63.4764 and 63.4766.
(B) Records of the coating operation conditions during the add-on
control device performance test showing that the performance test was
conducted under representative operating conditions.
(v) Records of the data and calculations you used to establish the
emission capture and add-on control device operating limits as
specified in Sec. 63.4767 and to document compliance with the
operating limits as specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
(vi) A record of the work practice plan required by Sec. 63.4693,
and documentation that you are implementing the plan on a continuous
basis.
0
8. Section 63.4741 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2), the defined
terms ``mvolatiles'' and ``Davg'' in Equation 1
in the introductory text of paragraph (b)(3), and paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.4741 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Method 24 (appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). For coatings, you
may use Method 24 to determine the mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile
matter and use that value as a substitute for mass fraction of organic
HAP. (Note: Method 24 is not appropriate for those coatings with a
water content that would result in an effective detection limit greater
than the applicable emission limit.) One of the voluntary consensus
standards in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v) may be used as an
alternative to using Method 24.
(i) ASTM Method D1963-85 (1996), ``Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related
Materials at 25/25[deg]C,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14);
(ii) ASTM Method D2111-95 (2000), ``Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14);
(iii) ASTM Method D2369-01, ``Test Method for Volatile Content of
Coatings,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14);
(iv) ASTM Method D2697-86 (1998), ``Standard Test Method for Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14); and
(v) ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), ``Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
mvolatiles = Total volatile matter content of the
coating, including HAP, volatile organic compounds (VOC), water, and
exempt compounds, determined according to Method 24 in appendix A-7 of
40 CFR part 60, grams volatile matter per liter coating.
Davg = Average density of volatile matter in the
coating, grams volatile matter per liter volatile matter, determined
from test results using ASTM Method D1475-90, ``Standard Test Method
for Density of Paint, Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products,''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), information from the
supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources
providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there
is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-90 test results and other
information sources, the test results will take precedence.
(c) Determine the density of each coating. Determine the density of
each coating used during the compliance period from test results using
ASTM Method D1475-90, ``Standard Test Method for Density of Paint,
Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products,'' (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14), or information from the supplier or manufacturer of
the material. If there is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-90
test results and the supplier's or manufacturer's information, the test
results will take precedence.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 63.4751 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and the defined
term ``A'' in Equation 1 in the introductory text of paragraph (e) and
adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4751 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations?
* * * * *
(c) Determine the density of each material. Determine the density
of each
[[Page 22784]]
coating, thinner, and cleaning material used during each month from
test results using ASTM Method D1475-90, ``Standard Test Method for
Density of Paint, Varnish Lacquer, and Related Products,''
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14), information from the
supplier or manufacturer of the material, or reference sources
providing density or specific gravity data for pure materials. If there
is disagreement between ASTM Method D1475-90 test results and such
other information sources, the test results will take precedence.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
A = Total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month,
grams, as calculated in Equation 1A (or 1A-alt) of this section.
* * * * *
(i) Alternative compliance demonstration. As an alternative to
paragraph (h) of this section, you may demonstrate initial compliance
by conducting a performance test using Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40
CFR part 60 or Method 320 or 326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 for
formaldehyde or isocyanates respectively to obtain an organic HAP
emission factor (EF). The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-03
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) may be used as an
alternative to using Method 320 under the conditions specified in
paragraphs (i)(4)(A) and (B) of this section.
(1) You must also calculate the mass of organic HAP emitted from
the coatings used during the month using Equation 1A-alt of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.000
Where:
A = Total mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the month,
grams.
Volc,i = Total volume of coating, i, used during the
month, liters.
Dc,j = Density of coating, i, grams coating per liter of
coatings.
Wc,i = Mass fraction of organic HAP in coating, i, grams
organic HAP per gram coating.
EFc,i = Organic HAP emission factor (three run average
from performance testing, evaluated as proportion of mass organic
HAP emitted to mass of organic HAP in the coatings used during the
performance test).
m = Number of different coatings used during the month.
(2) Calculate the organic HAP emission rate for the 12-month
compliance period, grams organic HAP per liter coating solids used,
using Equation 3 of this section.
(3) The organic HAP emission rate for the initial 12-month
compliance period, calculated using Equation 3 of this section, must be
less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.4690.
You must keep all records as required by Sec. Sec. 63.4730 and
63.4731. As part of the Notification of Compliance Status required by
Sec. 63.4710, you must identify the coating operation(s) for which you
used the emission rate without add-on controls option and submit a
statement that the coating operation(s) was (were) in compliance with
the emission limitations during the initial compliance period because
the organic HAP emission rate was less than or equal to the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.4690, determined according to this section.
(4) If ASTM D6348-03 is used, the conditions specified in
paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) must be met.
(i) Test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM
D6348-03, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
(ii) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the
percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5
of ASTM D6348-03). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a
compound, %R must be between 70 and 130 percent. If the %R value does
not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not
acceptable for that compound, and the test must be repeated for that
analyte following adjustment of the sampling and/or analytical
procedure before the retest. The %R value for each compound must be
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound using the
following equation: Reported Result = (Measured Concentration in the
Stack x 100)/%R.
0
10. Section 63.4761 is amended by revising paragraph (j)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4761 How do I demonstrate initial compliance?
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) Determine the mass fraction of volatile organic matter for each
coating, thinner, and cleaning material used in the coating operation
controlled by the solvent recovery system during the month, grams
volatile organic matter per gram coating. You may determine the
volatile organic matter mass fraction using Method 24 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7, one of the voluntary consensus standards specified in
Sec. 63.4741(a)(2)(i) through (v) (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method, or you may use
information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the coating. In
the event of any inconsistency between information provided by the
manufacturer or supplier and the results of Method 24 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A-7, or an approved alternative method, the test method
results will take precedence unless after consultation, a regulated
source could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency
that the formulation data were correct.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.4763 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.4763 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations?
(h) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], consistent with
Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that occur during a
period of SSM of the emission capture system, add-on control device, or
coating operation that may affect emission capture or control device
efficiency are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1). The Administrator will determine whether deviations that
occur during a period you identify as an SSM are violations, according
to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).
0
12. Section 63.4764 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.4764 What are the general requirements for performance tests?
(a) * * *
(1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions.
You may not
[[Page 22785]]
conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must
record the process information that is necessary to document operating
conditions during the test and explain why the conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating
at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record
information that is necessary to document emission capture system and
add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain
why the conditions represent normal operation.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.4766 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (b);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (d) and (f).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.4766 How do I determine the add-on control device emission
destruction or removal efficiency?
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Use Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, to select sampling sites and velocity traverse points.
(2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part
60, or Method 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as appropriate, to
measure gas volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You
may also use as an alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for
measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of
exhaust gas in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus]'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(4) Use Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 to determine
stack gas moisture.
* * * * *
(b) Measure total gaseous organic mass emissions as carbon at the
inlet and outlet of the add-on control device simultaneously, using
Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60, and Method 320 or
326 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM
D6348-03 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.14) may be used as an
alternative to using Method 320 if the conditions specified in Sec.
63.4751(i)(4)(A) and (B) are met. You must use the same method for both
the inlet and outlet measurements.
(1) Use Method 25 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on
control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic
concentration as carbon to be more than 50 parts per million (ppm) at
the control device outlet.
(2) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on
control device is an oxidizer, and you expect the total gaseous organic
concentration as carbon to be 50 ppm or less at the control device
outlet.
(3) Use Method 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 if the add-on
control device is not an oxidizer.
(4) If Method 25A is used, and if formaldehyde is a major organic
HAP component of the surface coating exhaust stream, use Method 320 of
appendix A to 40 CFR part 63 or ASTM D6348-03 (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 63.14) to determine formaldehyde concentration.
(5) In addition to Method 25 or 25A, use Method 326 of appendix A
to 40 CFR part 63 if isocyanate is a major organic HAP component of the
surface coating exhaust stream.
* * * * *
(d) For each test run, determine the total gaseous organic
emissions mass flow rates for the inlet and the outlet of the add-on
control device, using Equation 1 of this section. If there is more than
one inlet or outlet to the add-on control device, you must calculate
the total gaseous organic mass flow rate using Equation 1 of this
section for each inlet and each outlet and then total all of the inlet
emissions and total all of the outlet emissions. The mass emission
rates for formaldehyde and individual isocyanate must be determined
separately.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.001
Where:
Mf = Total gaseous organic emissions mass flow rate,
grams per hour (h).
MW = Molecular weight of analyte of interest (12 for Method 25 and
25A results).
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds in the vent gas
(as carbon if determined by Method 25 or Method 25A), parts per
million by volume (ppmv), dry basis.
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting
the add-on control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,
2F, or 2G, dry standard cubic meters/hour (dscm/h).
41.6 = Conversion factor for molar volume, gram-moles per cubic
meter (mol/m\3\) (@293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury
(mmHg)).
* * * * *
(f) Determine the emission destruction or removal efficiency of the
add-on control device as the average of the efficiencies determined in
the three test runs and calculated in Equation 2 of this section.
Destruction and removal efficiency must be determined independently for
formaldehyde and isocyanates.
0
14. Section 63.4781 is amended by revising paragraph (3) under the
definition of ``deviation'' and revising the definition of
``tileboard'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.4781 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
* * * * *
(3) For existing sources until [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if your affected
source fails to meet any emission limit, or operating limit, or work
practice standard in this subpart during SSM, regardless of whether or
not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
* * * * *
Tileboard means hardboard that meets the specifications for Class I
given by the standard ANSI A135.4-2012 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 63.14) as approved by the American National
[[Page 22786]]
Standards Institute. The standard specifies requirements and test
methods for water absorption, thickness swelling, modulus of rupture,
tensile strength, surface finish, dimensions, squareness, edge
straightness, and moisture content for five classes of hardboard.
Tileboard is also known as Class I hardboard or tempered hardboard.
0
15. Table 4 to subpart QQQQ is amended to read as follows:
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements
according to the following table:
Table 4 to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart QQQQ of Part 63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applicable to subpart QQQQ Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(14)............ General Applicability.. Yes.......................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)-(3)............. Initial Applicability Yes....................... Applicability to
Determination. subpart QQQQ is also
specified in Sec.
63.4681.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)................. Applicability After Yes.......................
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)................. Applicability of Permit No........................ Area sources are not
Program for Area subject to subpart
Sources. QQQQ.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)................. [Reserved]............. No........................
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5)............. Extensions and Yes.......................
Notifications.
Sec. 63.1(d).................... [Reserved]............. No........................
Sec. 63.1(e).................... Applicability of Permit Yes.......................
Program Before
Relevant Standard is
Set.
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions............ Yes....................... Additional definitions
are specified in Sec.
63.4781.
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)................ Units and Abbreviations Yes.......................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(5)............. Prohibited Activities.. Yes.......................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)................ Circumvention/ Yes.......................
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a).................... Construction/ Yes.......................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)-(6)............. Requirements for Yes.......................
Existing, Newly
Constructed, and
Reconstructed Sources.
Sec. 63.5(c).................... [Reserved]............. No........................
Sec. 63.5(d).................... Application for Yes.......................
Approval of
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e).................... Approval of Yes.......................
Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f).................... Approval of Yes.......................
Construction/
Reconstruction Based
on Prior State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a).................... Compliance With Yes.......................
Standards and
Maintenance
Requirements--Applicab
ility.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(7)............. Compliance Dates for Yes....................... Sec. 63.4683
New and Reconstructed specifies compliance
Sources. dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(5)............. Compliance Dates for Yes....................... Sec. 63.4683
Existing Sources. specifies compliance
dates.
Sec. 63.6(d).................... [Reserved]............. No........................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).............. General Duty to No........................ See Sec. 63.4700(b)
Minimize Emissions. for general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)............. Requirement to Correct No........................
Malfunctions ASAP.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)............ Operation and Yes.......................
Maintenance
Requirements
Enforceable
Independent of
Emissions Limitations.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)................. [Reserved]............. No........................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................. SSMP................... No........................
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. Compliance Except No........................
During SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)............. Methods for Determining Yes.......................
Compliance.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)............. Use of an Alternative Yes.......................
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h).................... Compliance with Opacity/ No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
Visible Emissions establish opacity
Standards. standards and does not
require continuous
opacity monitoring
systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(16)............ Extension of Compliance Yes.......................
Sec. 63.6(j).................... Presidential Compliance Yes.......................
Exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)................. Performance Test Yes....................... Applies to all affected
Requirements--Applicab sources. Additional
ility. requirements for
performance testing
are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.4764,
63.4765, and 63.4766.
Sec. 63.7(a)(2)................. Performance Test Yes....................... Applies only to
Requirements--Dates. performance tests for
capture system and
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standard.
Sec. 63.4760
specifies the schedule
for performance test
requirements that are
earlier than those
specified in Sec.
63.7(a)(2).
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................. Performance Tests Yes.......................
Required By the
Administrator.
Sec. 63.7(a)(4)................. Notification of Delay Yes.......................
in Performance Testing
Due to Force Majeure.
Sec. 63.7(b)-(e)................ Performance Test Yes....................... Applies only to
Requirements--Notifica performance tests for
tion, Quality capture system and add-
Assurance, Facilities on control device
Necessary for Safe efficiency at sources
Testing, Conditions using these to comply
During Test. with the standard.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................. Performance Testing.... Yes.......................
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Performance Test Yes....................... Applies to all test
Requirements--Use of methods except those
Alternative Test used to determine
Method. capture system
efficiency.
[[Page 22787]]
Sec. 63.7(g)-(h)................ Performance Test Yes....................... Applies only to
Requirements--Data performance tests for
Analysis, capture system and add-
Recordkeeping, on control device
Reporting, Waiver of efficiency at sources
Test. using these to comply
with the standard.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)............. Monitoring Yes....................... Applies only to
Requirements--Applicab monitoring of capture
ility. system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standard.
Additional
requirements for
monitoring are
specified in Sec.
63.4768.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................. [Reserved]............. No........................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................. Additional Monitoring No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
Requirements. have monitoring
requirements for
flares.
Sec. 63.8(b).................... Conduct of Monitoring.. Yes.......................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)................. Continuous Monitoring Yes....................... Applies only to
System (CMS) Operation monitoring of capture
and Maintenance. system and add-on
control device
efficiency at sources
using these to comply
with the standard.
Additional
requirements for CMS
operations and
maintenance are
specified in Sec.
63.4768.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).............. General Duty to No........................
Minimize Emissions and
CMS Operation.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............. Operation and Yes.......................
Maintenance of CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............ Requirement to Develop No........................
SSM Plan for CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)............. Monitoring System Yes.......................
Installation.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. CMSs................... No........................ Sec. 63.4768
specifies the
requirements for the
operation of CMS for
capture systems and
add-on control devices
at sources using these
to comply.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................. COMS................... No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
have opacity for
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................. CMS Requirements....... Yes....................... Sec. 63.4768
specifies the
requirements for
monitoring systems for
capture systems and
add-on control devices
at sources using these
to comply.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)................. CMS Out-of-Control Yes.......................
Periods.
Sec. 63.8(c)(8)................. CMS Out-of-Control No........................ Sec. 63.4720 requires
Periods Reporting. reporting of CMS out-
of-control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)................ Quality Control Program No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
and CMS Performance require the use of
Evaluation. continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............. Use of an Alternative Yes.......................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................. Alternative to Relative No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
Accuracy Test. require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(5)............. Data Reduction......... No........................ Sec. Sec. 63.4767
and 63.4768 specify
monitoring data
reduction.
Sec. 63.9(a)-(d)................ Notification Yes.......................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of Yes....................... Applies only to capture
Performance Test. system and add-on
control device
performance tests at
sources using these to
comply with the
standard.
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of Visible No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. have opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)-(3)............. Additional No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
Notifications When require the use of
Using CMS. continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.9(h).................... Notification of Yes....................... Sec. 63.4710
Compliance Status. specifies the dates
for submitting the
notification of
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(i).................... Adjustment of Submittal Yes.......................
Deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j).................... Change in Previous Yes.......................
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Recordkeeping/ Yes.......................
Reporting--Applicabili
ty and General
Information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................ General Recordkeeping Yes....................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
Sec. 63.4730 and
63.4731.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)........ Recordkeeping of No........................
Occurrence and
Duration of Startups
and Shutdowns.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)........... Recordkeeping Relevant Yes.......................
to CMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)........ Recordkeeping Relevant No........................
to SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)....... Recordkeeping for CMS Yes.......................
Malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)........... Records................ Yes.......................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......... ....................... No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........... ....................... Yes.......................
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Recordkeeping Yes.......................
Requirements for
Applicability
Determinations.
[[Page 22788]]
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)-(6)............ Additional Yes.......................
Recordkeeping
Requirements for
Sources with CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7)-(8)............ ....................... No........................ The same records are
required in Sec.
63.4720(a) (7).
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)-(14)........... ....................... Yes.......................
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)............... Use of SSM Plan........ No........................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................ General Reporting Yes....................... Additional requirements
Requirements. are specified in Sec.
63.4720.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................ Report of Performance Yes....................... Additional requirements
Test Results. are specified in Sec.
63.4720(b).
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................ Reporting Opacity or No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
Visible Emissions require opacity or
Observations. visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................ Progress Reports for Yes.......................
Sources With
Compliance Extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................ SSM Reports............ No........................ Malfunctions shall be
reported based on
compliance option
under Sec.
63.4720(a)(5-7).
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)............ Additional CMS Reports. No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
require the use of
continuous emissions
monitoring systems.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................ Excess Emissions/CMS No........................ Sec. 63.4720(b)
Performance Reports. specifies the contents
of periodic compliance
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................ COMS Data Reports...... No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
specify requirements
for opacity or COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)................... Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes.......................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11...................... Control Device No........................ Subpart QQQQ does not
Requirements/Flares. specify use of flares
for compliance.
Sec. 63.12...................... State Authority and Yes.......................
Delegations.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses.............. Yes.......................
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by Yes....................... Test Methods ANSI
Reference. A135.4-2012, ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10-1981, Part
10, ASTM D1475-90,
ASTM D1963-85, ASTM
D2111-95 (2000), ASTM
D2369-01, ASTM D2697-
86 (Reapproved 1998),
ASTM D4840-99, ASTM
D6093-97 (Reapproved
2003), and ASTM D6348-
03 (Reapproved 2010)
(incorporated by
reference, see Sec.
63.14).
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Yes.......................
Information/
Confidentiality.
Sec. 63.16...................... Requirements for Yes.......................
Performance Track
Member Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
16. Appendix A to Part 63 is amended to add Method 326 to read as
follows:
Method 326--Method for Determination of Isocyanates in Stationary
Source Emissions
1.0 Scope and Application
This method is applicable to the collection and analysis of
isocyanate compounds from the emissions associated with manufacturing
processes. This method is not inclusive with respect to specifications
(e.g., equipment and supplies) and sampling procedures essential to its
performance. Some material is incorporated by reference from other EPA
methods. Therefore, to obtain reliable results, persons using this
method should have a thorough knowledge of at least Method 1, Method 2,
Method 3, and Method 5 found in Appendices A-1, A-2, and A-3 in Part 60
of this title.
1.1 Analytes. This method is designed to determine the mass
emission of isocyanates being emitted from manufacturing processes. The
following is a table (Table 1-1) of the isocyanates and the
manufacturing process at which the method has been evaluated:
Table 326-1--Analytes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detection
Compound's name CAS No. limit (ng/ Manufacturing process
m\3\) \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI)..... 584-84-9 106 Flexible Foam Production.
1,6-Hexamethylene Diisocyanate 822-06-0 396 Paint Spray Booth.
(HDI).
Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate 101-68-8 112 Pressed Board Production.
(MDI).
Methyl Isocyanate(MI).............. 624-83-0 228 Not used in production.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Estimated detection limits are based on a sample volume of 1 m\3\ and a 10-ml sample extraction volume.
1.2 Applicability. Method 326 is a method designed for determining
compliance with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP). Method 326 may also be specified by New Source
Performance
[[Page 22789]]
Standards (NSPS), State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and operating
permits that require measurement of isocyanates in stationary source
emissions, to determine compliance with an applicable emission standard
or limit.
1.3 Data Quality Objectives (DQO). The principal objective is to
ensure the accuracy of the data at the actual emissions levels and in
the actual emissions matrix encountered. To meet this objective, method
performance tests are required and NIST-traceable calibration standards
must be used.
2.0 Summary of Method
2.1 Gaseous and/or aerosol isocyanates are withdrawn from an
emission source at an isokinetic sampling rate and are collected in a
multicomponent sampling train. The primary components of the train
include a heated probe, three impingers containing derivatizing reagent
in toluene, an empty impinger, an impinger containing charcoal, and an
impinger containing silica gel.
2.2 The liquid impinger contents are recovered, concentrated to
dryness under vacuum, brought to volume with acetonitrile (ACN) and
analyzed with a high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC).
3.0 Definitions [Reserved]
4.0 Interferences
4.1 The greatest potential for interference comes from an impurity
in the derivatizing reagent, 1-(2-pyridyl)piperazine (1,2-PP). This
compound may interfere with the resolution of MI from the peak
attributed to unreacted 1,2-PP.
4.2 Other interferences that could result in positive or negative
bias are (1) alcohols that could compete with the 1,2-PP for reaction
with an isocyanate and (2) other compounds that may co-elute with one
or more of the derivatized isocyanates.
4.3 Method interferences may be caused by contaminants in solvents,
reagents, glassware, and other sample processing hardware. All these
materials must be routinely shown to be free from interferences under
conditions of the analysis by preparing and analyzing laboratory method
(or reagent) blanks.
4.3.1 Glassware must be cleaned thoroughly before using. The
glassware should be washed with laboratory detergent in hot water
followed by rinsing with tap water and distilled water. The glassware
may be dried by baking in a glassware oven at 400 [deg]C for at least
one hour. After the glassware has cooled, it should be rinsed three
times with methylene chloride and three times with acetonitrile.
Volumetric glassware should not be heated to 400 [deg]C. Instead, after
washing and rinsing, volumetric glassware may be rinsed with
acetonitrile followed by methylene chloride and allowed to dry in air.
4.3.2 The use of high purity reagents and solvents helps to reduce
interference problems in sample analysis.
5.0 Safety
5.1 Organizations performing this method are responsible for
maintaining a current awareness file of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations regarding safe handling of the
chemicals specified in this method. A reference file of material safety
data sheets should also be made available to all personnel involved in
performing the method. Additional references to laboratory safety are
available.
6.0 Equipment and Supplies
6.1 Sample Collection. A schematic of the sampling train used in
this method is shown in Figure 207-1. This sampling train configuration
is adapted from Method 5 procedures, and, as such, most of the required
equipment is identical to that used in Method 5 determinations. The
only new component required is a condenser.
6.1.1 Probe Nozzle. Borosilicate or quartz glass; constructed and
calibrated according to Method 5, sections 6.1.1.1 and 10.1, and
coupled to the probe liner using a Teflon union; a stainless steel nut
is recommended for this union. When the stack temperature exceeds 210
[deg]C (410 [deg]F), a one-piece glass nozzle/liner assembly must be
used.
6.1.2 Probe Liner. Same as Method 5, section 6.1.1.2, except metal
liners shall not be used. Water-cooling of the stainless steel sheath
is recommended at temperatures exceeding 500 [deg]C (932 [deg]F).
Teflon may be used in limited applications where the minimum stack
temperature exceeds 120 [deg]C (250 [deg]F) but never exceeds the
temperature where Teflon is estimated to become unstable [approximately
210 [deg]C (410 [deg]F)].
6.1.3 Pitot Tube, Differential Pressure Gauge, Filter Heating
System, Metering System, Barometer, Gas Density Determination
Equipment. Same as Method 5, sections 6.1.1.3, 6.1.1.4, 6.1.1.6,
6.1.1.9, 6.1.2, and 6.1.3.
6.1.4 Impinger Train. Glass impingers are connected in series with
leak-free ground-glass joints following immediately after the heated
probe. The first impinger shall be of the Greenburg-Smith design with
the standard tip. The remaining five impingers shall be of the modified
Greenburg-Smith design, modified by replacing the tip with a 1.3-cm (1/
2-in.) I.D. glass tube extending about 1.3 cm (1/2 in.) from the bottom
of the outer cylinder. A water-jacketed condenser is placed between the
outlet of the first impinger and the inlet to the second impinger to
reduce the evaporation of toluene from the first impinger.
6.1.5 Moisture Measurement. For the purpose of calculating
volumetric flow rate and isokinetic sampling, you must also collect
either Method 4 in Appendix A-3 to this part or other moisture
measurement methods approved by the Administrator concurrent with each
Method 326 test run.
6.2 Sample Recovery
6.2.1 Probe and Nozzle Brushes; Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
bristle brushes with stainless steel wire or PTFE handles are required.
The probe brush shall have extensions constructed of stainless steel,
PTFE, or inert material at least as long as the probe. The brushes
shall be properly sized and shaped to brush out the probe liner and the
probe nozzle.
6.2.2 Wash Bottles. Three. PTFE or glass wash bottles are
recommended; polyethylene wash bottles must not be used because organic
contaminants may be extracted by exposure to organic solvents used for
sample recovery.
6.2.3 Glass Sample Storage Containers. Chemically resistant,
borosilicate amber glass bottles, 500-mL or 1,000-mL. Bottles should be
tinted to prevent the action of light on the sample. Screw-cap liners
shall be either PTFE or constructed to be leak-free and resistant to
chemical attack by organic recovery solvents. Narrow-mouth glass
bottles have been found to leak less frequently.
6.2.4 Graduated Cylinder. To measure impinger contents to the
nearest 1 ml or 1 g. Graduated cylinders shall have subdivisions not >2
mL.
6.2.5 Plastic Storage Containers. Screw-cap polypropylene or
polyethylene containers to store silica gel and charcoal.
6.2.6 Funnel and Rubber Policeman. To aid in transfer of silica gel
or charcoal to container (not necessary if silica gel is weighed in
field).
6.2.7 Funnels. Glass, to aid in sample recovery.
6.3 Sample Preparation and Analysis.
The following items are required for sample analysis.
6.3.1 Rotary Evaporator. Buchii Model EL-130 or equivalent.
6.3.2 1000 ml Round Bottom Flask for use with a rotary evaporator.
[[Page 22790]]
6.3.3 Separatory Funnel. 500-ml or larger, with PTFE stopcock.
6.3.4 Glass Funnel. Short-stemmed or equivalent.
6.3.5 Vials. 15-ml capacity with PTFE lined caps.
6.3.6 Class A Volumetric Flasks. 10-ml for bringing samples to
volume after concentration.
6.3.7 Filter Paper. Qualitative grade or equivalent.
6.3.8 Buchner Funnel. Porcelain with 100 mm ID or equivalent.
6.3.9 Erlenmeyer Flask. 500-ml with side arm and vacuum source.
6.3.10 HPLC with at least a binary pumping system capable of a
programmed gradient.
6.3.11 Column Systems Column systems used to measure isocyanates
must be capable of achieving separation of the target compounds from
the nearest eluting compound or interferents with no more than 10
percent peak overlap.
6.3.12 Detector. UV detector at 254 nm. A fluoresence detector (FD)
with an excitation of 240 nm and an emission at 370 nm may be also used
to allow the detection of low concentrations of isocyanates in samples.
6.3.13 Data system for measuring peak areas and retention times.
7.0 Reagents and Standards
7.1 Sample Collection Reagents.
7.1.1 Charcoal. Activated, 6-16 mesh. Used to absorb toluene vapors
and prevent them from entering the metering device. Use once with each
train and discard.
7.1.2 Silica Gel and Crushed Ice. Same as Method 5, sections 7.1.2
and 7.1.4 respectively.
7.1.3 Impinger Solution. The impinger solution is prepared by
mixing a known amount of 1-(2-pyridyl) piperazine (purity 99.5+ %) in
toluene (HPLC grade or equivalent). The actual concentration of 1,2-PP
should be approximately four times the amount needed to ensure that the
capacity of the derivatizing solution is not exceeded. This amount
shall be calculated from the stoichiometric relationship between 1,2-PP
and the isocyanate of interest and preliminary information about the
concentration of the isocyanate in the stack emissions. A concentration
of 130 [mu]g/ml of 1,2-PP in toluene can be used as a reference point.
This solution shall be prepared, stored in a refrigerated area away
from light, and used within ten days of preparation.
7.2 Sample Recovery Reagents.
7.2.1 Toluene. HPLC grade is required for sample recovery and
cleanup (see Note to 7.2.2 below).
7.2.2 Acetonitrile. HPLC grade is required for sample recovery and
cleanup. Note: Organic solvents stored in metal containers may have a
high residue blank and should not be used. Sometimes suppliers transfer
solvents from metal to glass bottles; thus blanks shall be run before
field use and only solvents with a low blank value should be used.
7.3 Analysis Reagents. Reagent grade chemicals should be used in
all tests. All reagents shall conform to the specifications of the
Committee on Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society,
where such specifications are available.
7.3.1 Toluene, C6H5CH3. HPLC Grade
or equivalent.
7.3.2 Acetonitrile, CH3CN (ACN). HPLC Grade or
equivalent.
7.3.3 Methylene Chloride, CH2Cl2. HPLC Grade
or equivalent.
7.3.4 Hexane, C6H14. HPLC Grade or
equivalent.
7.3.5 Water, H2O. HPLC Grade or equivalent.
7.3.6 Ammonium Acetate, CH3CO2NH4.
7.3.7 Acetic Acid (glacial), CH3CO2H.
7.3.8 1-(2-Pyridyl)piperazine, (1,2-PP), [gteqt]99.5% or
equivalent.
7.3.9 Absorption Solution. Prepare a solution of 1-(2-
pyridyl)piperazine in toluene at a concentration of 40 mg/300 ml. This
solution is used for method blanks and method spikes.
7.3.10 Ammonium Acetate Buffer Solution (AAB). Prepare a solution
of ammonium acetate in water at a concentration of 0.1 M by
transferring 7.705 g of ammonium acetate to a 1,000 ml volumetric flask
and diluting to volume with HPLC Grade water. Adjust pH to 6.2 with
glacial acetic acid.
8.0 Sample Collection, Storage and Transport
Note: Because of the complexity of this method, field personnel
should be trained in and experienced with the test procedures in
order to obtain reliable results.
8.1 Sampling
8.1.1 Preliminary Field Determinations. Same as Method 5, section
8.2.
8.1.2 Preparation of Sampling Train. Follow the general procedure
given in Method 5, section 8.3.1, except for the following variations:
Place 300 ml of the impinger absorbing solution in the first impinger
and 200 ml each in the second and third impingers. The fourth impinger
shall remain empty. The fifth and sixth impingers shall have 400 g of
charcoal and 200-300 g of silica gel, respectively. Alternatively, the
charcoal and silica gel may be combined in the fifth impinger. Set-up
the train as in Figure 326-1. During assembly, do not use any silicone
grease on ground-glass joints.
Note: During preparation and assembly of the sampling train,
keep all openings where contamination can occur covered with PTFE
film or aluminum foil until just before assembly or until sampling
is about to begin.
8.1.3 Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the leak-check procedures given
in Method 5, sections 8.4.2 (Pretest Leak-Check), 8.4.3 (Leak-Checks
During the Sample Run), and 8.4.4 (Post-Test Leak-Check), with the
exception that the pre-test leak-check is mandatory.
8.1.4 Sampling Train Operation. Follow the general procedures given
in Method 5, section 8.5. Turn on the condenser coil coolant
recirculating pump and monitor the gas entry temperature. Ensure proper
gas entry temperature before proceeding and again before any sampling
is initiated. It is important that the gas entry temperature not exceed
50[deg] C (122 [deg]F), thus reducing the loss of toluene from the
first impinger. For each run, record the data required on a data sheet
such as the one shown in Method 5, Figure 5-3.
8.2 Sample Recovery. Allow the probe to cool. When the probe can be
handled safely, wipe off all external particulate matter near the tip
of the probe nozzle and place a cap over the tip to prevent losing or
gaining particulate matter. Do not cap the probe tip tightly while the
sampling train is cooling down because this will create a vacuum in the
train. Before moving the sample train to the cleanup site, remove the
probe from the sample train and cap the opening to the probe, being
careful not to lose any condensate that might be present. Cap the
impingers and transfer the probe and the impinger/condenser assembly to
the cleanup area. This area should be clean and protected from the
weather to reduce sample contamination or loss. Inspect the train prior
to and during disassembly and record any abnormal conditions. It is not
necessary to measure the volume of the impingers for the purpose of
moisture determination as the method is not validated for moisture
determination. Treat samples as follows:
8.2.1 Container No. 1, Probe and Impinger Numbers 1 and 2. Rinse
and brush the probe/nozzle first with toluene twice and then twice
again with acetonitrile and place the wash into a glass container
labeled with the test run identification and ``Container No. 1.'' When
using these solvents ensure that proper ventilation is available.
Quantitatively transfer the liquid from the first two impingers and the
[[Page 22791]]
condenser into Container No. 1. Rinse the impingers and all connecting
glassware twice with toluene and then twice again with acetonitrile and
transfer the rinses into Container No. 1. After all components have
been collected in the container, seal the container, and mark the
liquid level on the bottle.
8.2.2 Container No. 2, Impingers 3 and 4. Quantitatively transfer
the liquid from each impinger into a glass container labeled with the
test run identification and ``Container No. 2.'' Rinse each impinger
and all connecting glassware twice with toluene and twice again with
acetonitrile and transfer the rinses into Container No. 2. After all
components have been collected in the container, seal the container,
and mark the liquid level on the bottle.
Note: The contents of the fifth and sixth impinger (silica gel)
can be discarded.
8.2.3 Container No. 3, Reagent Blank. Save a portion of both
washing solutions (toluene/acetonitrile) used for the cleanup as a
blank. Transfer 200 ml of each solution directly from the wash bottle
being used and combine in a glass sample container with the test
identification and ``Container No. 3.'' Seal the container, and mark
the liquid level on the bottle and add the proper label.
8.2.4 Field Train Proof Blanks. To demonstrate the cleanliness of
sampling train glassware, you must prepare a full sampling train to
serve as a field train proof blank just as it would be prepared for
sampling. At a minimum, one complete sampling train will be assembled
in the field staging area, taken to the sampling area, and leak-
checked. The probe of the blank train shall be heated during and the
train will be recovered as if it were an actual test sample. No gaseous
sample will be passed through the sampling train. Field blanks are
recovered in the same manner as described in sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2
and must be submitted with the field samples collected at each sampling
site.
8.2.5 Field Train Spike. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the
sampling train, field handling, and recovery procedures you must
prepare a full sampling train to serve as a field train spike just as
it would be prepared for sampling. The field spike is performed in the
same manner as the field train proof blank with the additional step of
adding the Field Spike Standard to the first impinger after the initial
leak check. The train will be recovered as if it were an actual test
sample. No gaseous sample will be passed through the sampling train.
Field train spikes are recovered in the same manner as described in
sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 and must be submitted with the samples
collected for each test program.
8.3 Sample Transport Procedures. Containers must remain in an
upright position at all times during shipment. Samples must also be
stored at <4[deg]C between the time of sampling and concentration. Each
sample should be extracted and concentrated within 30 days after
collection and analyzed within 30 days after extraction. The extracted
sample must be stored at 4[deg]C.
8.4 Sample Custody. Proper procedures and documentation for sample
chain of custody are critical to ensuring data integrity. The chain of
custody procedures in ASTM D4840-99 ``Standard Guide for Sampling
Chain-of-Custody Procedures'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14) shall be followed for all samples (including field samples and
blanks).
9.0 Quality Control
9.1 Sampling. Sampling Operations. The sampling quality control
procedures and acceptance criteria are listed in Table 326-2 below; see
also section 9.0 of Method 5.
9.2 Analysis. The analytical quality control procedures required
for this method includes the analysis of the field train proof blank,
field train spike, and reagent and method blanks. Analytical quality
control procedures and acceptance criteria are listed in Table 326-3
below.
9.2.1 Check for Breakthrough. Recover and determine the
isocyanate(s) concentration of the last two impingers separately from
the first two impingers.
9.2.2 Field Train Proof Blank. Field blanks must be submitted with
the samples collected at each sampling site.
9.2.3 Reagent Blank and Field Train Spike. At least one reagent
blank and a field train spike must be submitted with the samples
collected for each test program.
9.2.4 Determination of Method Detection Limit. Based on your
instrument's sensitivity and linearity, determine the calibration
concentrations or masses that make up a representative low level
calibration range. The MDL must be determined at least annually for the
analytical system using an MDL study such as that found in section 15.0
to Method 301 of appendix A to part 63 of this chapter.
Table 326-2--Sampling Quality Assurance and Quality Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QA/QC Criteria Acceptance criteria Frequency Consequence if not met
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling Equipment Leak Checks....... <=0.00057 m3/min (0.020 Prior to, during Prior to: Repair and
cfm) or 4% of sampling (optional) and at the repeat calibration.
rate, whichever is completion to sampling. During/Completion:
less. None, testing should
be considered invalid.
Dry Gas Meter Calibration--Pre-Test within 2% Pre-test............... Repeat calibration
(individual correction factor--Yi). of average factor point
(individual).
Dry Gas Meter Calibration--Pre-Test 1.00 1%... Pre-test............... Adjust the dry gas
(average correction factor--Yc). meter and recalibrate.
Dry Gas Meter Calibration--Post-test. Average dry gas meter Each Test.............. Adjust sample volumes
calibration factor using the factor that
agrees with 5% Yc. volume.
Temperature sensor calibration....... Absolute temperature Prior to initial use Recalibrate; sensor may
measures by sensor and before each test not be used until
within 1.5% of a
reference sensor.
Barometer calibration................ Absolute pressure Prior to initial use Recalibrate; instrument
measured by instrument and before each test may not be used until
within 10 thereafter. specification is met.
mm Hg of reading with
a mercury barometer or
NIST traceable
barometer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22792]]
Table 326-3--Analytical Quality Assurance and Quality Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QA/QC Criteria Acceptance criteria Frequency Consequence if not met
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calibration--Method Blanks........... <5% level of expected Each analytical method Locate source of
analyte. blank. contamination;
reanalyze.
Calibration--Calibration Points...... At least six Each analytical batch.. Incorporate additional
calibration point calibration points to
bracketing the meet criteria.
expected range of
analysis.
Calibration--Linearity............... Correlation coefficient Each analytical batch.. Verify integration,
>0.995. reintegrate. If
necessary,
recalibrate.
Calibration--secondary standard Within 10% After each calibration. Repeat secondary
verification. of true value. standard verification,
recalibrate if
necessary.
Calibration--continual calibration Within 10% Daily and after every Invalidate previous ten
verification. of true value. ten samples. sample analysis,
recalibrate and repeat
calibration, reanalyze
samples until
successful.
Sample Analysis...................... Within the valid Each sample............ Invalidate the sample
calibration range. if greater than the
calibration range and
dilute the sample so
that it is within the
calibration range.
Appropriately flag any
value below the
calibration range.
Replicate Samples.................... Within 10% Each sample............ Evaluate integrations
of RPD. and repeat sample
analysis as necessary.
Field Train Proof Blank.............. <=10% level of expected Each test program...... Evaluate source of
analyte. contamination.
Field Train Spike.................... Within 30% Each test program...... Evaluate performance of
of true value. the method and
consider invalidating
results.
Breakthrough......................... Final two impingers Each test run.......... Invalidate test run.
Mass collected is >5%
of the total mass or
>20% of the total mass
when the measured
results are 20% of the
applicable standard.
Alternatively, there
is no breakthrough
requirement when the
measured results are
10% of the applicable
standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
Note: Maintain a laboratory log of all calibrations.
10.1 Probe Nozzle, Pitot Tube Assembly, Dry Gas Metering System,
Probe Heater, Temperature Sensors, Leak-Check of Metering System, and
Barometer. Same as Method 5, sections 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5,
8.4.1, and 10.6, respectively.
10.2 High Performance Liquid Chromatograph. Establish the retention
times for the isocyanates of interest; retention times will depend on
the chromatographic conditions. The retention times provided in Table
10-1 are provided as a guide to relative retention times when using a
C18, 250 mm x 4.6 mm ID, 5[micro]m particle size column, a 2 ml/min
flow rate of a 1:9 to 6:4 Acetonitrile/Ammonium Acetate Buffer, a 50
[micro]l sample loop, and a UV detector set at 254 nm.
Table 326-4--Example Retention Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention Times
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention
Compound time
(minutes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI.......................................................... 10.0
1,6-HDI..................................................... 19.9
2,4-TDI..................................................... 27.1
MDI......................................................... 27.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.3 Preparation of Isocyanate Derivatives.
10.3.1 HDI, TDI, MDI. Dissolve 500 mg of each isocyanate in
individual 100 ml aliquots of methylene chloride (MeCl2),
except MDI which requires 250 ml of MeCl2. Transfer a 5-ml
aliquot of 1,2-PP (see section 7.3.8) to each solution, stir and allow
to stand overnight at room temperature. Transfer 150 ml aliquots of
hexane to each solution to precipitate the isocyanate-urea derivative.
Using a Buchner funnel, vacuum filter the solid-isocyanate-urea
derivative and rinse with 50 ml of hexane. Dissolve the precipitate in
a minimum aliquot of MeCl2. Repeat the hexane precipitation
and filtration twice. After the third filtration, dry the crystals at
50 [deg]C and transfer to bottles for storage. The crystals are stable
for at least 21 months when stored at room temperature in a closed
container.
10.3.2 MI. Prepare a 200 [micro]g/ml stock solution of methyl
isocyanate-urea, transfer 60 mg of 1,2-PP to a 100-ml volumetric flask
containing 50 ml of MeCl2. Carefully transfer 20 mg of
methyl isocyanate to the volumetric flask and shake for 2 minutes.
Dilute the solution to volume with MeCl2 and transfer to a
bottle for storage. Methyl isocyanate does not produce a solid
derivative and standards must be prepared from this stock solution.
10.4 Preparation of calibration standards. Prepare a 100 [micro]g/
ml stock solution of the isocyanates of interest from the individual
isocyanate-urea derivative as prepared in sections 10.3.1 and 10.3.2.
This is accomplished by dissolving 1 mg of each isocyanate-urea
derivative in 10 ml of Acetonitrile. Calibration standards are prepared
from this stock solution by making appropriate dilutions of aliquots of
the stock into Acetonitrile.
10.5 Preparation of Method Blanks. Prepare a method blank for each
test
[[Page 22793]]
program (up to twenty samples) by transferring 300 ml of the absorption
solution to a 1,000-ml round bottom flask and concentrate as outlined
in section 11.2.
10.6 Preparation of Field Spike Solution. Prepare a field spike
solution for every test program in the same manner as calibration
standards (see Section 10.4). The mass of the target isocyanate in the
volume of the spike solution for the field spike train shall be
equivalent to that estimated to be captured from the source
concentration for each compound; alternatively, you may also prepare a
solution that represents half the applicable standard.
10.7 HPLC Calibrations. See Section 11.1.
11.0 Analytical Procedure
11.1 Analytical Calibration. Perform a multipoint calibration of
the instrument at six or more upscale points over the desired
quantitative range (multiple calibration ranges shall be calibrated, if
necessary). The field samples analyzed must fall within at least one of
the calibrated quantitative ranges and meet the performance criteria
specified below. The lowest point in your calibration curve must be at
least 5, and preferably 10, times the MDL. For each calibration curve,
the value of the square of the linear correlation coefficient, i.e.,
r\2\, must be >=0.995, and the analyzer response must be within 10 percent of the reference value at each upscale calibration
point. Calibrations must be performed on each day of the analysis,
before analyzing any of the samples. Following calibration, a secondary
standard shall be analyzed. A continual calibration verification (CCV)
must also be performed prior to any sample and after every ten samples.
The measured value of this independently prepared standard must be
within 10 percent of the expected value. Report the results
for each calibration standard secondary standard, and CCV as well as
the conditions of the HPLC. The reports should include at least the
peak area, height, and retention time for each isocyanate compound
measured as well as a chromatogram for each standard.
11.2 Concentration of Samples. Transfer each sample to a 1,000-ml
round bottom flask. Attach the flask to a rotary evaporator and gently
evaporate to dryness under vacuum in a 65 [deg]C water bath. Rinse the
round bottom flask three times each with 2 ml of acetonitrile and
transfer the rinse to a 10-ml volumetric flask. Dilute the sample to
volume with acetonitrile and transfer to a 15-ml vial and seal with a
PTFE lined lid. Store the vial <=4 [deg]C until analysis.
11.3 Analysis. Analyze replicative samples by HPLC, using the
appropriate conditions established in section 10.2. The width of the
retention time window used to make identifications should be based upon
measurements of actual retention time variations of standards over the
course of a day. Three times the standard deviation of a retention time
for a compound can be used to calculate a suggested window size;
however, the experience of the analyst should weigh heavily in the
interpretation of the chromatograms. If the peak area exceeds the
linear range of the calibration curve, the sample must be diluted with
acetonitrile and reanalyzed. Average the replicate results for each
run. For each sample you must report the same information required for
analytical calibrations (Section 11.1). For non-detect or values below
the detection limit of the method, you shall report the value as ``<''
numerical detection limit.
12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations
Nomenclature and calculations, same as in Method 5, section 6, with
the following additions below.
12.1 Nomenclature.
AS = Response of the sample, area counts.
b = Y-intercept of the linear regression line, area counts.
BR = Percent Breakthrough
CA = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound in the
initial sample, [micro]g/ml.
CB = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound in the
replicate sample, [micro]g/ml.
CI = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound in the
sample, [micro]g/ml.
Crec = Concentration recovered from spike train, [micro]g/
ml.
CS = Concentration of isocyanate compound in the stack gas,
[micro]g/dscm
CT = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound
(Impingers 1-4), [micro]g/dscm
Cspike = Concentration spiked, [micro]g/ml.
C4 = Concentration of a specific isocyanate compound
(Impingers 14), [micro]g/dscm
FIm = Mass of Free Isocyanate
FTSrec = Field Train Spike Recovery
Im = Mass of the Isocyanate
Imw = MW of the Isocyanate
IUm = Mass of Isocyanate-urea derivative
IUmw = MW of the isocyanate-urea
M= Slope of the linear regression line, area counts-ml/[micro]g.
mI = Mass of isocyanate in the total sample
MW = Molecular weight
RPD = Relative Percent Difference
VF = Final volume of concentrated sample, typically 10 ml.
Vmstd = Volume of gas sample measured by the dry-gas meter,
corrected to standard conditions, dscm (dscf).
12.2 Conversion from Isocyanate to the Isocyanate-urea derivative.
The equation for converting the amount of free isocyanate to the
corresponding amount of isocyanate-urea derivative is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.002
The equation for converting the amount of IU derivative to the
corresponding amount of FIm is as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.003
12.3 Calculate the correlation coefficient, slope, and intercepts
for the calibration data using the least squares method for linear
regression. Concentrations are expressed as the x-variable and response
is expressed as the y-variable.
12.4 Calculate the concentration of isocyanate in the sample:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.004
12.5 Calculate the total amount collected in the sample by
multiplying the concentration ([micro]g/ml) times the final volume of
acetonitrile (10 ml).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.005
12.6 Calculate the concentration of isocyanate ([micro]g/dscm) in
the stack gas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.006
12.7 Calculate Relative Percent Difference (RPD) for each
replicative sample
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.007
12.8 Calculate Field Train Spike Recovery
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.008
12.9 Calculate Percent Breakthrough
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.009
Where:
K = 35.314 ft\3\/m\3\ if Vm(std) is expressed in English units.
= 1.00 m\3\/m\3\ if Vm(std) is expressed in metric units.
13.0 Method Performance
Evaluation of sampling and analytical procedures for a selected
series of compounds must meet the quality control criteria (See Section
9) for each associated analytical determination. The sampling and
analytical procedures
[[Page 22794]]
must be challenged by the test compounds spiked at appropriate levels
and carried through the procedures.
14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]
16.0 Alternative Procedures [Reserved]
17.0 References
1. Martin, R.M., Construction Details of Isokinetic Source-Sampling
Equipment, Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, April 1971, PB-203 060/BE, APTD-0581, 35 pp.
2. Rom, J.J., Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation of Isokinetic
Source Sampling Equipment, Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, March 1972, PB-209 022/BE, APTD-
0576, 39 pp.
3. Schlickenrieder, L.M., Adams, J.W., and Thrun, K.E., Modified
Method 5 Train and Source Assessment Sampling System: Operator's
Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/8-85/003/
1985).
4. Shigehara, R.T., Adjustments in the EPA Nomograph for Different
Pitot Tube Coefficients and Dry Molecular Weights, Stack
SamplingNews, 2:4-11 (October 1974).
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR part 60, Appendices
A-1, A-2, and A-3, Methods 1-5.
6. Vollaro, R.F., A Survey of Commercially Available Instrumentation
for the Measurement of Low-Range Gas Velocities, Research Triangle
Park, NC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions
Measurement Branch, November 1976 (unpublished paper).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16MY18.010
[FR Doc. 2018-09080 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P