National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2003-0116-FRL-7549-7]

RIN 2060-AG56

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations located at major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The final rule implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring these operations to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The final rule will protect air quality and promote the public health by reducing emissions of HAP from facilities in the miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating source category. The organic HAP emitted by these operations include xylenes, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), phenol, cresols/cresylic acid, glycol ethers (including ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE)), styrene, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), and ethyl benzene. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, and effects on the central nervous system, liver, and heart. In general, these findings have only been shown with concentrations higher than those typically in the ambient air. The final standards are expected to reduce nationwide organic HAP emissions from major sources in this source category by approximately 48 percent.

EFFECTIVE DATES:

The final rule is effective January 2, 2004. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the final rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 2, 2004.

ADDRESSES:

Docket.

Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0116 (formerly Docket No. A-97-34) is located at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West (6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20460.

Background Information Document.

A background information document (BID) for the promulgated NESHAP may be obtained from the docket; the U.S. EPA Library (C267-01), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-2777; or from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. Refer to “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products—Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule” (EPA-453/R-03-008).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (C539-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5580; facsimile number (919) 541-5689; electronic mail address:

teal.kim@epa.gov

.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities.

The source category definition includes facilities that apply coatings to miscellaneous metal parts and products. In general, facilities that coat miscellaneous metal parts and products are covered under the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes listed in Table 1. However, facilities classified under other NAICS codes may be subject to the final standards if they meet the applicability criteria. Not all facilities classified under the NAICS codes in the following table will be subject to the final standards because some of the classifications cover products outside the scope of the NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products.

Table 1.—Categories and Entities Potentially Regulated by the Final Rule

Category

NAICS

Examples of potentially regulated entities

Automobile Parts

335312, 336111, 336211, 336312, 33632, 33633, 33634, 33637, 336399

Engine parts, vehicle parts and accessories, brakes, axles, etc.

Extruded Aluminum

331316, 331524, 332321, 332323

Extruded aluminum, architectural components, rod, and tubes.

Heavy Equipment

33312, 333611, 333618

Tractors, earth moving machinery.

Job Shops

332312, 332722, 332813, 332991, 332999, 334119, 336413, 339999

Any of the products from the miscellaneous metal parts and products segments.

Large Trucks and Buses

33612, 336211

Large trucks and buses.

Magnet Wire

331319, 331422, 335929

Magnet wire.

Metal Buildings

332311

Prefabricated metal: buildings, carports, docks, dwellings, greenhouses, panels for buildings.

Metal Containers

33242, 81131, 322214, 326199, 331513, 332439

Drums, kegs, pails, shipping containers.

Metal Pipe and Foundry

331111, 331513, 33121, 331221, 331511

Plate, tube, rods, nails, spikes, etc.

Rail Transportation

33651, 336611, 482111

Brakes, engines, freight cars, locomotives.

Recreational Vehicles

3369, 331316, 336991, 336211, 336112, 336213, 336214, 336399

Motorcycles, motor homes, semitrailers, truck trailers.

Rubber-to-Metal Products

326291, 326299

Engine mounts, rubberized tank tread, harmonic balancers.

Structural Steel

332311, 332312

Joists, railway bridge sections, highway bridge sections.

Other Transportation Equipment

336212, 336999, 33635, 56121, 8111, 56211

Miscellaneous transportation related equipment and parts.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your coating operation is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.3881 of the final rule.

Docket.

The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0116 (formerly docket A-97-34). The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include

Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

Electronic Docket Access.

You may access this

Federal Register

document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “

Federal Register

” listings at

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr

.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at

http://www.epa.gov/edocket/

to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

WorldWide Web (WWW)

. In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the final rule will be available on the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule will be posted at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg

on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Judicial Review

. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final rule is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 2, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Outline:

The following outline is provided to aid in reading the preamble to the final rule:

I. Background

A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?

B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?

C. What are the primary sources of emissions and what are the emissions?

D. What are the health effects associated with organic HAP emissions from the surface coating of metal parts and products?

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What source categories and subcategories are affected by the final rule?

B. What is the relationship to other rules?

C. What is the affected source?

D. What are the emission limits, operating limits, and other standards?

E. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

F. What are the continuous compliance provisions?

G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?

III. What are the significant differences from proposal?

A. Applicability

B. Scope of Category

C. Emission Limits

D. Method for Determining HAP Content

E. Deviations From Operating Parameters

F. New Alternatives to Facilitate Compliance with Multiple Coating NESHAP and Multiple Emission Limits

G. Initial and Continuous Compliance Demonstrations for Magnet Wire Sources

IV. What are the responses to significant comments?

A. Applicability and Scope of Source Category

B. Need for Separate Source Category for Department of Defense Coatings

C. Overlap with Activities Subject to Other Surface Coating NESHAP

D. Complying with the Rule Representing the Majority of the Substrate (Plastic or Metal) on Pre-assembled Parts

E. Complying with the Most Stringent NESHAP

F. Assembled On-road Vehicle Coating

G. The MACT Floor Approach and Database

H. Compliance Options for Meeting the Emission Limits

I. Methods for Expressing Organic HAP Content of Coatings

J. High Performance Coatings

K. Compliance Requirements for Sources with Add-on Controls

L. Compliance Requirements for Magnet Wire Sources

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the air impacts?

B. What are the cost impacts?

C. What are the economic impacts?

D. What are the non-air health, environmental, and energy impacts?

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (Surface Coating) category of major sources was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) under the Surface Coating Processes industry group. Major sources of HAP are those that emit or have the potential to emit considering controls equal to or greater than 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

Section 112(c)(2) of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources, based upon the criteria set out in section 112(d). The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as MACT.

The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is

achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).

In developing the final NESHAP, we considered control options that are more stringent than the MACT floor, taking into account consideration of the cost of achieving the emission reduction, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. In the final rule, EPA is promulgating standards for both existing and new sources consistent with these statutory requirements.

C. What Are the Primary Sources of Emissions and What Are the Emissions?

The final NESHAP regulate emissions of organic HAP. Available emission data collected during the development of the final NESHAP show that the primary organic HAP emitted from the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products include xylenes, toluene, MEK, phenol, cresols/cresylic acid, glycol ethers (including EGBE), styrene, MIBK, and ethyl benzene. These compounds account for approximately 90 percent of this category's nationwide organic HAP emissions.

The majority of organic HAP emissions from a facility engaged in miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating operations can be attributed to the application, drying, and curing of coatings. The remaining emissions are primarily from cleaning operations. In most cases, organic HAP emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling are relatively small. The organic HAP emissions associated with coatings (the term “coatings” includes protective and decorative coatings as well as adhesives) occur at several points. Coatings are most often applied either by using a spray gun in a spray booth or by dipping the substrate in a tank containing the coating. In a spray booth, volatile components evaporate from the coating as it is applied to the part and from the overspray. The coated part then passes through an open (flash-off) area where additional volatiles evaporate from the coating. Finally, the coated part passes through a drying/curing oven, or is allowed to air dry, where the remaining volatiles are evaporated.

Organic HAP emissions also occur from the activities undertaken during cleaning operations, including paint stripping, where solvent is used to remove coating residue or other unwanted materials. Cleaning in this industry includes cleaning of spray guns and transfer lines (

e.g.

, tubing or piping), tanks, and the interior of spray booths. Cleaning also includes applying solvents to manufactured parts prior to coating application and to equipment (

e.g.

, cleaning rollers, pumps, conveyors, etc.).

Mixing and storage are other sources of emissions. Organic HAP emissions can occur from displacement of organic vapor-laden air in containers used to store HAP solvents or to mix coatings containing HAP solvents. The displacement of vapor-laden air can occur during the filling of containers and can be caused by changes in temperature or barometric pressure, or by agitation during mixing.

D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Organic HAP Emissions From the Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products?

The HAP to be controlled with the final rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects include chronic health disorders (

e.g.

, irritation of the lung, eyes, and mucous membranes and effects on the central nervous system) and acute health disorders (

e.g.

, lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects on the central nervous system).

We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities covered by these emission standards for this source category, and the people living around the facilities, that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the organic HAP emitted from these facilities and potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, the final rule will reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

A. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the Final Rule?

The final rule applies to you if you own or operate a miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating facility that is a major source, or is located at a major source, or is part of a major source of HAP emissions. We define a miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating facility as any facility engaged in the surface coating of any miscellaneous metal part or product. If application of coating to a substrate occurs, then surface coating also includes associated activities, such as surface preparation, cleaning, mixing, and storage. However, these associated activities do not comprise surface coating if the application of coating does not occur. Coating application with handheld, non-refillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, marking pens, or the application of paper film or plastic film which may be pre-coated with an adhesive by the manufacturer is not a coating operation for the purposes of the final rule.

You will not be subject to the final rule if your miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating facility is located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through your permitting authority.

The final rule does not apply to surface coating or a coating operation that meets any of the criteria listed below:

• A coating operation conducted at a source where the source uses only coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials that contain no organic HAP, as determined according to the procedures in the final rule.

• Surface coating that occurs at research or laboratory facilities, or is part of janitorial, building, and facility maintenance operations, or that occurs at hobby shops operated for noncommercial purposes.

• Coatings used in volumes of less than 189 liters (50 gallons (gal)) per year, provided that the total volume of coatings exempt does not exceed 946 liters (250 gal) per year at the facility.

• Surface coating of metal parts and products performed on-site at installations owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such State) or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), or the surface coating of military munitions manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States (including the Coast Guard and the National Guard of any such State).

• Surface coating where plastic is extruded onto metal wire or cable or metal parts or products to form a coating.

• Surface coating of metal components of wood furniture that meet the applicability criteria for wood furniture manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ).

• Surface coating of metal components of large appliances that meet the applicability criteria for large appliance surface coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN).

• Surface coating of metal components of metal furniture that meet the applicability criteria for metal furniture surface coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR; 68 FR 28606, May 23, 2003).

• Surface coating of metal components of wood building products that meet the applicability criteria for wood building products surface coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ; 68 FR 31746, May 28, 2003).

• Surface coating of metal components of aerospace vehicles that meet the applicability criteria for aerospace manufacturing and rework (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG).

• The application of specialty coatings defined in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG to a metal aerospace vehicle or component.

• Surface coating of metal components of ships that meet the applicability criteria for shipbuilding and ship repair (40 CFR part 63, subpart II).

• Surface coating of metal using a web coating process that meets the applicability criteria for paper and other web coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ).

• Surface coating of metal using a coil coating process that meets the applicability criteria for metal coil coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS).

• Surface coating of boats or metal parts of boats (including, but not limited to, the use of assembly adhesives) where the facility meets the applicability criteria for boat manufacturing facilities in the NESHAP for boat manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart VVVV), except where the surface coating of the boat is a metal coating operation performed on personal watercraft or parts of personal watercraft.

• Surface coating of assembled on-road vehicles that meet the applicability criteria for the assembled on-road vehicle subcategory in the NESHAP for the surface coating of plastic parts and products (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP).

• Surface coating of metal components of automobiles and light-duty trucks that meet the applicability criteria for automobiles and light-duty trucks surface coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII (scheduled for promulgation in February 2004).

If you perform surface coating of metal parts or products that meet the applicability criteria for both the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII (scheduled for promulgation in February 2004) and these NESHAP, then you may comply with the requirements of the automobiles and light-duty trucks NESHAP for the surface coating of all your metal parts used in automobile or light-duty truck manufacturing in lieu of complying with each subpart separately.

The final rule contains five subcategories: General use coating, high performance coating, magnet wire coating, rubber-to-metal coating, and extreme performance fluoropolymer coating. The general use subcategory includes all surface coating operations in the miscellaneous metal parts and products source category that are not included in the other four subcategories. This includes operations that coat a wide variety of substrates, surfaces, and types of miscellaneous metal parts and products. It also includes asphalt/coal tar application to metal pipes. High performance coating is any coating that meets the definition of “high performance architectural coating” or “high temperature coating.” Magnet wire coatings, commonly referred to as magnet wire enamels, are applied to a continuous strand of wire which will be used to make turns (windings) in electrical devices such as coils, transformers, or motors. Magnet wire coatings provide high dielectric strength and turn-to-turn conductor insulation. This allows the turns of an electrical device to be placed in close proximity to one another which leads to increased coil effectiveness and electrical efficiency. Rubber-to-metal coating is any coating that contains heat-activated polymer systems in either solvent or water that, when applied to metal substrates, dries to a non-tacky surface and reacts chemically with the rubber and metal during a vulcanization process. Extreme performance fluoropolymer coating is a coating based on fluoropolymer resins that typically meets one or more performance criteria that include a nonstick low-energy surface, dry film lubrication, high resistance to chemical attack, extremely wide operating temperature, high electrical insulating properties, or that complies with government or third party specifications for health, safety, reliability, or performance. Each subcategory consists of all coating operations, including associated surface preparation, equipment cleaning, mixing, storage, and waste handling.

B. What Is the Relationship to Other Rules?

Affected sources that meet the applicability criteria in the final miscellaneous metal parts and products rule may also meet the applicability criteria of other coating NESHAP. For example, some facilities that coat plastic and metal parts using the same or different coatings, coating application processes, and conveyance equipment, either simultaneously or at alternative times could be subject to both the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP and the Plastic Parts and Products Surface Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP).

In the final rule, we have minimized the burden of complying with multiple surface coating emission limits by offering two alternatives to complying separately with each applicable emission limit. The first alternative allows a facility to have all applicable surface coating operations comply with the emission limit that represents the predominant type of coating activity at that facility. Predominant activity means the coating activity that represents 90 percent or more of the surface coating activities at a facility. For example, if a facility is subject to both the Plastic Parts and Miscellaneous Metal Parts NESHAP and the activities subject to the Miscellaneous Metal Parts NESHAP account for 90 percent or more of the surface coating activity at the facility, then the facility may comply with the emission limitations for miscellaneous metal parts and products for both types of surface coating operations.

The predominant activity alternative may be applied if 90 percent or more of the surface coating is in the general use or magnet wire coating subcategory; however, this alternative is not available where high performance, rubber-to-metal, or extreme performance fluoropolymer coating represents the predominant activity. The emission limits for those three subcategories reflect specialized performance requirements and the need for higher HAP-containing materials. It would not be appropriate to apply emission limits specifically developed for unique performance characteristics to other types of coatings.

You must include all surface coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities. Coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP but comprise

less than 1 percent of total coating activities need not be included in the determination of predominant activity but they must be included in the compliance calculations.

The second alternative allows a facility to calculate and comply with a facility-specific emission limit for each 12-month rolling average compliance period. The facility would use the relative amount of coating activity subject to each emission limit in each NESHAP to calculate a weighted, or composite, emission limit for that facility. Compliance with that facility-specific emission limit for all surface coating activities included in the facility-specific emission limit constitutes compliance with the emission limits in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts NESHAP, as well as other applicable NESHAP. As with the predominant activity alternative, you must include all surface coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities. Coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP but comprise less than 1 percent of total coating activities need not be included in the facility-specific emission limit calculation but they must be included in the compliance calculations.

C. What Is the Affected Source?

We define an affected source as a stationary source, a group of stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific emission standard applies. The final rule defines the affected source as the collection of all operations associated with the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products within each of the five subcategories (general use, high performance, magnet wire, rubber-to-metal, and extreme performance fluoropolymer). If application to a substrate occurs, these operations include preparation of a coating for application (

e.g.

, mixing with thinners); surface preparation of the miscellaneous metal parts and products (including paint stripping and the use of a cleaning material to remove dried coating); coating application and flash-off; drying and/or curing of applied coatings; cleaning of equipment used in surface coating; storage of coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials; and handling and conveyance of waste materials from the surface coating operations. The coating operation does not include the application of coatings using hand-held nonrefillable aerosol containers, touch-up markers, marking pens, or the application of paper film or plastic film that may be pre-coated with an adhesive by the manufacturer.

D. What Are the Emission Limits, Operating Limits, and Other Standards?

Emission Limits.

We are limiting organic HAP emissions from each existing affected source using the emission limits in Table 2 of this preamble. For each new or reconstructed affected source, the final emission limits are given in Table 3 of this preamble. For each of the subcategories, the emission limit is expressed as the mass of organic HAP emissions per volume of coating solids used during each 12-month compliance period.

Table 2.—Emission Limits for Existing Affected Sources

Coating type

Emission limit (kilograms HAP/liter of coating solids)

Emission limit (lbs HAP/gal of coating solids)

General use subcategory

0.31

2.6

High performance subcategory

3.3

27.5

Magnet wire subcategory

0.12

1.0

Rubber-to-metal subcategory

4.5

37.7

Extreme performance fluoropolymer subcategory

1.5

12.4

Table 3.—Emission Limits for New and Reconstructed Affected Sources

Coating type

Emission limit (kilograms HAP/liter of coating solids)

Emission limit (lbs HAP/gal of coating solids)

General use subcategory

0.23

1.9

High performance subcategory

3.3

27.5

Magnet wire subcategory

0.050

0.44

Rubber-to-metal subcategory

0.81

6.8

Extreme performance fluoropolymer subcategory

1.5

12.4

You may choose from several compliance options in the final rule to achieve the emission limits. You could comply by applying materials (coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials) that meet the emission limits, either individually or collectively, during each compliance period. You could also use a capture system and add-on control device to meet the emission limits. You could also comply by using a combination of both approaches.

Operating Limits.

If you reduce emissions by using a capture system and add-on control device (other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance), the operating limits apply to you. These limits are site-specific parameter limits that you determine during the initial performance test of the system. For capture systems that are not permanent total enclosures, you establish average volumetric flow rates or duct static pressure limits for each capture device (or enclosure) in each capture system. For capture systems that are permanent total enclosures, you establish limits on average facial velocity or pressure drop across openings in the enclosure.

For thermal oxidizers, you monitor the combustion temperature. For catalytic oxidizers, you monitor the temperature immediately before and after the catalyst bed, or you monitor the temperature before or after the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer. For regenerative

carbon adsorbers for which you do not conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you monitor the carbon bed temperature and the amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed. For condensers, you monitor the outlet gas temperature from the condenser. For concentrators, you monitor the temperature of the desorption gas stream and the pressure drop across the concentrator.

The site-specific parameter limits that you establish must reflect operation of the capture system and control devices during a performance test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limits during representative operating conditions.

Work Practice Standards.

If you use an emission capture system and control device for compliance, you must develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize organic HAP emissions from mixing operations; storage tanks and other containers; and handling operations for coatings, thinners and/or other additives, cleaning materials, and waste materials. If your affected source has an existing documented plan that incorporates steps taken to minimize emissions from the aforementioned sources, you may be able to use your existing plan to satisfy the requirement for a work practice plan.

If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

The NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) codify certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP and apply to you as indicated in the final rule. The General Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance-related activities such as notifications, reporting and recordkeeping, performance testing, and monitoring. The final rule refers to individual sections of the General Provisions to emphasize key sections that are relevant. However, unless specifically overridden in the final rule, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements apply to you.

E. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements?

Existing affected sources must be in compliance with the final rule no later than January 2, 2007. New and reconstructed sources must be in compliance upon initial startup of the affected source or by January 2, 2004, whichever is later. However, affected sources are not required to demonstrate compliance until the end of the initial compliance period when they will have accumulated the necessary records to document the rolling 12-month organic HAP emission rate.

Compliance with the emission limits is based on a rolling 12-month organic HAP emission rate determined each month. Each 12-month period is a compliance period. The initial compliance period, therefore, is the 12-month period beginning on the compliance date. If the compliance date occurs on any day other than the first day of a month, then the initial compliance period begins on the compliance date and extends through the end of that month plus the following 12 months. In other words, the initial compliance period could be almost 13 months long, but all subsequent compliance periods will be 12 months long. We have defined “month” as a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 to 35 days to allow for flexibility at sources where data are based on a business accounting period.

Being “in compliance” means that the owner or operator of the affected source meets the requirements to achieve the final emission limitations during the initial compliance period. However, they will not have accumulated the records for the rolling 12-month organic HAP emission rate until the end of the initial compliance period. At the end of the initial compliance period, the owner or operator uses the data and records generated to determine whether or not the affected source is in compliance with the organic HAP emission limit and other applicable requirements for that period. If the affected source does not meet the applicable limit and other requirements, it is out of compliance for the entire compliance period.

Emission Limits.

There are three options for complying with the final emission limits, and the testing and initial compliance requirements vary accordingly. You may choose to use one compliance option for the entire affected source, or you may use different compliance options for different coating operations within the affected source. You may also use different compliance options for the same coating operation at different times, different compliance options when different coatings are applied to the same part, or when the same coating is applied to different parts. However, you may not use different compliance options at the same time on the same coating operation.

Option 1: Compliant materials.

This option is a pollution prevention option that allows you to easily demonstrate compliance by using low-HAP or non-HAP coatings and other materials. If you use coatings that, based on their organic HAP content, individually meet the kilogram (kg) (lb) organic HAP emitted per liter (gal) coating solids used levels in the applicable emission limits and you use non-HAP thinners and other additives and cleaning materials, this compliance option is available to you. For this option, we have minimized recordkeeping and reporting requirements. You may demonstrate compliance by using manufacturer's formulation data and readily available purchase records to determine the organic HAP content of each coating or other material and the amount of each material used. You do not need to perform any detailed emission rate calculations.

If you demonstrate compliance based on the coatings and other materials used, you demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each coating meets the emission limits for the appropriate subcategory as shown in Tables 2 and 3 of this preamble, and that you used no organic HAP-containing thinners and/or other additives, or cleaning materials. For example, if you are using the compliant materials option and your existing source has magnet wire, rubber-to-metal, extreme performance fluoropolymer, and general use coating operations, you demonstrate that: (1) Each coating used in the magnet wire coating operation has an organic HAP content no greater than 0.12 kg organic HAP/liter coating solids (1.0 lb organic HAP/gal coating solids) used; (2) each coating used in the rubber-to-metal coating operation has an organic HAP content no greater than 4.5 kg organic HAP/liter coating solids (37.7 lbs organic HAP/gal coating solids) used; (3) each coating used in the extreme performance fluoropolymer coating operation has an organic HAP content no greater than 1.5 kg organic HAP/liter coating solids (12.4 lbs HAP/gal coating solids) used; (4) each general use coating has an organic HAP content no greater than 0.31 kg organic HAP/liter coating solids (2.6 lbs HAP/gal coating solids) used; and (5) that you used no organic HAP-containing thinners and/or other additives, or cleaning materials. Note that “no organic HAP” is not intended to mean absolute zero. Materials that contain “no organic HAP” means materials that contain organic HAP levels below the levels specified in § 63.3941(a) of the final rule, which are typical Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reporting levels for material safety data sheets. These typical reporting levels only count organic HAP that are present at 0.1 percent or more by mass for OSHA-defined carcinogens and at 1.0 percent or more by mass for other compounds.

To determine the mass of organic HAP in coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials and the volume fraction of coating solids, you may rely on manufacturer's formulation data. You are not required to perform tests or analysis of the material if formulation data are available. Alternatively, you could use results from the test methods listed below. You may also use alternative test methods provided you get EPA approval in accordance with the NESHAP General Provisions, 40 CFR 63.7(f). However, if there is any inconsistency between the test method results (either EPA's or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's data, the test method results prevail for compliance and enforcement purposes, unless, after consultation you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.

The following test methods are used to determine HAP content. For organic HAP content, use Method 311 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. You may also use nonaqueous volatile matter as a surrogate for organic HAP, which includes all organic HAP plus all other organic compounds, excluding water. If you choose this option, use Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. If you are determining HAP content for reactive adhesives (that is, adhesives in which some of the HAP react to form solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere), you may use the alternative to Method 24 that is included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP, appendix A. For determining volume fraction of coating solids, use ASTM Method D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,” or ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), “Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,” an approved alternative method, or calculations based on the volume of the volatile fraction.

Option 2: Compliance based on the emission rate without add-on controls.

This option is a pollution prevention option that allows you to demonstrate compliance based on the organic HAP contained in the mix of coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials you use. This option offers the flexibility to use some individual coatings that do not, by themselves, meet the kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per liter (gal) coating solids used levels in the applicable emission limits if you use other low-HAP or non-HAP coatings such that overall emissions from the affected source over a 12-month period meet the emission limits. You must use this option if you use HAP-containing thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials and do not have add-on controls. You keep track of the mass of organic HAP in each coating, thinner or other additive, and cleaning material, and the amount of each material you use in your affected source each month of the compliance period. You use this information to determine the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials divided by the total volume of coating solids used during the compliance period. You demonstrate that your emission rate (in kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per liter (gal) coating solids used) meets the applicable emission limit. You may use readily available purchase records and manufacturer's formulation data to determine the amount of each coating or other material you used and the organic HAP in each material. The final rule contains equations that show you how to perform the calculations to demonstrate compliance.

If you demonstrate compliance using Option 2, you are required to:

• Determine the quantity of each coating, thinner and/or other additive, and cleaning material used.

• Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating, thinner and other additive, and cleaning material using the same types of data and methods previously described for Option 1, including the alternative methods for reactive coatings. You may rely on manufacturer's formulation data or you may choose to use test results as described under Option 1.

• Determine the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating using the same types of data or methods described under Option 1. In this option, you may include the solids from powder coatings in the compliance calculations. To determine the volume of solids in powder coatings from their weight, use ASTM Method D5965-02, “Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders.”

• Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all materials and total volume of coating solids used each month. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266.

• Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions and total volume of coating solids used for the initial compliance period by adding together all the monthly values for mass of organic HAP and for volume of coating solids used for the 12 months of the initial compliance period.

• Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP emitted for the materials used to the total volume of coating solids used (kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per liter (gal) of coating solids used) for the initial compliance period.

• Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status.

Note that if you choose to use this option for a particular coating operation rather than for all coating operations at the source, you calculate the organic HAP emission rate using just the materials used in that operation. Similarly, if your facility has multiple coating operations using this option (

e.g.

, a high performance coating operation, a magnet wire coating operation, a rubber-to-metal coating operation, and a general use coating operation), you do a separate calculation for each coating operation to show that each coating operation meets its emission limit. If you are complying with a facility-specific emission limit, you include all coating operations that are subject to the facility-specific emission limit in the compliance calculations.

Option 3: Compliance based on using a capture system and add-on control device.

This option allows sources to use a capture system and an add-on pollution control device, such as a combustion device or a recovery device, to meet the emission limits. While we believe that, based on typical emission characteristics, most sources will not use control devices, we are providing this option for sources that use control devices. Fewer than 10 percent of the existing sources for which we have data use control devices. Under this option, testing is required to demonstrate the capture system and control device efficiencies. Alternatively, you may conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to demonstrate the amount of organic HAP collected by your recovery device. The final rule provides equations showing you how to use records of materials usage, organic HAP contents of each material, capture and control efficiencies, and coating solids content to calculate your emission rate during the compliance period.

If you demonstrate compliance based on this option, you demonstrate that your emission rate considering controls (in kg (lb) organic HAP emitted per liter (gal) of coating solids used) is less than the applicable emission limit. For a capture system and add-on control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, your testing and initial compliance requirements are as follows:

• Conduct an initial performance test to determine the capture and control efficiencies of the equipment and to establish operating limits to be achieved on a continuous basis. The performance test must be completed no later than the compliance date for existing sources and 180 days after the compliance date for new and reconstructed sources.

• Determine the mass of organic HAP in each coating and other material, and the volume fraction of coating solids for each coating used during each month of the initial compliance period.

• Calculate the total mass of organic HAP in all coatings and other materials, and total volume of coating solids used each month in the controlled operation or group of coating operations. You may subtract from the total mass of organic HAP the amount contained in waste materials you send to a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility regulated under 40 CFR part 262, 264, 265, or 266.

• Calculate the organic HAP emissions from the controlled coating operations each month using the capture and control efficiencies determined during the performance test, and the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in controlled coating operations that month.

• Calculate the total mass of organic HAP emissions and total volume of coating solids used for the initial compliance period by adding together all the monthly values for mass of organic HAP emissions and for volume of coating solids for the 12 months in the initial compliance period.

• Calculate the ratio of the total mass of organic HAP emissions to the total volume of coating solids used during the initial compliance period.

• Record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status.

• Develop and implement a work practice plan to minimize emissions from storage, mixing, and handling of organic HAP-containing materials.

Note that if you choose to use this option for a particular coating operation rather than for the entire affected source, you calculate the organic HAP emission rate using just the materials used in that operation. Similarly, if your facility has multiple coating operations using this option (

e.g.

, a high performance coating operation, a rubber-to-metal coating operation, an extreme performance fluoropolymer coating operation, and a general use coating operation), you do a separate calculation for each coating operation to show that each coating operation meets its emission limit. If you are complying with a facility-specific emission limit, you would include all coating operations that are subject to the facility-specific emission limit in the compliance calculations.

If you use a capture system and add-on control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, you use specified test methods to determine both the efficiency of the capture system and the emission reduction efficiency of the control device. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (and all materials must be applied and dried within the enclosure); or use one of three protocols in § 63.3965 of the final rule to measure capture efficiency. If you have a permanent total enclosure and all materials are applied and dried within the enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a control device, you assume 100 percent capture. Magnet wire coating operations may, with approval, conduct representative capture efficiency testing of one magnet wire coating machine out of a group of identical or very similar magnet wire coating machines rather than testing every individual magnet wire coating machine.

To determine the emission reduction efficiency of the control device, you conduct measurements of the inlet and outlet gas streams. The test consists of three runs, each run lasting 1 hour, using the following EPA Methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A:

• Method 1 or 1A for selection of the sampling sites.

• Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G to determine the gas volumetric flow rate.

• Method 3, 3A, or 3B for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight.

• Method 4 to determine stack moisture.

• Method 25 or 25A to determine organic volatile matter concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, and approved by the Administrator, could be used.

An alternative procedure is provided in appendix A of the final rule for determining the destruction efficiency of oxidizers used to control emissions from magnet wire coating machines. This procedure uses material consumption and material organic volatile content, adjusted to account for any uncaptured emissions, to determine the organic volatile content of the inlet stream to the control device. Magnet wire coating operations may, with approval, conduct representative control device efficiency testing of one magnet wire coating machine out of a group of identical or very similar magnet wire coating machines rather than testing every individual magnet wire coating machine.

If you use a solvent recovery system, you could choose to determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance test. If you use the material balance alternative, you are required to measure the amount of all materials used in the controlled coating operations served by the solvent recovery system during each month of the initial compliance period, and to determine the total volatile matter contained in these materials. You also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during each month of the initial compliance period. Then you compare the amount recovered to the amount used to determine the overall control efficiency each month and apply this efficiency to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions for the month. You total these 12 monthly organic HAP emission values and divide by the total of the 12 monthly values for coating solids used to calculate the emission rate for the 12-month initial compliance period. You record the calculations and results and include them in your Notification of Compliance Status.

Operating Limits.

As mentioned above, you establish operating limits as part of the initial performance test of a capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances. The operating limits are the minimum or maximum (as applicable) values achieved for capture systems and control devices during the most recent performance test, conducted under representative conditions, that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits.

The final rule specifies the parameters to monitor for the types of emission control systems commonly used in the industry. You are required to install,

calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) meet the requirements in § 63.3968 of the final rule. If you use control devices other than those identified in the final rule, you submit the operating parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by EPA and is not delegated to States.

If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you continuously monitor the appropriate temperature and record it at least every 15 minutes. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs. The operating limit is the average temperature measured during the performance test and for each consecutive 3-hour period; the average temperature has to be at or above this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limits are the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance test. For each 3-hour period, the average temperature and the average temperature difference must be at or above these limits. Alternatively, if you develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer, then you are allowed to monitor only the temperature before the catalyst bed and meet only the temperature operating limit before the catalyst bed and are not required to monitor the difference across the bed.

An alternative procedure for monitoring catalytic oxidizers on magnet wire coating machines is provided in appendix A of the final rule. This alternative allows you to develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan as described in appendix A of the final rule and to measure the temperature either before or after the catalyst bed and compare the measured temperature to the operating limit.

If you use a regenerative carbon adsorber and do not conduct liquid-liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you monitor the carbon bed temperature after each regeneration and the total amount of steam or nitrogen used to desorb the bed for each regeneration. The operating limits are the carbon bed temperature at the time the carbon bed is returned to service (not to be exceeded) and the amount of steam or nitrogen used for desorption (to be met as a minimum).

If you use a condenser and do not conduct liquid-liquid material balances to demonstrate compliance, you monitor the outlet gas temperature to ensure that the air stream is being cooled to a low enough temperature. The operating limit is the average condenser outlet gas temperature measured during the performance test and for each consecutive 3-hour period, the average temperature must be at or below this limit.

If you use a concentrator, you monitor the temperature of the desorption concentrate stream and the pressure drop across the concentrator. These values must be recorded at least once every 15 minutes. The operating limits must be the 3-hour average temperature (to be met as a minimum) and the 3-hour average pressure drop (to be met as a minimum) measured during the performance test.

For each capture system that is not a permanent total enclosure, you establish operating limits for gas volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure for each enclosure or capture device. The operating limit is the average volumetric flow rate or duct static pressure during the performance test, to be met as a minimum. For each capture system that is a permanent total enclosure, the operating limit requires the average facial velocity of air through all natural draft openings to be at least 200 feet per minute or the pressure drop across the enclosure to be at least 0.007 inches water.

An alternative procedure for monitoring capture systems on magnet wire coating machines is provided in appendix A of this rule. This alternative requires you to install an alarm or interlock which will be triggered either when any oven exhaust fan is not operating or the oven is overheating. This alternative also requires you to confirm every 6 months that the oven is operating at negative pressure.

Work Practices.

If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to develop and implement on an ongoing basis a work practice plan for minimizing organic HAP emissions from storage, mixing, material handling, and waste handling operations. This plan must include a description of all steps taken to minimize emissions from these sources (

e.g.

, using closed storage containers, practices to minimize emissions during filling and transfer of contents from containers, using spill minimization techniques, placing solvent-laden cloths in closed containers immediately after use, etc.). You must make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it.

If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to develop and operate according to a SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?

Emission Limits.

If you use the compliant materials option (Option 1), you demonstrate continuous compliance if each coating meets the applicable emission limit and you use no organic HAP-containing thinners and/or other additives, or cleaning materials. If you use the emission rate without add-on controls option (Option 2), you demonstrate continuous compliance if, for each 12-month compliance period, the ratio of kg (lb) organic HAP emitted to liter (gal) coating solids used is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit. You follow the same procedures for calculating the organic HAP emitted to coating solids used ratio that you used for the initial compliance period.

For each coating operation on which you use a capture system and control device (Option 3), other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you use the continuous parameter monitoring results for the month as part of the determination of the mass of organic HAP emissions. If the monitoring results indicate no deviations from the operating limits and there were no bypasses of the control device, you assume the capture system and control device are achieving the same percent emission reduction efficiency as they did during the most recent performance test in which compliance was demonstrated. You then apply this percent reduction to the total mass of organic HAP in materials used in the controlled coating operations to determine the emissions from those operations during the month. If there were any deviations from the operating limits during the month or any bypasses of the control device, you account for them in the calculation of the monthly emissions by assuming the capture system and control device were achieving zero emission reduction during the periods of deviation, unless you have other data indicating the actual efficiency of the emission capture system and add-on control device, and the use of these data is approved by your permitting authority. Determine the organic HAP emission rate by

dividing the total mass of organic HAP emissions for the 12-month compliance period by the total volume of coating solids used during the 12-month compliance period. Every month, you calculate the emission rate for the previous 12-month period.

For each coating operation on which you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance each month, you use the liquid-liquid material balance to determine control efficiency. To determine the overall control efficiency, you must measure the amount of all materials used during each month and determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month, calculate the overall control efficiency, and apply it to the total mass of organic HAP in the materials used to determine total organic HAP emissions each month. Then you determine the 12-month organic HAP emission rate in the same manner described above.

Operating Limits.

If you use a capture system and control device, the final rule requires you to achieve on a continuous basis the operating limits you establish during the performance test. If the continuous monitoring shows that the capture system and control device are operating outside the range of values established during the performance test, you have deviated from the established operating limits.

If you operate a capture system and control device with bypass lines that could allow emissions to bypass the control device, you demonstrate that captured organic HAP emissions within the affected source are being routed to the control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control device. You may choose from the following five monitoring procedures:

• Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is directed to the control device.

• Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures to secure the bypass line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating.

• Valve closure monitoring to ensure any bypass line valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating.

• Automatic shutdown system to stop the coating operation when flow is diverted from the control device.

• Flow direction indicator to provide a record of whether the exhaust stream is flowing toward the control device.

A deviation would occur for any period of time the bypass monitoring indicates that emissions are not routed to the control device.

Work Practices.

If you use an emission capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to implement, on an ongoing basis, the work practice plan you developed during the initial compliance period. If you did not develop a plan for reducing organic HAP emissions or you do not implement the plan, this would be a deviation from the work practice standard.

If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you are required to operate according to your SSMP during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device.

G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements?

You are required to comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in the final rule. The General Provisions notification requirements include: initial notifications, notification of performance test if you are complying using a capture system and control device, notification of compliance status, and additional notifications required for affected sources with continuous monitoring systems. The General Provisions also require certain records and periodic reports.

Initial Notifications.

If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must send a notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your facility is located and to your State agency no later than 1 year after publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register

. For new and reconstructed sources, you must send the notification within 120 days after the date of initial startup or 120 days after publication of the final rule, whichever is later. That report notifies us and your State agency that you have an existing affected source that is subject to the final standards or that you have constructed a new affected source. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to plan for compliance activities. You also need to send a notification of planned construction or reconstruction of a source that would be subject to the final rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct.

Notification of Performance Test.

If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device for which you do not conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you must conduct a performance test. The performance test is required no later than the compliance date for an existing affected source. For a new or reconstructed affected source, the performance test is required no later than 180 days after startup or 180 days after

Federal Register

publication of the final rule, whichever is later. You must notify EPA (or the delegated State or local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin and submit a report of the performance test results no later than 60 days after the test.

Notification of Compliance Status.

You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status within 30 days after the end of the initial 12-month compliance period. In the notification, you must certify whether each affected source has complied with the final standards; identify the option(s) you used to demonstrate initial compliance; summarize the data and calculations supporting the compliance demonstration; and provide information on any deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, or other requirements.

If you elect to comply by using a capture system and control device for which you conduct performance tests, you must provide the results of the tests. Your notification must also include the measured range of each monitored parameter, the operating limits established during the performance test, and information showing whether the source has complied with its operating limits during the initial compliance period.

If you are complying with a single emission limit representing the predominant surface coating activity under § 63.3890(c)(1) of the final rule, include all calculations and supporting documentation for the predominant activity determination. If you are complying with a facility-specific emission limit under § 63.3890(c)(2) of the final rule, include the calculation of the facility-specific emission limit and any supporting information.

Recordkeeping Requirements.

You must keep records of reported information and all other information necessary to document compliance with the final rule for 5 years. As required under the General Provisions, records for the 2 most recent years must be kept on-site or be readily accessible from the site (for example, by a computer network); the other 3 years' records may be kept off-site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of the control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the equipment.

Depending on the compliance option that you choose, you may need to keep records of the following:

• Organic HAP content or volatile organic matter content and coating

solids content (for all compliance options).

• Quantity of the coatings, thinners and/or other additives, and cleaning materials used during each compliance period. If you are using the compliant material option for all coatings at the source, you may maintain purchase records for each material used rather than a record of the volume used.

• For the emission rate (with or without add-on controls) compliance options, calculations of your emission rate for each 12-month compliance period.

• All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status.

If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control device, you must keep records of the following:

• All required measurements, calculations, and supporting documentation needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards.

• All results of performance tests and parameter monitoring.

• All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with your plan for minimizing emissions from mixing, storage, and waste handling operations.

• All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with the affected source's SSMP when the plan procedures are followed.

• The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the emission capture system and control device.

• Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction that are different from the procedures specified in the affected source's SSMP.

• Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or inoperative (including out-of-control periods).

The final rule requires you to collect and keep records according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. Failure to collect and keep the specified minimum data would be a deviation that is separate from any emission limits, operating limits, or work practice standards.

Deviations, as determined from these records, must be recorded and also reported. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or obligation established by the final rule including, but not limited to, the emission limits, operating limits, and work practice standards, is not met.

If you use a capture system and control device to reduce organic HAP emissions, you must make your SSMP available for inspection if the Administrator requests to see it. The plan stays in your records for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer subject to the final standards. If you revise the plan, you must keep the previous superseded versions on record for 5 years following the revision.

If you are using the predominant activity or facility-specific emission limit alternative, you must keep the records of the data and calculations needed to determine the predominant activity or to calculate the facility-specific emission limit for your facility.

Periodic Reports.

Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period, you submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source has been in continuous compliance. If deviations occur, you include them in the report as follows:

• Report each deviation from the emission limit.

• Report each deviation from the work practice standards if you use an emission capture system and control device.

• If you use an emission capture system and control device, other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material balances, report each deviation from an operating limit and each time a bypass line diverts emissions from the control device to the atmosphere.

• Report other specific information on the periods of time the deviations occurred.

You also have to include in each semiannual report an identification of the compliance option(s) you used for each affected source and any time periods when you changed to another compliance option.

Other Reports.

You are required to submit reports for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the capture system and control device. If the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction are inconsistent with your SSMP, you report those procedures with your semiannual reports in addition to immediate reports required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii).

III. What Are the Significant Differences From Proposal?

A. Applicability

We have revised the applicability section to clarify who is subject to the final rule. Specifically, the section includes activities associated with coating operations such as surface preparation, cleaning, mixing, and storage as long as these activities are associated with coating application at the facility.

We have included an extreme performance fluoropolymer coatings subcategory in the final rule. This new subcategory establishes a specific emission limit for coatings that are formulated systems based on fluoropolymer resins, which often contain “bonding” matrix polymers dissolved in nonaqueous solvents as well as other ingredients. Extreme performance fluoropolymer coatings are typically used when one or more critical performance criteria are required including, but not limited to, a nonstick low-energy surface, dry film lubrication, high resistance to chemical attack, extremely wide operating temperature, high electrical insulating properties, or that the surface complies with government (

e.g.

, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) or third party specifications for health, safety, reliability, or performance.

We have revised the scope of the high performance subcategory to remove “military combat, tactical, and munitions coating” from the definition of high performance coating. As indicated in this preamble, the surface coating of metal parts and products performed on-site at installations owned or operated by the Armed Forces of the United States, or the surface coating of military munitions manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States, will be addressed in the NESHAP for defense land systems and miscellaneous equipment that is currently under development.

We have clarified that when determining whether your facility is below the applicability threshold, you may exclude coatings that meet the definition of non-HAP coating when determining whether you use 946 liters (250 gal) per year, or more, of coatings in the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products (§ 63.3881(b) of the final rule). Thus, a facility using mostly non-HAP coatings and less than 250 gal per year of HAP-containing coatings will not be subject to the final rule. In addition, we have included a definition of “non-HAP coating” in the final rule.

B. Scope of Category

We have clarified the scope of the final rule to exclude surface coating operations using only coatings, thinners and other additives, and cleaning materials that contain no organic HAP. We also excluded surface coating of metal that is subject to several other NESHAP. We also included a provision that allows sources that meet the applicability criteria of both the final rule and the automobiles and light-duty

trucks NESHAP to comply with the automobiles and light-duty trucks NESHAP for all their surface coating operations associated with the manufacturing of automobiles or light-duty trucks in lieu of complying with each subpart separately.

C. Emission Limits

The emission limits remain as proposed, except for the addition of the extreme performance fluoropolymer subcategory, which must limit organic HAP emissions to no more than 1.5 kg organic HAP/liter coating solids (12.4 lbs HAP/gal coating solids) used during each 12-month compliance period.

D. Method for Determining HAP Content

In the final rule, we have included a method for determining the HAP content for reactive adhesives based on the HAP actually emitted, rather than determining the mass fraction of organic HAP in the coatings using Method 311 or Method 24. Facilities may use the alternative method for reactive adhesives contained in appendix A to the final rule for plastic parts and products. In addition, we included a provision for reactive adhesives to allow facilities to rely on manufacturer's data that expressly states the organic HAP mass fraction emitted.

We have included an option to calculate the volume fraction of coating solids based on the mass fraction and density of the volatile compounds in the coating. This method is an alternative to using ASTM Method D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998), “Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings,” or ASTM Method D6093-97 (Reapproved 2003), “Standard Test Method for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer,” to measure the volume solids.

We have also included a method, ASTM Method D5965-02, “Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders,” to determine the density of powder coatings if a facility chooses to include the solids from powder coatings in their compliance calculations.

E. Deviations From Operating Parameters

The proposed rule stated that if your add-on control system deviates from the operating limit specified in Table 1 to subpart MMMM of 40 CFR part 63, then you must assume that the emission capture system and add-on control device were achieving zero efficiency during the time period of the deviation. We have written the final rule to allow the use of other data to indicate the actual efficiency of the emission capture system and add-on control device, as long as the use of these data is approved by the respective permitting authority.

F. New Alternatives To Facilitate Compliance With Multiple Coating NESHAP and Multiple Emission Limits

The final rule allows facilities subject to more than one surface coating emission limit to comply with each applicable emission limit separately or to adopt one of two alternatives. The first alternative allows all coating operations to comply with the emission limit representing the predominant surface coating activity at the facility (the predominant activity means the surface coating activity representing 90 percent or more of the total surface coating activity). The predominant activity approach is also available for sources that are subject to more than one subcategory emission limit. That is, a source may determine which subcategory represents 90 percent or more of the coating activities that take place at the facility, and then have all coating operations at the facility comply with the emission limit that represents the predominant activity.

The second alternative allows a facility to comply with a facility-specific emission limit calculated from the relative amount of coating activity that is subject to individual emission limits. The facility-specific emission limit may include separate emission limits from one or more applicable NESHAP.

You must include all surface coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP and constitute more than 1 percent of total coating activities. Coating activities that meet the applicability criteria of a subcategory in a surface coating NESHAP but comprise less than 1 percent of total coating activities need not be included in the facility-specific emission limit calculation but they must be included in the compliance calculations.

Another approach that you may use is the equivalency by permit option in 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (§ 63.94). Under this approach, you may design an emissions control program that is suited for your process or plant as long as you can demonstrate that your program will achieve the same emissions reductions as the NESHAP. You must then work with your State, local, or tribal air pollution control agency to submit an equivalency demonstration. This equivalency demonstration will be reviewed by the appropriate EPA Regional Office. The equivalency demonstration is approved as part of the operating permit approval process. For more information, please see the section 112(l) website at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112(l)/112-lpg.html.

G. Initial and Continuous Compliance Demonstrations for Magnet Wire Sources

In the final rule we have provided alternative testing and monitoring requirements for magnet wire coating operations. These alternative requirements are presented in appendix A to this rule.

An alternative procedure is provided for determining the destruction efficiency of oxidizers used to control emissions from magnet wire coating machines. This procedure uses material consumption and material organic volatile content, adjusted to account for any uncaptured emissions, to determine the organic volatile content of the inlet stream to the control device.

In addition, magnet wire coating operations may, with approval, conduct representative capture efficiency and control device efficiency testing of one magnet wire coating machine out of a group of identical or very similar magnet wire coating machines rather than testing every individual magnet wire coating machine.

An alternative procedure is provided for monitoring capture systems on magnet wire coating machines. This alternative requires you to install an alarm or interlock which will be triggered either when any oven exhaust fan is not operating or the oven is overheating. This alternative also requires you to confirm every 6 months that the oven is operating at negative pressure.

An alternative procedure is provided for monitoring catalytic oxidizers on magnet wire coating machines. This alternative allows you to develop and implement an inspection and maintenance plan as described in appendix A to this rule and to measure the temperature either before or after the catalyst bed and compare the measured temperature to the operating limit. In addition to the inspection and maintenance plan, you must either perform periodic catalyst activity checks, or check the concentration of organic compounds in the oven exhaust.

IV. What Are the Responses to Significant Comments?

For the full set of comment summaries and responses, refer to the BID (“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products,” August 2003, EPA-453/R-03-008), which contains EPA's

responses to each public comment and is available in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0116 (formerly Docket No. A-97-34).

A. Applicability and Scope of Source Category

Comment:

Two commenters requested that powder coatings be specifically excluded from the final rule. One commenter stated that powder coatings typically have no HAP or trace amounts of HAP that would easily comply with the emission limits. One commenter stated that powder coating operations should not be subject to a recordkeeping and reporting burden that would have no resulting environmental benefit. One commenter suggested that including powder coatings would reduce “expected” HAP reductions from these NESHAP and that averaging could be limited to liquid coatings only.

Response:

Powder coatings are included in the definition of a coating in the final rule. However, if a source is using only powder coating or powder coating and less than 250 gal of HAP-containing coating, it would be excluded from all rule requirements based on the use of non-HAP coating and less than 250 gal of HAP-containing coating. If a source is using greater than 250 gal of HAP-containing coating and also has a powder coating line, it may choose to comply with the compliant material option for the powder coating line. The records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the compliant material option are significantly less than required under one of the emission rate options. Alternatively, if a source chooses to use either of the emission rate options, powder coatings may be included in the compliance calculations for the emission rate options. Inclusion of powder coatings in the compliance calculations was intended to serve as an incentive for sources to use powder coatings in reducing their overall emission level. We expect that increased use of powder coatings will promote this technology as a pollution prevention alternative and will result in greater emission reductions than if powder coatings were specifically excluded from compliance calculations. If a source chooses to omit powder coatings from the compliance calculations, the source could document that the powder coatings are in compliance under the compliant materials option since powder coatings are essentially 100 percent solids.

Comment:

Several commenters requested that EPA revise the definition of “protective oil” to clarify whether specific materials cited by the commenters are considered protective oils. One commenter requested that EPA revise the definition of protective oil to clarify that protective oils include three specific coatings: temporary protective coatings on metal products to protect them from rust and corrosion during shipment and storage but that leave a soft removable solid film, magnet wire lubrication that is put on the wire before it is wound on a spool and forms a wax film, and bar seal lubrication that prevents hand gloves from sticking to generator parts during taping.

Another commenter requested that EPA modify the definition of protective oil to specifically include carrier solvents. The commenter claimed that skin lubricants used on hypodermic needles do not meet the definition of a coating because they do not cure and form a solid film. The commenter stated that the skin lubricant is a viscous liquid that uses a HAP as a carrier and remains liquid after the HAP evaporates.

Another commenter requested that aqueous-based rust inhibitors should not be considered coatings under the final rule and that this should be clarified in the definition of “coating.” The commenter contended that the rule as proposed currently exempts protective oil-type rust inhibitors and should also exempt aqueous-based materials used for the same purpose.

Response:

We agree with the commenters that the definition of protective oils should be written to include those oils that include a carrier solvent and that do not form a solid film (

e.g.

, skin lubricants on hypodermic needles). The definition of protective oils has also been written to include magnet wire lubrication and soft temporary protective coatings that are removed prior to installation or further assembly of a part or component. Those materials that do not form a solid film are not typically considered coatings. Aqueous rust inhibitors, which are typically acids or bases, are already excluded from the definition of coating as acids or bases.

We do not feel it is necessary to specifically include bar seal lubricants used to prevent hand gloves from sticking to generator parts during taping. This is a specific process using the bar seal lubricant in a way that qualifies as a protective oil by providing lubrication.

Comment:

Two commenters asked for clarification on whether non-HAP coatings should be included in determining whether a facility is subject to the final rule. The commenters noted that § 63.3881(c)(5) of the proposed rule exempts coatings used in amounts of less than 50 gal per year, provided the total amount that is exempt does not exceed 250 gal per year. The commenters asked, for example, whether a facility using 10,000 gal of non-HAP coating and less than 50 gal each of several other HAP-containing coatings totaling less than 250 gal per year would be subject to the final rule.

Response:

In response to comment, we have written the final rule to clearly state that the use of non-HAP materials (as defined in the final rule) does not count toward the 250 gal applicability threshold in the final rule. This would avoid a situation where a source would be subject to the final rule even though it was using primarily non-HAP coatings and less than 250 gal per year of HAP-containing coatings. Because the purpose of the final rule is to control HAP, we agree that it is appropriate to consider only HAP-containing coatings in determining whether a source meets the applicability threshold. The final rule includes a definition of non-HAP coating, which is a coating containing less than 0.1 percent by weight of each individual organic HAP that is an OSHA-defined carcinogen and less than 1.0 percent by weight of all other individual HAP.

Comment:

Several commenters requested clarification on the exemption for facility maintenance surface coating operations. One commenter requested clarification that surface coating of equipment and tools used to manufacture parts and products are not covered by the final rule. The commenter noted that miscellaneous metal parts and products are defined as including “industrial machinery” and “other industrial products.” The commenter requested that an additional paragraph be added to § 63.3881(c) of the final rule to clarify that surface coating of manufacturing equipment, metal molds, and tools are not covered except when these tools are sold or otherwise put into interstate commerce. The commenter requested the definition of facility maintenance state that the repair of metal molds is specifically cited as facility maintenance.

A second commenter stated that it is unclear if the rule as proposed applies to refurbishment activities and maintenance coating of existing metal parts, or if the rule as proposed is intended to apply only to “new” metal parts produced for sale. The commenter noted that some maintenance activities conducted at facilities include coating metal equipment and parts that are not part of the infrastructure of the affected facility, such as trucks or other transport vessels for raw materials or products.

One commenter requested clarification that coating activities at industrial sites to maintain the

structural and operational integrity of process equipment are not covered by the final rule. Many industries coat new and existing support structures, piping, and equipment as part of routine maintenance activities, but they do not produce and coat metal parts for commercial sale.

Two commenters requested that repainting of refillable gas cylinders for the delivery of industrial gases should be considered facility maintenance and not covered by the final rule. One commenter argued that the gas cylinders are transferred back and forth to the customer and that the principal activity of the facility is the delivery of gases and not the repainting of cylinders. Another commenter stated that the final rule should apply only to facilities for which surface coating is the “principal activity,” rather than merely discussing this applicability in the preamble.

Another commenter requested the facility maintenance exemption for surface coating on tools and equipment also apply to tools used occasionally off-site. Another commenter requested that EPA expand the definition of facility maintenance to include the fabrication and coating of equipment needed to support the function of the facility (

e.g.

, equipment required for supporting, holding, or reaching aircraft or aircraft parts and components).

Response:

The EPA agrees that the surface coating of equipment and tools used by a manufacturing facility (compared to machinery and tools that are sold as industrial products) should be considered part of facility maintenance operations and not part of the miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating source category. The final rule includes a definition of “facility maintenance operations” that includes the routine repair or renovation (including the surface coating) of the tools, equipment, machinery, and structures that comprise the infrastructure of the affected facility. Infrastructure may include buildings, tools, and equipment needed to support the function of the facility that are fixed in place, or are occasionally used off-site.

Since mold release agents are applied to molds and are not applied to the part being produced and do not become part of the part being produced, they would be considered part of facility maintenance and would not be subject to the final rule. However, EPA does not believe it is necessary to specifically include mold release agents in the definition of facility maintenance since they would already be covered as a surface coating applied to the tools and equipment of the affected facility.

The regular painting of gas cylinders is not considered facility maintenance because it is not incidental to the primary activity of a facility delivering specialty gases. The repainting of the cylinders is central to the reliable delivery of industrial gases to customers, even if the cylinders are owned by and returned to the gas vendor. The coating is not episodic or occasional, but is an ongoing operation at the source for which dedicated, fixed machinery and equipment are installed at the source. For these reasons, coating of the cylinders is considered part of the principal activity of the facility, which is providing gas to customers in sound and easily identifiable containers. Facility maintenance activities, including episodic or occasional surface coating, on the other hand, is ancillary or incidental to the principal activity of the facility.

The coating of mobile equipment and fleet trucks is considered part of facility maintenance for the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP, as long as the coating of mobile equipment and fleet trucks is not one of the principal activities of the source. The routine maintenance of metal parts (such as rail car maintenance and drum refurbishment) is not exempt from the final rule when it is performed at sources for which their principal activity is the routine maintenance, including surface coating, of metal parts that are not new parts.

B. Need for Separate Source Category for Department of Defense Coatings

Comment:

One commenter stated that EPA should establish a separate source category for DoD surface coating operations not covered by the Aerospace or the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subparts GG and II, respectively) and exempt these coating operations from the final rule for miscellaneous metal parts. The commenter described the unique material requirements and operating conditions for military coating operations that are different from commercial operations. The commenter claimed that the proposed compliance options would be impractical and extremely costly for DoD facilities because of the complexity of military coating operations, the number of coatings and solvents used, and the number of different items and substrates coated. Many DoD installations (especially those that service or remanufacture artillery, armored vehicles, weapons systems, and support equipment) use thousands of different coatings, and each material is subject to its own military specification.

Because DoD facilities use HAP-containing solvents, the commenter claimed they could not use the proposed compliant materials option. Reformulating solvents or coatings requires extensive field testing before they may be approved for use in tactical field equipment and weapons systems. In addition, updating the coatings for which there is a military specification requires updating the documentation applicable to military specifications and the documentation for the relevant equipment and weapons systems that adopt those military specifications.

The proposed emission rate option and the add-on controls option are not feasible because they would require DoD to be able to accurately track the amount of coating or cleaning solvent used on each item or substrate. As noted above, DoD installations may use thousands of different coatings on a variety of substrates, including metal, plastic, ceramics, rubber, fabric, wood, and composites.

The commenter requested a separate source category so that emission limits and a regulatory format could be developed that would be most appropriate for military coating needs. The commenter claimed that a separate rule also would ensure that all DoD coatings could comply with emission limits using the same units of measure. The commenter noted that DoD facilities use many of the same high performance coatings on plastic and metal items and substrates, and they could be potentially regulated by both the NESHAP for plastic parts and products and the NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products.

Response:

After several visits to DoD surface coating operations and meetings with DoD stakeholders, EPA agrees that a separate source category for DoD surface coating operations is warranted. One factor that we considered in this decision is the unique military specifications for coatings used on tactical and other military equipment. Further data collection and analysis are required to determine what emission limits are achievable for these coating operations. Another factor that we considered is the issue that military facilities may use thousands of different coatings, and that the types of equipment that are coated and the types of coatings used in a given time period are unpredictable and often influenced by world events. Further analysis is needed to determine what emission limit formats, compliance demonstration, and recordkeeping requirements are practical for this type of situation. Another consideration was

the high probability that these sources would be subject to multiple NESHAP.

The EPA will be developing separate NESHAP for “Defense Land Systems and Miscellaneous Equipment” surface coating operations. Those NESHAP will include operations that do not meet the applicability criteria of the Aerospace NESHAP or the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP. The comments pertaining to the format of the standards and appropriate compliance options will be taken into consideration in the development of those NESHAP.

Since a separate source category will be established for DoD surface coating operations, the definition of high performance coating in the final rule has been written so that it does not include “military combat, tactical, and munitions coating” and the definition of “military combat, tactical, and munitions coating” is not included in the final rule.

C. Exclusion of Activities Subject to Other Surface Coating NESHAP

Comment:

Several commenters requested that EPA clarify that the Aerospace NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG), rather than the Miscellaneous Metal Parts NESHAP, cover parts necessary for the proper functioning of aircraft. The commenters were concerned in particular that the rule, as proposed, could be interpreted to apply to the specialty coatings included in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG. The commenters stated that the Aerospace NESHAP found that MACT controls were not warranted for certain aerospace surface coating operations and that regulating these operations under the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP would be an unexplained change in policy.

Another commenter suggested that the final rule include an alternative compliance option for facilities subject to the final NESHAP under development for the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks that also coat metal parts that would not be subject to the Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP. The commenter noted that some automobile and light-duty truck facilities will be subject to the final rule for metal parts coating, the NESHAP for the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty trucks, and the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP. The commenter suggested that a source be allowed to comply with the final NESHAP for automobiles and light-duty trucks for all coating operations if the principle activity is the surface coating of automobiles and light-duty truck bodies. The commenter noted that the metal and plastic parts coating operations are often integrated with the body coating operations, since all three coating operations may share common coating supplies, application equipment, cleaning solvents, and emission controls. The shared equipment and materials could make tracking separate compliance for each NESHAP overly burdensome and would reduce the certainty of compliance.

One commenter requested that EPA clarify that shipbuilding or ship repair surface coating operations are subject to only the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart II). The commenter noted that the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP covers only paints and thinners, and does not cover caulks, sealants, and adhesives. Since the metal parts rule covers all coating materials, the commenter was concerned that it would cover those materials that were not specifically addressed by the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP and will make shipbuilding and ship repair sources subject to multiple NESHAP.

Response:

We agree with the commenter that coating operations that are addressed in the Aerospace NESHAP, and for which EPA determined that MACT controls were not needed, are not intended to be regulated under the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP. To clarify this intent, the final miscellaneous metal parts rule includes a provision that specifies that the final rule does not apply to coatings that meet the applicability criteria for the Aerospace NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart GG). In addition, the final rule excludes the application of specialty coatings, as defined in appendix A to subpart GG, to metal parts of aerospace vehicles or components.

The coating of metal parts that would not meet the applicability of the Aerospace NESHAP or that would not require any of the specialty coatings defined in appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG would be subject to the miscellaneous metal parts final rule. Information provided during the comment period indicates that any miscellaneous metal coating activities would comprise less than 5 percent of total coating activities at an aerospace facility. Consequently, the facility could elect to comply with the predominant activity compliance alternative to reduce its recordkeeping and reporting burden.

We agree that the final rule for the surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts is not intended to apply to coating operations that meet the applicability criteria of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP. Although the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP did not establish emission limits for sealants, caulks, and adhesives used in shipbuilding or ship repair, such types of coatings used for shipbuilding or ship repair operations are more appropriately addressed under the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP. The review of the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP, required by section 112(d)(6)of the CAA, is an appropriate mechanism for evaluating whether emission limits are needed for sealants, caulks, and adhesives used in shipbuilding or ship repair.

For sources that will be subject to the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP, the final miscellaneous metal parts and products rule includes a provision to mitigate the overlap at these facilities. For these metal part surface coating operations, a facility has the option to comply with the requirements of the final Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks NESHAP as long as the metal parts are for use in automobiles or light-duty trucks.

D. Complying With the Rule Representing the Majority of the Substrate (Plastic or Metal) on Pre-assembled Parts.

Comment:

Several commenters supported this provision of the proposed rule while others did not. Several commenters noted that the source would be required to determine every month whether the majority of substrate on pre-assembled parts was metal or plastic based on the coatings applied during the previous 12-month period and argued this would be overly burdensome. Two commenters suggested that because the relative amount of metal and plastic coated could change over time, a facility could potentially fluctuate between applicable NESHAP. Two commenters also suggested that the final rule require facilities to establish whether the majority of surfaces coated are metal or plastic only at the time of their title V permit renewal, rather than on a 12-month rolling basis, to provide stability and reduce recordkeeping burden.

Other commenters claimed that the rule does not adequately address situations where separate plastic and metal parts are coated on the same line. As proposed, separate metal and plastic parts coated on the same line would need to comply separately with the plastic parts and the metal parts rules. The commenters noted that the same coatings and feed systems are often used for both plastic and metal parts on a

single line. The commenters recommended that the final rule adopt a “predominant activity” concept, whereby the facility could determine the predominant coating activity of a line and then comply with a single NESHAP.

Response:

We recognize and appreciate some of the problems that were identified with this approach by the commenters. Although some commenters supported this approach, it is not included in the final rule. The final rule instead offers more practical compliance approaches, including a predominant activity alternative as suggested by some of the commenters.

The predominant activity alternative allows a facility to identify its predominant type of coating activity and comply with the NESHAP or the subcategory emission limit that applies to that activity for all coating operations. The predominant activity is defined as the activity that represents 90 percent or more of the surface coating that occurs at a facility.

We have analyzed the relative differences in emission limits that are included in the predominant activity compliance option, as it would apply to the NESHAP for plastic parts and products and the NESHAP for miscellaneous metal parts and products. We have determined, for certain subcategories, that the environmental impact of complying with the emission limit for the predominant activity is essentially equivalent to complying separately with each emission limit. For other subcategories, the environmental impact could be substantially different. To prevent situations that could lead to substantial emissions increases, the following activities cannot be used as the predominant activity at a facility: high performance, rubber-to-metal, and extreme performance fluoropolymer coatings. Emission limits for these coating operations reflect the need for specialized performance requirements that can currently be accomplished only with materials that contain substantially higher-HAP than materials used at other types of coating operations. It would be inappropriate to allow coating operations that can be performed with lower-HAP materials to comply with substantially higher-HAP emission limits than would otherwise be applicable.

Under the predominant activity alternative, if all coating operations subject to NESHAP comply with the emission limit applicable to the predominant activity, the facility will be considered in compliance with the emission limits otherwise applicable to the minority surface coating operations (

i.e,

those that amount to less than 10 percent of the coating activity).

Another compliance option to eliminate the need to comply with more than one coating NESHAP has also been added to the final rule. This second option allows a facility to calculate and comply with a facility-specific emission limit.

E. Comply With the Most Stringent NESHAP

Comment:

Several commenters supported this provision. One commenter agreed that complying with only one NESHAP would prevent excessive monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. One commenter suggested that this option would require less recordkeeping than tracking and determining which substrate represents the greatest coating activity.

However, several commenters stated that different units of measure (

e.g.

, lb organic HAP per lb solids versus lb organic HAP per gal solids) make it difficult to determine which surface coating NESHAP among several is more stringent. Additionally, one commenter noted that case-by-case demonstrations of relative stringency based on total estimated annual emissions are difficult because of the different standards and units of measure in the various NESHAP. One commenter noted that when different NESHAP have different methods of compliance demonstration, sources must track and allocate material usage differently for different parts. Cleaning solvents in particular are a problem, since some NESHAP emission limits include cleaning solvents while others impose work practices instead.

One commenter noted that the rule as proposed places the burden on the source to determine the most stringent limit, and that the different units used for different surface coating rules may cause a source to mistakenly fall out of compliance through miscalculation or misunderstanding.

Several commenters suggested options so that sources would not have to determine which rule is most stringent on a case-by-case basis. Some commenters suggested that the relative stringency of different NESHAP should be stated in each rulemaking so that facilities subject to more than one NESHAP do not need to perform a case-by-case determination of which applicable rule is most stringent. Another commenter suggested that the different surface coating rules contain factors or equations so a source could convert emission limits from one unit to another (

e.g.

, lb organic HAP/lb solids to lb organic HAP/gal solids).

One commenter recommended that EPA allow facilities subject to both the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP and the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP the option of complying with the standards of their choice since both NESHAP will significantly reduce organic HAP emissions.

Response:

Through clarification of the applicability provisions of the final rule, as described in this preamble, we have significantly reduced the potential for sources to be subject to multiple surface coating NESHAP. In addition, EPA is providing in the final rule, the opportunity for a source to determine and comply with a facility-specific weighted emission limit for all coating operations that take place at the source. The emission limit would be weighted according to the relative amount of coatings used that would be subject to separate emission limits. This alternative emission limit may include applicable emission limits from two or more NESHAP.

In calculating the facility-specific emission limit, the basis for the weighting of the individual emission limits must be the volume of coating solids used in each subcategory. The volume coating solids used in the different coating operations may be calculated by a variety of methods, as long as it is accepted by the permitting authority. For example, in some cases a facility that uses the same coating for plastic and metal parts may be able to use the design specifications of the parts coated and the numbers of each type of part coated to calculate the volume of coating solids used for metal and plastic surfaces subject to the individual emission limits. In other situations, actual records of coating usage for each operation may be needed to provide a valid calculation.

In calculating a facility-specific emission limit for operations subject to NESHAP with emission limits in different formats, you will need to convert emission limits to the same format. To do so, you must use a default value for solids density of 10.5 lbs solids per gal solids (1.26 kg solids/liter solids) to convert emission limits in the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP that are in “HAP per mass solids” to the “HAP per volume solids” units of the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP. This default value was calculated from the weighted-average solids density of coatings in the plastic parts survey database and represents the average solids density of plastic parts coatings.

The following example illustrates how the facility-specific emission limit

may be used. Assume a facility has three coating operations subject to the following emission limits:

• Plastic parts general use (0.16 lb organic HAP/lb solids);

• Miscellaneous metal parts extreme performance flouropolymer coatings (12.4 lb organic HAP/gal solids); and

• Miscellaneous metal parts general use (2.6 lb organic HAP/gal solids).

The three coating operations used the following volumes of coating solids in the 12 months of the compliance period:

• Plastic parts general use: 40,000 gal solids;

• Miscellaneous metal parts extreme performance flouropolymer coatings: 2,000 gal solids; and

• Miscellaneous metal parts general use: 58,000 gal solids.

First, the plastic parts general use emission limit must be converted to lb organic HAP/gal solids units using the default solids density of 10.5 lb solids per gal solids:

ER02JA04.000

Next, the facility-specific emission limit is calculated using Equation 1 in § 63.3890 of the final rule:

ER02JA04.001

If all coating operations comply with an emission limit of 2.4 lb organic HAP/gal solids and with the other compliance provisions of the final rule, the facility will be in compliance with the final rule for that compliance period. The calculation must be repeated for each 12-month compliance period. In this example, compliance will also constitute compliance with the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP for the plastic parts coating operations. The facility may use either the compliant materials option, the emission rate without add-on controls option, or the emission rate with add-on controls option to demonstrate compliance with the facility-specific emission limit.

This approach is consistent with the CAA because the emission limits from which the facility-specific emission limit would be calculated are based on the MACT emission limits for each applicable coating operation. We believe that overall emissions would be essentially the same as if each coating operation were complying separately with each applicable emission limit. The facility-specific emission limit needs to be calculated each month of the 12 month compliance period because of the wide differences in the various emission limits available for inclusion. A relatively small change in the mix of coating operations conducted during a compliance period may have a significant effect on the weighted emission limit. Thus, it would not be appropriate for a facility to establish and maintain a fixed facility-specific emission limit based on historical data or long term projections.

In the final rule, the facility-specific emission limit and predominant activity alternatives provide sources with comprehensive and flexible approaches that will reduce the recordkeeping associated with sources that coat multiple substrates and whose workload could fluctuate over time. These alternatives reduce the likelihood of overlap among multiple surface coating NESHAP.

F. Assembled On-Road Vehicle Coating

Comment:

Two commenters recommended that the predominant substrate type on motor homes and other recreational vehicles (RV) be established as the most restrictive substrate type (

i.e.

, plastics). They argued that a single emission limit should be established for coating motor homes and other assembled on-road vehicles (AORV) that reflects the restrictions of the plastic substrate used on the bodies of motor homes and other RV. The commenters argued that the recordkeeping to document the fraction of plastic and metal on RV would be a major challenge because of the different options for each RV that can be chosen by the customer which affect the ratio of metal-to-plastic that is coated on each vehicle.

One commenter requested that the metal parts rule specifically exclude aftermarket repairs and refinishing of heavy duty trucks, buses, and other vehicles. Other commenters requested that the final rule exempt auto refinishing operations and requested that the final rule state that the refinishing of assembled vehicles is covered under the AORV coating subcategory in the Plastic Parts and Products NESHAP. One commenter also requested that the AORV subcategory in the plastic parts rule, and not the miscellaneous metal parts rule, apply to vehicle parts that are separate from the assembled vehicle at the time of coating application, if the part is eventually to be incorporated into the vehicle. The commenter reasoned that emissions from such operations are negligible in comparison to overall refinish coating emissions, and tremendous costs would be involved with having to reformulate all the colors required to color match under two different regulatory limits and units of measure.

Response:

We agree that a single emission limit should apply to all surface coating operations on motor homes and other fully assembled vehicles. Even though fully assembled vehicles may contain a mix of plastic and metal substrates, the majority of the surface coatings applied to the vehicle are automotive-type refinish coatings. In the proposed rule for plastic parts and product surface coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPP; 67 FR 72276, December 4, 2002), we proposed an emission limit for an AORV surface coating subcategory, and an emission limit for that subcategory has been included in the final plastic parts rule.

The AORV subcategory in the final plastic parts rule includes all surface coating operations (regardless of the relative amount of metal and plastic) on fully assembled vehicles, including, for example, motor homes and other RV, refinishing of cars and trucks following body repair, and the painting of fleet trucks. Surface coating operations that

are subject to the AORV surface coating emission limit in the plastic parts rule are not subject to any of the emission limits in the miscellaneous metal parts and products rule. These include incidental coating of parts that have been removed from the vehicle, such as grille fronts, to facilitate access and coverage.

G. The MACT Floor Approach and Database

Comment:

Several commenters supported the approach of using State volatile organic compounds (VOC) rules to develop the MACT floor. Some found the VOC rules to be a good indicator of HAP emissions and to represent emission levels that have been shown to be achievable for the range of sources in the category and supported the assumptions made by EPA in that approach. However, one commenter contended that EPA improperly used State VOC emission limits instead of levels “actually achieved” by the best performing 12 percent of sources to set the MACT floor. The commenter argued that one legal precedent (

Sierra Club

v.

U.S. EPA

, 167 F.3d 658, 664 D.C. Cir. 1999) has found that the use of regulatory permit data in place of actual performance data is only permissible for setting a MACT floor when a rational relationship exists between permitted emissions and actual emissions. The commenter argued that a significant difference existed between the allowable VOC emissions under State rules and actual HAP emissions of the best performing facilities because EPA improperly assumed that all facilities operated at the allowable VOC level in the State rules. That is, EPA assumed that VOC emissions were no lower than the State VOC limits.

In place of using State VOC rules, the commenter argued that EPA should use the average emission rate of 0.1 lb organic HAP/gal coating solids that was the result of a preliminary ranking presented in the preamble to the proposed rule (67 FR 52791, August 13, 2002). The commenter further argued that unless EPA sees a need to establish additional subcategories, this limit should apply to all sources in the general use coating category.

The commenter noted that the HAP limits for the general use category are higher than the actual emissions of “a large portion” of the existing sources that will be regulated by the final rule. From this observation, the commenter concluded that the final rule will allow several hundred sources to increase HAP emissions.

The commenter also contended that data from the miscellaneous metal parts and products industry indicated that coating formulations with less HAP do not result in less VOC, and it is incorrect to assume that VOC control is a proxy for HAP control. The commenter concluded from this observation that using State VOC rules to develop the MACT floor for HAP emissions was inconsistent with the CAA because no rational relationship existed between permitted VOC emissions and actual HAP emissions.

Response:

For most of the sources in this source category, the State VOC rules constituted the only applicable and measurable emission limitation that could be used in a MACT floor ranking for some subcategories. We did not adopt the emission level indicated by the preliminary MACT ranking because that level was not achievable for the extremely diverse facilities in the relevant subcategories, as represented by the miscellaneous metal parts and products database. Along with various stakeholder groups, we also considered MACT rankings for individual industry segments, but the results for individual segments would not be achievable for all sources within those segments because of diversity even within those segments. The only exceptions were for the rubber-to-metal subcategory and the magnet-wire subcategory, where the MACT emission limits are based on the MACT database rankings for these segments. Therefore, we chose the final approach of basing HAP limits on State VOC limits for the general use and high performance categories. State VOC limits have been demonstrated to be achievable emission limitations for the range of sources included within these two miscellaneous metal parts and products subcategories.

We started our development of HAP limits with the State VOC limits and then applied the appropriate HAP/VOC ratio to determine a good representation of the HAP content of coatings that meet the VOC limits. If we had just used the VOC limits as HAP limits without adjusting for the HAP/VOC ratio, then the assertion in the comment would be more accurate.

Although we agree that some sources achieved nominally lower-HAP emission limitations than those derived from the State VOC limits, it is not clear that those lower-emitting facilities represent the range of sources in the source category or in any distinct or clearly definable subcategory or industry segment.

Contrary to the commenter's assertion, VOC limits do limit HAP emissions indirectly from this source category because nearly all organic HAP used in coatings and related solvents are also VOC. Although many VOC are not HAP, limiting VOC also limits HAP because the HAP content cannot exceed the VOC limit. Therefore, those sources subject to VOC limits have also reduced HAP emissions to comply with the VOC emission limits.

We have established for this source category that a reasonable relationship exists between State VOC rule limits and actual VOC emissions for most facilities. Using the miscellaneous metal parts and products survey data, we calculated the average VOC content (in lb VOC per gal of coating, less water) for each facility subject to a State VOC rule limit. The average VOC content of the coatings reported for each facility subject to a State VOC limit is nominally lower than the applicable State VOC limit, consistent with allowing a reasonable margin for compliance.

Comment:

One commenter supported the HAP-to-VOC ratio that was used to convert the VOC limits in State coating rules to HAP limits. However, another commenter argued against using the average HAP-to-VOC ratio for all sources in setting the MACT floor, stating that among the best performing sources, the HAP-to-VOC ratio is much less than the 43-percent overall average ratio used by EPA. The commenter did not provide specific HAP-to-VOC ratios for any of the lower emitting facilities. The commenter argued that if EPA decides to base the rule on State VOC limits, EPA should replace the 43-percent HAP-to-VOC ratio with the average HAP-to-VOC ratio for the best performing 12 percent of sources.

Another commenter noted that the EPA database did not include or account for HAP contained in solvent blends. The commenter claimed that the default fractions for these products could “significantly impact the baseline” and requested that the VOC-to-HAP conversion factor be reviewed.

Response:

As suggested by one commenter, we assessed the HAP-to-VOC ratio of those facilities that represented the MACT floor. And as suggested by other commenters, we reviewed the solvent blends that were used by a representative sample of sources and adjusted the emission limits is proposed to account for the organic HAP in solvent blends. The sources included in the MACT floor 12-percent determination are the facilities in the metal parts database that are subject to the most stringent State VOC coating rules.

Contrary to the one commenter's contention, we found that the HAP-to-VOC ratio for sources subject to the most stringent State VOC rules was

neither lower than nor substantially different from the 0.43 ratio used to develop the proposed emission limits. We estimated that the organic HAP from solvent blends accounts for about 2 percent of all HAP. Therefore, the HAP-to-VOC ratio used for calculating the general use limits has been increased from 0.43 to 0.44 to account for the organic HAP in solvent blends, and the general use limits were recalculated and then rounded to two significant figures. The revised existing source limit is 2.6 lb organic HAP/gal (0.31 kg organic HAP/liter) coating solids used. The revised new source limit is 1.9 lb organic HAP/gal (0.23 kg organic HAP/liter). Some of the emission limits changed slightly due to rounding the proposed emission limits to two or three significant figures.

Since the high performance, magnet wire, and rubber-to-metal coating emission limits were not developed using the HAP-to-VOC ratio of 0.43, the emission limits for these coating operations were not recalculated. For the high performance limit, a ratio of 0.70 provided by industry was used. For magnet wire and rubber-to-metal, HAP content from the survey database were used to establish the floor, so no HAP-to-VOC ratio was needed for these subcategories.

Comment:

Several commenters stated that the HAP from cleaning materials should not be included in the MACT floor or in calculating emission limits for general use coatings. The commenters argued that the State VOC rules on which these limits are based do not include cleaning solvents. Two commenters pointed out that State VOC rules follow the recommendations of EPA's control technique guideline document for miscellaneous metal parts and products surface coating, which recommends excluding cleaning solvents. By including the cleaning solvents in the miscellaneous metal parts and products MACT floor, the commenters claimed that EPA made the proposed limits more stringent than allowed by the MACT analysis based on State VOC rules. Two commenters suggested that if a cleaning solvent limit were necessary, it should be listed separately or averaged separately and then added directly to the proposed HAP limits.

Several commenters suggested changes to the rule as proposed if cleaning solvent emissions were to be regulated. Three commenters stated that cleaning solvents should be exempt from the final emission limits provided cleaning operations are conducted in closed containers. Two commenters suggested that the final rule should include work practices for cleaning solvents. One commenter noted that the Industrial Cleaning Solvent Alternative Control Technique document suggested solvent accounting and plant management practices to address emissions from solvent cleaning. The same commenter also noted that EPA has used its authority under section 112(h) of the CAA to incorporate work practices for cleaning solvents for the Wood Furniture, Aerospace, and Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP. One commenter suggested cleaning solvents be regulated separately from coatings based on HAP composition or vapor pressure.

Response:

The EPA reviewed the cleaning material reported in the database for the miscellaneous metal parts rule and concluded that no-HAP cleaners are a viable option for sources subject to the final rule. The proposed and final emission limits reflect the fact that miscellaneous metal parts and products sources, for which EPA had data, were using cleaning solvents that contained no organic HAP or were using solvent blends containing only small percentages of organic HAP (

i.e.

, 6 percent HAP or less), which would have little, if any, effect on their emission rate. As described earlier, we have adjusted the HAP-to-VOC ratio used to establish the emission limits to account for the organic HAP contained in solvent blends.

The final rule accounts for cleaning operations that are conducted in closed containers, although there is no specific requirement to perform cleaning in closed containers. In the compliance calculations used in the emission rate without add-on controls option and the emission rate with add-on controls option, you only need to include the organic HAP contained in materials that are consumed during the previous 12-month period and you may take credit for organic HAP contained in materials that are sent off-site for recycling or disposal. If cleaning is performed in closed containers, the amount that evaporates to the atmosphere is minimized.

H. Compliance Options for Meeting the Emission Limits

Comment:

Many commenters requested clarification on how the different compliance options could be applied to different coating lines at the same facility. Several commenters asked EPA to verify that a facility can choose different control options for different lines at a single facility.

Response:

You may choose different compliance options for different lines at the same facility. For example, one line may be able to use the compliant materials option, while another line may need the flexibility to use higher- and lower-HAP materials under one of the emission rate compliance options. You may also use different compliance options within a single line, as long as different compliance options are not applied at the same time to the same coating applied to a single part. For example, most of the coatings used on a particular line may be able to individually meet the emission limit for a particular subcategory, but a few coatings may need a higher-HAP content. You could average these higher-HAP coatings with some of the lower-HAP materials under the emission rate without add-on controls option and demonstrate compliance for these separately, while the other lower-HAP coatings comply under the compliant materials option.

It may be more practical to use an add-on control for some coating operations, such as a specific line, than for others. If you have an add-on control device on some coating operations, the work practice standards apply to only the coatings and operations controlled by the add-on controls.

Comment:

One commenter requested that EPA clarify how to switch between compliance options, specifically when switching between the compliant materials option and one of the two options that require calculating a 12-month rolling average emission rate. The commenter suggested that the final rule should allow maximum flexibility in switching between options as long as all compliance periods demonstrate compliance under at least one option, and the necessary data are available for calculating the needed 12-month averages.

Response:

You may switch between compliance options at any time as long as you notify your permitting authority in your next semiannual compliance report, and you comply with all monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting needed for the compliance option to which you are switching. Keep in mind, however, that if you switch from one compliance option to another, you must be able to demonstrate compliance based on the previous 12 months of data. As a result, you may need data from the previous 12 months of operation that were not specifically required by the option under which you were previously demonstrating compliance. This could be especially true if you switched from the compliant materials option to the emission rate without add-on controls option or the emission rate with add-on controls option.

If you began using an add-on control device and complying with the emission rate with add-on controls option, you may apply the emission reduction credit to only those coatings that were applied after you began using the add-on control device. You would also need to demonstrate compliance with the operating limits for the add-on control device only after you began using it. Conversely, if you stopped using an add-on control device and began complying with the emission rate without add-on controls option, you could no longer apply the emission reduction credit to coatings applied after the add-on control was shut down, but you would also no longer need to demonstrate compliance with the operating limits. In both cases, your 12-month compliance calculations would include a period when the control device was in use and a period when it was not. As you moved through time and performed subsequent monthly compliance calculations, the fraction of coating activity under the previous compliance option would decrease and the fraction under the current compliance option would increase.

Comment:

One commenter requested that the HAP content of thinners and solvents not be restricted to absolute zero for the compliant materials option because thinners and solvents can pick up trace amounts of HAP during the recycling process.

Response:

In the final rule, we have clarified that under the compliant materials compliance option, thinners and cleaning solvents do not need to be absolutely zero-HAP. We have included a definition of non-HAP materials based on common reporting thresholds that are already in use. Thinners and other additives, cleaning solvents, and coatings are considered non-HAP as long as the organic HAP level does not exceed the OSHA reporting thresholds for HAP (0.1 percent by weight for OSHA-defined carcinogens and 1.0 percent by weight for other HAP). In addition, we have included a provision that you do not need to redetermine the organic HAP content of solvents that are recycled off-site, if you have documentation showing that you received back the exact same solvent you originally sent off-site for recycling. This documentation ensures that the solvent you receive back does not represent a potential net increase in the organic HAP being brought to the site. The final rule contains a provision that you do not need to redetermine the organic HAP content of solvent recycled on site.

Comment:

One commenter suggested that HAP emissions from storage, mixing, conveying, and waste management of coatings, thinners, cleaning materials, and associated wastes should be explicitly excluded in the emission calculations in the rule. The commenter noted that it is difficult to directly quantify these emissions and that there is often a lack of general agreement on how to quantify such losses. The commenter also noted that EPA stated in the preamble to the proposed rule that we were not able to obtain data to adequately quantify HAP emissions from storage, mixing, and waste handling (67 FR 52790).

Response:

Under the compliant material option you must demonstrate that the organic HAP content of each coating used in the coating operation(s) is less than or equal to the applicable emission limit in § 63.3890, and that each thinner, additive, and cleaning material used contains no organic HAP. The compliant material option focuses on the organic HAP content of coatings, thinners, additives, and cleaning materials as received from the manufacturer or supplier and prior to any alteration. No separate or direct accounting of emissions from storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, additives, cleaning materials and associated wastes is required under the compliant material option. Such an accounting clearly is not needed when each coating is a compliant coating and each thinner, additive, and cleaning material contains no organic HAP.

Under the emission rate without add-on controls option and the emission rate with add-on controls option all of the organic HAP content of coatings, thinners, additives, and cleaning materials is initially assumed to be emitted. (See calculation of the terms A, B, and C in § 63.3951(e).) Any emissions from storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, additives, cleaning materials, and associated wastes are implicitly included in this assumption. The rule does include provisions which allow for reclaimed materials to be excluded from material usage. (See introductory language to § 63.3951.) The rule also includes provisions for the organic HAP in waste materials sent or designated for shipment to a hazardous waste TSDF for treatment or disposal to be excluded from the total mass of organic HAP emissions. No separate or direct accounting of emissions from storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, additives, cleaning materials, and associated wastes is required under either the emission rate without add-on controls option or the emission rate with add-on controls option. Such an accounting clearly is not needed when all of the organic HAP content of coatings, thinners, additives, and cleaning materials is initially assumed to be emitted and provisions are made to exclude reclaimed materials from material usage and to exclude organic HAP in waste materials sent or designated for shipment to a hazardous waste TSDF for treatment or disposal to be excluded from the total mass of organic HAP emissions.

We agree that no separate or direct accounting of emissions from storage, mixing, and conveying of coatings, thinners, additives, cleaning materials, and associated wastes is required under this rule. We believe that this is sufficiently clear in the final rule. We have not made any changes in the final rule in regard to this comment.

I. Methods for Expressing Organic HAP Content of Coatings

Comment:

Several commenters stated that the emission limits should be in units of pounds of HAP per gal of coating (lbs HAP/gal coating), rather than lbs HAP/gal solids to be consistent with existing permits and State coating rules. One commenter noted that changing the units from lb/gal coating to lb/gal solids would not allow the facility to continue to track performance improvements from VOC emission reduction initiatives. One commenter, a representative of the recreational vehicle industry, stated that using lb organic HAP/gal solids would be consistent with other coating rules that affect the recreational vehicle industry.

Response:

The emission limits in many State VOC rules for miscellaneous metal parts coating are expressed in units of mass of VOC per volume of coating less water and less exempt compounds. Similar units were used for the emission limit recommendations in the 1978 guidance document for this source category titled Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (EPA-450/2-78-015). These “less water” units are difficult to work with and are impractical for facilities with add-on control equipment. As a result of 1987 EPA guidance (52 FR 45108, November 24, 1987), some States have changed their VOC limits to mass of VOC per volume of solids, and most States have added alternative limits in units of mass of VOC per volume of solids for facilities with add-on control equipment.

The use of “less water” units for HAP in the final rule would lead to even more difficulties and probable confusion. In order to provide a meaningful basis for comparison of the HAP content of different coatings, the

units would need to be mass of HAP per volume of coating less water and less non-HAP organic volatiles. Most coatings contain non-HAP organic volatiles. In order to express the HAP content of such coatings in these units, the weight fraction and density of each non-HAP organic volatile would be needed. This could be a significant additional data gathering burden. In addition, these units would be unworkable for facilities with add-on control equipment.

Comment:

Additional commenters objected to expressing the emission limits in lb organic HAP/gal solids, claiming that this unit of measure is hard to understand and verify for several reasons: Estimating gal of solids is based on theoretical calculations; manufacturers do not routinely measure gal solids; and the two ASTM methods specified for measuring volume solids, ASTM Methods D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998) and D6093-97, are inaccurate and costly to run. The commenter also specifically claimed that the emission limits were based on an arbitrarily chosen default density for coating solids. The commenters recommended using lb organic HAP/lb coating solids because this metric is readily available from the manufacturers, is based on a reliable method, and is more universally used by the surface coating industry.

Response:

Many Federal and State VOC rules use units of mass of VOC per volume of solids. In over 20 years of use, there have been no significant difficulties identified or reported in the use or understanding of these units. The volume solids content of coatings is routinely used by both coating manufacturers and coating users as a measure of coverage. The survey data that EPA collected on miscellaneous metal parts and products coatings indicate that volume solids data are commonly available.

The test methods for volume solids are one option for generating volume solids content data. Formulation data for volume solids may also be used. The final rule states that the test method results will take precedence unless, after consultation, you demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the formulation data are correct.

The emissions limits were, in part, determined by using a standard VOC density to convert State emission limits from units of mass of VOC per volume of coating less water and less exempt compounds to mass of VOC per volume of solids. The VOC density used for this conversion was 7.36 lbs per gal. This VOC density was used in EPA's 1978 guidance for this source category and is commonly used for converting emissions limits for this source category from a “less water” to a volume solids basis. This document is “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources—Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products,” EPA-450/2-78-015. The density of coating solids is not needed and was not used to make this conversion.

Comment:

One commenter requested that the final rule clarify how powder coatings can be used in calculations to show compliance with the emission rate option. The commenter noted that the compliance units and equations are based on volume, which is not applicable for non-liquid coatings, which are purchased by weight. The commenter suggested that the rule include a method for determining the density of powder coatings so the gal of solids for powder coatings can be determined.

Response:

In the final rule, you may include the solids from powder coatings in the denominator for the emission rate calculations in the emission rate without add-on controls and the emission rate with add-on controls compliance options. By allowing facilities to include powder coatings in the compliance demonstrations, we hope to encourage greater use of this lower-emitting technology. The final rule includes ASTM Method D5965-02, “Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of Coating Powders,” to measure the density of powder coatings. The density (or applied coating solids density) is density of the powder coating after application and curing. The bulk density (or apparent density) of the powder coating prior to application cannot be used in the compliance calculations because the bulk density will include air spaces in the powder that are not present in the cured coating.

Comments:

One commenter stated that the final rule should allow sources or materials suppliers to use alternatives to EPA Method 24 to determine the amount of HAP that is actually emitted from reactive adhesives as they are used. The proposed rule and associated test methods assumed that all HAP contained in coatings or additives are emitted. However, in reactive adhesives, some of the HAP species react with other ingredients to form solids and are not emitted to the atmosphere. Therefore, the amount of HAP emitted can be significantly less than the amount of HAP present in the liquid adhesive.

Response:

An alternative method for determining the fraction of HAP emitted from reactive adhesives has been included in appendix A to subpart PPPP 40 CFR part 63. Sources using reactive adhesives may use this method for demonstrating compliance based on the organic HAP actually emitted, rather than using Method 311, Method 24, or composition data. The method relies on preparing a sample (of known weight) of the adhesive as it will be applied, allowing it to fully cure, baking the sample, and then weighing the cured adhesive to determine the weight loss. The weight loss represents the volatile fraction that is emitted from the adhesive.

J. High Performance Coatings

Several commenters suggested that EPA expand the definition of high performance coating to include several types of specialized coatings: Paints for offshore oil platform structures, extreme performance oilfield coatings, and coatings exposed to food grade products in rail tank cars and in drums.

Two commenters requested that EPA expand the definition of high performance coating to include paints used for off shore oil platforms since general use coatings cannot withstand saltwater. The commenters noted that in Louisiana, the coatings used for large off shore structures are subject to the same State limits as those for the shipbuilding and ship repair industry and are not subject to the general use limits in the State miscellaneous metal parts and products rule. The commenters also noted that the definition of coating in the State rule and the Shipbuilding and Ship Repair NESHAP includes just paints and thinners, but the definition in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products NESHAP includes adhesives, caulks, and cleaning solvents.

One commenter requested that extreme performance oilfield coatings should be included in the definition of high performance coating. According to the commenter, internal oilfield pipe coatings must withstand elevated temperature (as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit), extreme pressure, corrosive materials, and abrasive service and these criteria are generally considered in defining the extreme performance category used in California VOC rules. According to the commenter, approximately 15 plants perform oilfield equipment coating.

Another commenter suggested that high performance coatings should include “extreme performance coatings” as defined by South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1107 with the addition of coatings exposed to food grade commodities. The commenter argued that this revision is needed for coatings used on rail tank car interiors

and exteriors to protect them from harsh chemicals or food grade products such as wine and noted that coatings used in tank cars carrying food must meet FDA requirements. The commenter explained that tank car exteriors are exposed to spillage, fumes, salt air, snow, and temperature extremes.

One commenter added that EPA should expand the high performance coatings category to include the coatings applied to the interior of drums and pails to protect substrates from hazardous materials and safeguard food-grade products and prevent leakage. The commenter asked that EPA acknowledge that interior coatings for steel and other metal drums and pails are universally accepted as high performance coatings.

Response:

We analyzed the metal parts survey data that represented the types of coating operations that the commenters argued should be included in the high performance coating category. In all cases, we found that the general use emission limit is achievable for these types of coating operations. The commenters submitted no coating HAP content data to support the need for including these coating types in the definition of high performance coatings.

The metal parts database includes data for facilities that coat off shore oil platforms and internal oilfield pipes. These data indicate that these facilities could comply with the general use emission limit. Therefore, based on the information available to the Administrator, the final rule does not include oil platform and internal oilfield pipe coatings in the definition of high performance coatings.

The metal parts database includes data from 21 sources performing coating operations on rail cars. These data indicate that the general use emission limit is achievable for these types of sources. Therefore, we did not write the final rule to include rail tank car interior or exterior coatings in the definition of high performance coatings.

The metal parts database includes data from 17 sources performing drum coating operations. These data indicate that the general use emission limit is achievable for these types of sources. Therefore, we did not write the final rule to include coatings applied to pails and drums in the definition of high performance coatings.

Comment:

One commenter suggested that extreme performance fluoropolymer (EPFP) coatings should be exempt from the final rule or subject to the limit for high performance coatings. According to the commenter, these coatings are used when one or more of several performance criteria are required including creating a non-stick surface, providing solid film lubrication, providing chemical resistance, providing resistance to a wide range of temperatures, complying with certain FDA specifications, and others. The commenter claimed that water-borne EPFP coatings, for many applications, do not achieve satisfactory abrasion resistance, adhesion, thinness, and other performance criteria.

The commenter offered a definition of EPFP coatings, data on the HAP content of ten different EPFP coatings, and an estimate of national HAP emissions from EPFP coatings. According to the commenter, total estimated EPFP coating use is about 60,000 gal nationally with HAP emissions of about 45 tpy. The HAP content of the ten EPFP coatings submitted by the commenter ranged from 1.1 lb organic HAP/gal solids to 12.4 lb organic HAP/gal solids. The commenter did not provide any data on representative emission rates from EPFP coating operations. Data on HAP content for only a few of these coatings were included in the metal parts database, but these data were consistent with the data provided by the commenter.

Response:

Based on the HAP content data and performance requirements fulfilled by EPFP coatings, we agree that EPFP coatings should not be subject to the general use emission limit. Therefore, the final rule includes a subcategory for EPFP coatings subject to an emission limit for new and existing sources of 1.5 kg organic HAP/liter coating solids (12.4 lb organic HAP/gal coating solids) used based on the data received with the public comments. This limit is more stringent than the high performance limit because the data provided by the commenter indicate that these coatings can meet a more stringent limit. Since sufficient data were available to establish a HAP content limit for these coatings, an exemption for these coatings is not needed in the final miscellaneous metal parts rule.

Comment:

One commenter requested that the final rule exempt the coating of NASA launch support equipment or include the coating of this equipment in the surface coating NESHAP being developed for defense land systems and miscellaneous equipment. The commenter explained that these coatings have unique performance requirements, such as the ability to withstand the exhaust from rocket engines, and the coatings that meet these requirements must be qualified for use under NASA specifications.

Response:

We agree that the coatings used on NASA launch support equipment have unique performance requirements. These performance requirements and the coatings needed to meet them will require further analysis before emission limits can be established. Since the process for qualifying coatings under NASA specifications is similar to the process of qualifying coatings for use under military specifications, these coating operations will be included in the development of the surface coating NESHAP being developed for defense land systems and miscellaneous equipment.

K. Compliance Requirements for Sources With Add-on Controls

Comment:

Several commenters stated that the compliance calculations in § 63.3961(h) as proposed should not use an assumption of zero-efficiency when deviations occur. According to one commenter, any quantitative data on emissions should be allowed to be considered if agreed to by the enforcing agency. Other commenters stated that a source should be allowed to demonstrate through monitoring of other parameters, compliance with standard procedures, or other means (such as fuel consumption or manual temperature recordings) that some or all of the emissions were controlled. One commenter requested that EPA allow a facility to estimate capture or destruction efficiency during deviations, based on design data or test data. One commenter stated that facilities should be able to test over a range of operating conditions, so that the source can estimate control efficiency during the deviation rather than having to assume zero-percent efficiency in the compliance calculations.

Response:

If a source has manually collected parameter data indicating that an emission capture system or control device was operating normally during a parameter monitoring system malfunction, these data could be used to support and document a different control efficiency, and the source would not have to assume zero-percent efficiency.

If a source has data indicating the actual performance of an add-on emission capture system and control device (

e.g.

, data from previous tests measuring percent capture at reduced flow rates or percent destruction efficiency at reduced thermal oxidizer temperatures) during a deviation from operating limits, then the source may use the actual performance in determining compliance, if the use of the data is approved by the Administrator. The final rule does not allow a source to otherwise estimate the efficiency of a capture system or control

device during a deviation because this would provide no assurance of the quality of the data used in the compliance calculation.

L. Compliance Requirements for Magnet Wire Sources

Comment:

Several commenters from the magnet wire industry argued that the testing and monitoring provisions for sources with add-on controls were not applicable to magnet wire coating machines. The commenters noted that magnet wire coating machines require an oven to cure the coating that is applied to the wire as it passes through the machine. The heat used to maintain the temperature of the oven is provided by the combustion of the solvents that are evaporated from the coating. Although a supplemental burner or heater is used to heat the oven at startup, once the oven is running, the temperature is maintained only by combustion of the solvent vapors. Combustion is maintained in modern ovens by a bed of catalyst that is located in the recirculating gas stream within the oven. In some older ovens, a burner tube is used in place of the catalyst bed to maintain temperature, although the solvent vapors are still the primary source of fuel for the oven. Air is re-circulated from an evaporative zone in the oven, through the catalyst bed or burner tube, and back to the evaporative zone. A fraction of the air is vented to the atmosphere after combustion and replaced with air drawn in through the openings in the oven to maintain oxygen levels inside the oven.

According to the commenters, magnet wire ovens are different from other surface coating sources in several ways. First, the coating is applied by an automated machine that runs continuously until the product on that machine is changed. Second, the curing oven is essentially a narrow tube and is different from a spray booth or other type of enclosure used in other coating op

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.