National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the Printing and Publishing Industry

Federal RegisterMar 14, 1995

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5168-8]

RIN 2060-AD95

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;

Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the

Printing and Publishing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The proposed standards would reduce emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) from existing and new printing operations that are

major sources of HAP emissions. A major source is defined in section

112(a) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (Act) as a source that

emits, or has the potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons per

year (tpy) or more of any individual HAP or 25 tpy or more of any

combination of HAP. Some of these pollutants are emitted from

publication rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and wide-

web flexographic printing. These operations are covered in the proposed

rule. In these printing operations, a variety of HAP are used as

solvents and components in inks and other materials applied by

printers. The HAP emitted by the facilities covered by this proposed

rule include toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, methanol, methyl ethyl

ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. All

of these pollutants can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects

following exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose,

throat and skin irritation; and blood cell, heart, liver and kidney

damage. The proposed rule is estimated to reduce emissions of HAP by

6,700 Mg per year. The emissions reductions achieved by these standards

when combined with the emissions reductions achieved by similar

standards, will achieve the primary goal of the Clean Air Act, which is

to ``enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote

the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its

population.''

The proposed rule implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments), which requires the Administrator

to regulate emissions of HAP listed in section 112(d) of the 1990

Amendments. The intent of this rule is to protect the public health by

requiring the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP from new

and existing major sources, taking into consideration the cost of

achieving such emission reduction, any nonair quality, health and

environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before May 30, 1995.

Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the

EPA no later than April 13, 1995. If a hearing is held, it will take

place on April 28, 1995, beginning at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket (Mail Code 6102), Attention:

Docket No. A-92-42, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy

also be sent to the contact person listed below.

The docket is located at the above address in room M-1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m. to 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday; telephone number (202) 260-7548, FAX (202)

260-4400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public

hearing by the required date (see DATES), the hearing will be held at

the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium in Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina. Persons interested in speaking at a public hearing

should contact Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products Group, (MD-

13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5580. Persons

interested in attending the hearing should contact Ms. Kim Teal to

verify that it will be held.

Additional Information. For information on accessing the U.S. EPA

Technology Transfer Network electronic bulletin board and obtaining

copies of the Proposed Regulatory Text, Background Information Document

or Economic Impact Analysis, please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the

proposed regulation, contact Mr. David Salman at (919) 541-0859,

Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-

13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Technology Transfer Network. The Technology

Transfer Network (TTN) is one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The

TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of

air pollution control. The service is free [[Page 13665]] except for

the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5472 for up to a 14,000 bps

modem. If more information on TTN is needed call the HELP line at (919)

541-5384.

Proposed Regulatory Text. The proposed regulatory text is not

included in this Federal Register notice, but is available in Docket

No. A-92-42, or by written or telephone request from the Air and

Radiation Docket. This notice and the proposed regulatory language are

also available for downloading TTN under Clean Air Act, Recently Signed

Rules.

Background Information Document. The Background Information

Document (BID) for the proposed standards may be obtained from the

docket; the U. S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777; or the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to

``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Printing

and Publishing Industry--Background Information for Proposed

Standards'' (EPA-453/R-95-002a). The BID is also available for

downloading on the TTN.

Economic Impact Analysis. The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) for

the proposed standards may be obtained from the docket, the U. S. EPA

Library, or the NTIS. Please refer to ``Economic Impact Analysis for

the Printing and Publishing NESHAP'' (EPA-452/D-95-001). The EIA is

also available for downloading on the TTN.

Preamble Outline. The information presented in this preamble is

organized as follows:

I. Background

A. Regulatory Background and Purpose

B. Common Sense Initiative

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Applicability

B. Proposed Standards for Affected Sources

C. Compliance Dates

D. Compliance Extensions

E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

F. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the

Proposed Rule

A. Emission Reductions

B. Secondary Environmental Impacts

C. Energy Impacts

D. Cost Impacts

E. Economic Impacts

IV. Process Descriptions and Control Technologies

A. Process Descriptions

B. Control Techniques

V. Rationale for the Proposed Rule

A. Regulatory Development Process for NESHAP

B. Determining Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

``Floors''

C. Selection of Pollutant and Source Category(ies)

D. Selection of Emission Points Covered by the Proposed Rule

E. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Rule

F. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Rule

G. Selection of Emission Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements

H. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

I. Selection of Compliance Deadlines

J. Operating Permit Program

K. Pollution Prevention Considerations

L. Solicitation of Comments

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

B. Docket

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. Clean Air Act Section 117

H. Regulatory Review

VII. Statutory Authority

I. Background.

The proposed rule addresses facilities which apply ink and other

materials to any substrate, except fabric, using rotogravure or wide-

web flexographic methods. These facilities print products such as

magazines, newspapers, supplements, packaging and wallpaper on

substrates such as paper, plastic, metal foil, and vinyl.

A. Regulatory Background and Purpose.

The Act requires, under section 112, that EPA evaluate and control

emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is to be achieved through

promulgation of emission standards under sections 112(d) and (f), and

of work practice standards under section 112(h) where appropriate, for

categories of sources that emit HAP. Pursuant to section 112(c) of the

Act, EPA published in the Federal Register the initial list of source

categories that emit HAP on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). This list

includes major and area sources of HAP for which the EPA intends to

issue regulations between November 1992 and November 2000.

The Act was created, in part, ``to protect and enhance the quality

of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and

welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (the Act,

section 101(b)(1)). As such, this proposed regulation would protect the

public health by reducing emissions of HAP from publication rotogravure

and product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic

printing.

The HAP listed in section 112(b)(1) emitted by printing facilities

that would be covered by this proposed rule include toluene, xylene,

ethylbenzene, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,

ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. All of these pollutants can cause

reversible or irreversible toxic effects following exposure. The

potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat and skin irritation;

and blood cell, heart, liver and kidney damage. These adverse health

effects are associated with a wide range of ambient concentrations and

exposure times and are influenced by source-specific characteristics

such as emission rates and local meteorological conditions. Health

impacts are also dependent on multiple factors that affect human

variability such as genetics, age, health status (e.g., the presence of

pre-existing disease) and lifestyle.

The proposed standards will reduce HAP emissions from publication

rotogravure printing facilities by 4,750 Mg/yr (5,220 tpy) from a

baseline level of 17,500 Mg/yr (19,200 tpy). The proposed standards

will reduce HAP emissions from product and packaging rotogravure and

wide web flexographic printing facilities by 1,940 Mg/yr (2,140 tpy)

from a baseline level of 4,200 Mg/yr (4,620 tpy).

There are no significant economic impacts associated with the

proposed standards. There are no firms or facilities at risk of closure

as a result of the proposed standards and there will not be a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

B. Common Sense Initiative

On October 17, 1994, the Administrator established the Common Sense

Initiative (CSI) Council in accordance with the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (U.S.C. App. 2, Section 9(c)) requirements. The CSI

addresses six industrial sectors. The Printing and Publishing industry

is one of these sectors.

The following are the six elements of the CSI program, as stated in

the ``Advisory Committee Charter.''

1. Regulation. Review existing regulations for opportunities to get

better environmental results at less cost. Improve new rules through

increased coordination.

2. Pollution Prevention. Actively promote pollution prevention as

the standard business practice and a central ethic of environmental

protection.

3. Recordkeeping and Reporting. Make it easier to provide, use, and

[[Page 13666]] publicly disseminate relevant pollution and

environmental information.

4. Compliance and Enforcement. Find innovative ways to assist

companies that seek to comply and exceed legal requirements while

consistently enforcing the law for those that do not achieve

compliance.

5. Permitting. Improve permitting so that it works more

efficiently, encourages innovation, and creates more opportunities for

public participation.

6. Environmental Technology. Give industry the incentives and

flexibility to develop innovative technologies that meet and exceed

environmental standards while cutting costs.

The Agency intends to work with the Printing CSI sector team and

consider its consensus recommendations concerning the proposed

standards. Even though the data collection and analysis efforts for the

proposed standards were completed before the CSI program was announced,

many aspects of the CSI are reflected in the proposed standards.

The alternatives considered in the development of this regulation,

including those alternatives selected as standards for new and existing

printing facilities are based on process and emissions data received

from over 600 printing facilities. The EPA met with industry and trade

groups on numerous occasions to discuss these data. In addition,

facilities and State regulatory authorities had the opportunity to

comment on draft versions of the proposed regulation and to provide

additional information. Two trade organizations provided extensive

comments; these comments were considered, and in some cases, today's

proposed standards reflect these comments. Of major concern to industry

were the opportunity to comply through pollution prevention by using

low HAP content materials.

The regulation allows sources flexibility to select from various

options for compliance. Sources may reduce HAP usage and emissions

through conversions to waterborne, lower HAP solvent-borne or

ultraviolet/electron beam cure materials. Alternatively, sources may

install or upgrade existing capture and control devices to meet the

proposed standard. Finally sources have the option to comply by a

combination of lower HAP materials and capture and control. Facilities

may select the most cost-effective option based on facility specific

considerations.

The proposed standards give existing facilities 3 years from the

date of promulgation to comply. This is the maximum amount of time

allowed under the Clean Air Act. This timeframe will provide the

greatest opportunity for developing and adopting low HAP content

materials, and provide sufficient time for facilities that choose to

install or upgrade capture and control equipment.

Included in the proposed rule are methods for determining initial

compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that

sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time.

However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the requirements in

the rule. The Agency has also attempted to maintain consistency with

existing regulations, or referencing the applicable sections, depending

on which method would be least confusing for a given situation.

Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs, as

well as representatives from State regulatory agencies are included in

the regulatory development process as members of the Work Group. The

Work Group must review and concur with the regulation before proposal

and promulgation. Therefore, the EPA believes that the implications to

other EPA offices and programs have been adequately considered during

the development of these standards.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

Table 1 provides an overview of the proposed rule, including

applicability; the standards for each affected source; test methods and

procedures; and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

Table 1.--Summary of Subpart KK of 40 CFR Part 63--National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing

Industry

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected source and requirement Description

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Printing and Publishing Industry:

Applicability....................... This rule applies to facilities engaged in rotogravure and wide-web

flexographic printing that are major sources as defined in 40 CFR

part 63. (63.821).

Estimated Number of Facilities...... Approximately 200 facilities are expected to be affected by the rule.

Applicable SIC codes include 2295, 2392, 2647, 2649, 2651, 2671,

2673, 2674, 2711, 2721, 2754, 2759, 3497, and 3996.

Permit Requirements................. Major sources are required to obtain operating permits in State where

facility is located according to 40 CFR part 70 and applicable State

regulations. (63.821(d)).

All Affected Sources:

Standards........................... Comply with Secs. 63.4 through 63.6 of the General Provisions of 40

CFR part 63, subpart A, except for Sec. 63.6(h). (63.823).

Compliance Dates.................... Within three years of the effective date for existing sources and upon

startup for new sources. (63.826).

Test Methods and Procedures......... See individual affected sources.

Monitoring Requirements............. See individual affected sources.

Recordkeeping Requirements.......... Comply with Sec. 63.10(b) and (c) of the General Provisions. (63.829).

Reporting Requirements.............. Initial notification, notification of performance tests, notification

of compliance status, performance test reports, startup, shutdown and

malfunction reports, summary reports, and HAP use reports as

described in Secs. 63.9-63.10. (63.830).

Publication Rotogravure Facilities:

Standards........................... Control of 92 percent of organic HAP or equivalent. (Organic HAP

emissions limited to no greater than 8 percent of the mass of

volatile matter, including water, used on a plantwide basis.)

(63.824(b)).

Performance Test Period and Tests... 1. Test Period. Each and every month. (63.824(b)).

2. Performance Test. Initial performance test for all control devices

to demonstrate compliance with overall control efficiency

requirement. (63.824(b))

[[Page 13667]]

Test Methods and Procedures......... 1. Organic HAP content determination. (63.827(b)(1)).

2. Volatile matter content determination. (63.827(c)(1)).

3. Overall control efficiency using liquid-liquid mass balance for

solvent recovery systems. (63.824(b)(1)(i).

4. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency

test with continuous emission monitors. (63.824(b)(1)(ii) and

63.824(b)(2)(ii)).

5. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency

test and incinerator destruction efficiency test. (63.824(b)(2)(i).

Monitoring Requirements............. 1. Hourly recording of flow rate from press to control device.

(63.828(a)(1).

2. Quarterly audit of continuous emission monitors. (63.828(a)(2)(i)).

3. Monitoring of capture system operating parameter. (63.828(a)(5)).

Product and Packaging Rotogravure

Presses and Wide-web Flexographic

Presses, or Groups of Presses

Controlled by a Common Solvent Recovery

System:

Standards........................... Control of 95 percent of organic HAP, or organic HAP emissions limited

to no greater than 0.20 kg HAP per kg of solids applied, for each

press, or group of presses controlled by a common solvent recovery

system, or organic HAP emissions limited to no greater than 0.04 kg

HAP per kg inks and other materials applied, for each press.

(63.825(b)).

Performance Test Period and Tests... 1. Test Period.

Uncontrolled Presses. Each and every month.

Presses controlled with solvent recovery systems. Each and every

month.

Presses controlled with incinerators monitoring operating parameters.

Every three hour period.

Presses controlled with incinerators using continuous emissions

monitors. Each and every month. (63.825(b) and (c)).

2. Performance Test. Initial performance test for all control devices

to demonstrate compliance with organic HAP emission rate. (63.825(g)

and (h)).

Test Methods and Procedures......... 1. Organic HAP content determination. (63.827(b)(2)).

2. Volatile matter and solids content determination. (63.827(c)(2)).

3. Overall control efficiency using liquid-liquid mass balance for

solvent recovery systems. (63.825(g).

4. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency

test with continuous emission monitors. (63.825(g)(2) and

63.825(h)(2)).

5. Overall control efficiency determination using capture efficiency

test and incinerator destruction efficiency test. (63.825(h)).

Monitoring Requirements............. 1. Hourly recording of flow rate from press to control device.

(63.828(a)(1)).

2. Quarterly audit of continuous emission monitors. (63.828(a)(2)(i)).

3. Quarterly calibration of incinerator monitoring thermocouple(s).

(63.828(2)(ii)).

4. Operation of continuous emission monitors. (63.828(a)(3)).

5. Measurement of incinerator operating parameters. (63.828(a)(4)).

6. Monitoring of capture system operating parameter. (63.828(a)(5)).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Applicability

The proposed rule would apply to each new and existing publication

rotogravure or product and packaging rotogravure and wide web

flexographic printing facility that is a major source, as defined under

section 112(a) of the Act. A major source is one that emits or has the

potential to emit, considering controls, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) or more

of any one HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) of any combination of HAP for

all activities conducted at the facility. Publication rotogravure and

product and packaging rotogravure and wide web flexographic printing

operations at any major source that conducts other work would be

subject to the proposed standards, regardless of the relative

proportion of printing and non-printing work at the facility. Research

or laboratory facilities are not subject to the provisions of the

standards unless they are collocated with production lines.

The proposed rule uses the definition of research and laboratory

facilities from section 112(c)(7) of the Act. This section provides

that ``research or laboratory facility'' means any stationary source

whose primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new

processes and products, where such source is operated under the close

supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged in the

manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except in a de

minimis manner.

Research activities include those activities that are employed to

develop a new rotogravure or flexographic ink, coating or other

material; a new substrate or end product; and may also include

activities devoted to optimizing the manufacture of the product. Once a

facility determines that the manufacture of this product is viable, the

EPA believes that additional activities are likely to be beyond the

research phase.

As noted in Sec. 63.821(a)(1), the proposed printing and publishing

rule would apply to facilities that are major sources as defined in 40

CFR 63.2. An important consideration in the definition of ``major

source'' is a given plant site's ``potential to emit.'' The ``potential

to emit'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.2 as follows: `` `Potential to emit'

means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant

under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational

limitation on the capacity of the stationary source to emit a

pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions

on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted,

stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the

limitation or the effect it [[Page 13668]] would have on emissions is

Federally enforceable.''

A key aspect of the potential to emit definition is that

restrictions must be Federally enforceable. Examples of restrictions

that would be considered Federally enforceable are listed in a

definition in 40 CFR 63.2.

The EPA believes that there are printing and publishing facilities

whose actual emissions of HAP are substantially less than ``major''

amounts (i.e., more than 10 tons per year of any single HAP, or more

than 25 tons per year from the sum of all HAP emitted). Many of these

facilities, however, would be considered ``major sources'' that are

subject to the proposed rule because there is no Federally enforceable

restriction in place that limits their potential to emit HAP. The EPA

believes that the this rule should provide a mechanism for such

facilities to accept and document such restrictions.

The EPA proposes, in Sec. 63.821(a)(2) through (3) of the proposed

rule, that if owners or operators commit to using no more than 9.1 Mg

(10 tons) per 12 month period of each HAP and less than 22.7 Mg (25

tons) per 12 month period of any combination of HAP at the entire

facility, including materials used for source categories or purposes

other than printing and publishing, then the facility can be considered

an area source. Each facility for which the owner or operator commits

to the criteria stated in Sec. 63.821(a)(2) would be subject only to

the recordkeeping provisions in Sec. 63.829(d) and the reporting

provisions in Sec. 63.830(d) of this subpart as long as the commitment

is met for each 12 month period. If the commitment is not met for any

12 month period then the facility would be in violation of its

commitment and would be considered a major source of HAP beginning the

first month after the end of the first 12 month period in which either

of the HAP use thresholds was exceeded. As a major source of HAP, each

such facility would be subject to the provisions of this subpart as

noted in Sec. 63.821(a)(1) and would no longer be eligible to use the

provisions of Sec. 63.821(a)(2).

The EPA believes that there are sources using more than 10 tons of

an individual HAP or more than 25 tons of total HAP per 12 month period

that may emit less than ``major'' amounts (e.g., sources using capture

and control equipment that reduces HAP emissions), and for which the

owner or operator may be willing to accept case-by-case operating

restrictions that would ensure that the potential to emit does not

exceed the major source threshold. The EPA is considering adding

language to the final rule that would provide a mechanism for such

sources. The EPA requests comment on: (1) Whether such language should

be added; (2) the type of reporting and process required to establish

the case-by-case commitment (in particular, how to establish throughput

and content limitations and performance criteria for the capture and

control equipment that would ensure area source status); and (3) the

types of records that should be maintained to document compliance with

the restrictions. In addition, the EPA requests comment on whether the

level of recordkeeping and reporting should vary, depending on the

level of emissions (as reflected by the throughput and content of the

materials used, and performance of the capture and control equipment).

In general, rotogravure and wide web flexographic printing

facilities are covered by the SIC codes listed in Table 2. However,

facilities classified under other SIC codes may be subject to the

proposed standards if the facility meets the definition of a major

source and conducts rotogravure or wide web flexographic printing.

Table 2.--Rotogravure and Wide Web Flexographic Printing SIC Codes

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIC

Code Description

------------------------------------------------------------------------

2295.. Vinyl Coated or Laminated Fabric.

2392.. House Furnishings, including Shower Curtains.

2647.. Sanitary Paper Products.

2649.. Wallcoverings.

2651.. Folding Paperboard Boxes.

2671.. Coated and Laminated Paper and Plastic Film for Packaging.

2673.. Plastic Bags and Liners, Coated and Laminated.

2674.. Uncoated Paper Bags and Sacks and Multiwall Shipping Sacks and

Bags.

2711.. Newspapers.

2721.. Periodicals.

2754.. Commercial Printing, Gravure.

2759.. Commercial Printing, NEC.

3497.. Laminated Aluminum Foil, Flexible Packaging.

3996.. Hard Surface Floor Coverings.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on information obtained through an information collection

request and information provided by the Gravure Association of America

(GAA), there are an estimated 200 facilities that will be subject to

the proposed standards. The combined HAP emissions from these

facilities are estimated to be over 21,800 Mg/yr (24,000 tpy).

Affected Sources

The proposed rule would limit organic HAP emissions that result

from publication rotogravure and product and packaging rotogravure and

wide-web flexographic printing. The standard applies to HAP present in

inks, ink extenders, solvents, coatings, varnishes, primers, adhesives,

and other materials applied with rotogravure and flexographic plates.

Printed items include magazines, advertising inserts, catalogs,

flexible packaging, corrugated boxes, paper towels, newspapers, wall

coverings, floor coverings, shower curtains, etc.

Sources in the publication rotogravure segment of the printing and

publishing industry include but are not limited to ink and solvent

storage tanks, ink mixing, printing, press and parts cleaning, proof

and production presses and solvent recovery. Sources in the product/

package rotogravure and wide-web flexography segments include the

printing presses.

Various organic HAP are used in the printing industry. Organic HAP

used include toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl

isobutyl ketone, methanol, hexane, dibutylphthalate, toluene

diisocyanate, ethylene glycol and glycol ethers. These are the HAP

expected to be emitted by the industry, however, the proposed standards

apply to emissions of all organic HAP listed in section 112(b).

B. Proposed Standards for Affected Sources

In addition to the standards for affected sources as discussed

below, the affected sources would be subject to the General Provisions

which were promulgated in the Federal Register March 16, 1994 (59 FR

12408) under 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. The General Provisions

stipulate that all affected sources subject to the proposed rule are

also subject to, as appropriate, 40 CFR 63.4, 63.5, and 63.6.

The proposed rule requires each owner or operator who uses a

control device or equipment to control HAP emissions to prepare an

operation and maintenance plan in accordance with Sec. 63.6. In

addition to the information required in Sec. 63.6, the proposed rule

requires that the owner or operator of the control device or equipment

include the following information: (1) The operation and maintenance

criteria for each air pollution control device or equipment, including

a standardized checklist to document the operation and maintenance of

the equipment; (2) a systematic procedure for identifying malfunctions

and for reporting them [[Page 13669]] immediately to supervisory

personnel; and (3) procedures to be followed to ensure that equipment

or process malfunctions due to poor maintenance or other preventable

conditions do not occur.

The General Provisions also state that an owner or operator who

uses an air pollution control device or equipment not listed in the

proposed rule must submit to the Administrator for approval a

description of the device, test data verifying the performance of the

device or equipment for HAP and/or VOC emissions, appropriate operating

parameters that would be monitored to establish compliance with the

proposed standards, and a copy of the inspection and maintenance plan

required under Sec. 63.6. The authority to approve an alternate air

pollution control device is retained by the Administrator and is not

delegated.

Finally, Sec. 63.6(g) allows an owner or operator of an affected

source to use alternative means of compliance. This allows the

development and use of new technology not known or not demonstrated at

the time the rule was promulgated.

The affected sources for the proposed standards are defined as

follows: (1) Each publication rotogravure facility (all publication

rotogravure presses plus all associated operations including but not

limited to ink and solvent storage tanks, ink mixing, printing, press

and parts cleaning, proof and production presses and solvent recovery);

and (2) each product or packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic

press or group of presses controlled by a common solvent recovery

system. The following paragraphs summarize the proposed standards for

each affected source.

1. Publication Rotogravure Presses

The proposed standards for publication rotogravure facilities would

apply to all new and existing affected sources. The proposed standards

allow the use of control devices provided each facility achieves an

overall control efficiency, taking into account capture and control

device efficiency of 92 percent, when the organic HAP content of

solvent borne inks and other materials used is equivalent to the

volatile matter content. When non-HAP VOC or water is present in the

inks or other materials applied, each control device must achieve a

control efficiency such that the sum of the organic HAP recovered or

destroyed, plus the water used, plus the VOC used, minus the organic

HAP used makes up a minimum of 92 percent of the sum of the VOC used

plus the water used. (Organic HAP emitted is less than 8 percent of the

total volatile matter.)

Compliance with the proposed standard would be demonstrated by a

monthly mass balance when a solvent recovery system is used. Compliance

for control devices other than solvent recovery systems would be shown

on a continuous basis based on a specific operating parameter or

parameters, such as temperature for incinerators.

2. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexographic Presses

The proposed standards for package and product rotogravure and

wide-web flexographic presses would apply to all new and existing

affected sources. The proposed standards allow the use of low HAP

materials, control devices, or a combination of low HAP materials and

control devices. Presses applying any combination of inks, coatings,

primers, adhesives, solvents, extenders and other materials such that

the monthly mass weighted organic HAP contents of these materials is

equal to or less than 0.20 kg per kg of solids applied, or equal to or

less than 0.04 kg per kg of materials applied would be in compliance.

The proposed standards allow the use of control devices, provided that

each control device used for the control of HAP achieves an overall

control efficiency, taking into account capture and control device

efficiency of 95 percent. Presses would also be allowed to comply with

the proposed standards by using control systems provided that the HAP

emissions are equal to or less than 0.20 kg per kg of solids applied.

In cases where a solvent recovery system is used to control emissions

from more than one press, the group of commonly controlled presses can

be considered a single affected source for the purpose of complying

with the overall control device efficiency standard or the overall

organic HAP emission rate standard.

Compliance with the proposed standard would be demonstrated either

by a monthly mass balance or through the use of continuous emission

monitors when a solvent recovery system is used. Compliance for control

devices other than solvent recovery systems would be shown on a

continuous basis based on a specific operating parameter or parameters,

such as temperature for incinerators. Compliance with the proposed

organic HAP content level standards would be shown on a monthly basis

for compliant materials. Sources demonstrating compliance by a

combination of means would demonstrate control device efficiency as

described above and demonstrate mass average organic HAP content on a

monthly basis.

C. Compliance Dates

The proposed rule would require all existing sources to comply no

later than three years after the effective date of the standards. In

addition, the proposed rule adopts the compliance dates specified in

Sec. 63.6(b) and Sec. 63.6(c). New sources must comply with the

standard upon startup or the effective date of this regulation,

whichever is later.

D. Compliance Extensions

Because of the length of time necessary to properly specify, order

and install additional capture and control equipment some existing

facilities may need to request a compliance extension. Similarly, some

existing facilities choosing to adapt to lower HAP ink (and other press

material) formulations may have to select and test substitutes for a

large number of specific applications. These existing facilities may

need to request a compliance extension.

Section 63.6(i) of 40 CFR part 63 provides the requirements for

requesting an extension of compliance with a relevant standard

established under part 63. Specifically, Sec. 63.6(i)(4) allows the

issuance of a permit granting an extension of up to one year to comply

with the standard, if such additional period is necessary for the

installation of controls. Section 63.6(i)(4)(i)(B) requires requests

for compliance extensions to be submitted no later than 12 months

before the affected source's compliance date.

E. Compliance Testing and Monitoring

In addition to the specific testing and monitoring requirements

specified below for each affected source, the proposed rule adopts the

testing requirements specified in Sec. 63.7.

1. Test Methods and Procedures

a. Publication Rotogravure. For facilities using solvent recovery

systems, the overall control efficiency would be determined using a

mass balance over the period of each calendar month. Owners or

operators would be required to measure the amount of all materials used

during the month and to determine the organic HAP and volatile matter

content of these materials. Owners or operators would also be required

to measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent

recovery system during the month and to calculate the overall HAP

control efficiency. The organic HAP content would be determined by

proposed EPA Method 311, or from manufacturers data when these data are

equivalent to those obtained from proposed EPA Method 311. When it is

not possible to [[Page 13670]] determine the organic HAP content using

proposed EPA Method 311, the owner or operator shall submit to the

Administrator an alternative technique for determining the organic HAP

content. The volatile matter content of the materials used shall be

determined by manufacturers formulation data or by Method 24A of 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A.

For facilities using incinerators, owners or operators must

determine the incinerator destruction efficiency and the capture

efficiency. Incinerator destruction efficiency would be determined

using EPA Method 1 or 1A, EPA Method 2, 2A, 2C or 2D, EPA Methods 3 and

4, and EPA Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Capture

efficiency would be confirmed using Procedure T to verify the presence

of a permanent total enclosure or determined using the capture

efficiency protocol specified in 40 CFR 52.741 (a)(4)(iii).

b. Package and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography. Owners

or operators may comply by means of use of materials meeting the

organic HAP threshold requirements or through use of control equipment,

or through a combination of low organic HAP materials and control

equipment. The proposed standards for organic HAP emissions would

require compliance with an organic HAP content threshold based on

solids content (kg of organic HAP per kg of solids applied), an organic

HAP threshold based on material (kg of organic HAP per kg of materials

applied), an overall organic HAP control efficiency (percent), or an

organic HAP emission rate (kg of organic HAP emitted per kg of solids

applied).

The organic HAP content of inks, coatings, primers, adhesives,

solvents and other materials applied on the press would be determined

by proposed EPA Method 311, or from manufacturers data when these data

are equivalent to those obtained from proposed EPA Method 311. When it

is not possible to determine the organic HAP content using proposed EPA

Method 311, the owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator an

alternative technique for determining the organic HAP content.

The facility may rely on manufacturer's data to determine the

organic HAP content when these data are equivalent to those obtained

from proposed EPA Method 311. The mass of each ink, coating, primer,

adhesive, solvent and other material applied would be determined using

company records. If diluent solvents or other ingredients are added to

a material prior to application, then the total organic HAP fractions

and mass must be adjusted appropriately to account for such additions.

These values would be required for each monthly period; however, only

changes in formulation would require re-determination of total organic

HAP weight fraction. The proposed standards would then require the

owner or operator to calculate the average mass of organic HAP in

materials applied per mass of solids applied.

If an owner or operator is seeking to comply by using materials

with a weighted average HAP content below the organic HAP content

threshold requirement or the low solids organic HAP threshold

requirement, the owner or operator would need to determine the organic

HAP content and solids content. If no changes in formulation as applied

occurred, then a re-calculation of the organic HAP level would not be

required.

If a control device is used, the proposed standards require the

owner or operator to demonstrate compliance with the overall control

efficiency requirement of at least 95 percent. Alternately, the owner

or operator may determine the overall control efficiency of the

equipment and the HAP content and solids content of the materials

applied. To comply by this combination of means, the owner or operator

would have to demonstrate a HAP emissions limitation of 0.20 kg HAP per

kg of solids applied.

For a solvent recovery system, overall control efficiency would be

determined using a liquid-liquid mass balance, or by conducting an

initial performance test of capture efficiency and using continuous

emissions monitors. The liquid-liquid mass balance determination would

be made every month. Owners or operators would be required to measure

the amount of all materials applied during the month and to determine

the volatile matter content of these materials. Owners or operators

measuring overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid mass balance

would also be required to measure the amount of volatile matter

recovered by the solvent recovery system during the month and to

calculate the overall HAP control efficiency.

Owners or operators using solvent recovery systems may also

demonstrate compliance by conducting an initial performance test of

capture efficiency and operating continuous emissions monitors to

determine the total volatile matter content at both the inlet to and

the outlet from the carbon adsorber such that the percent efficiency of

the carbon adsorber can be calculated for each calendar month. The

owner or operator must verify the presence of a permanent total

enclosure using Procedure T, or determine the capture efficiency using

the protocol specified in 40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii). The overall organic

HAP control efficiency must be calculated as the product of the capture

efficiency and the carbon adsorber efficiency.

For control devices other than carbon adsorbers, the overall

control efficiency would be based on capture efficiency and destruction

efficiency. Capture efficiency would be determined based on the

procedure specified in 40 CFR 52.741(a)(4)(iii), unless the operation

is performed within a permanent total enclosure. An enclosure that

meets the requirements of a permanent total enclosure as specified by

Procedure T of 40 CFR 52.741 would have a capture efficiency of 100

percent.

The destruction efficiency of a control device other than a carbon

adsorber would be determined using EPA Method 1 or 1A, EPA Method 2,

2A, 2C or 2D, EPA Methods 3 and 4, and EPA Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A. The owner or operator would record such process

conditions as may be necessary to determine the conditions of the

performance test.

To determine the value of an incinerator operating parameter that

will demonstrate continuing compliance, the time weighted average of

the values recorded during the performance test shall be computed. For

a thermal incinerator, the owner or operator shall establish as the

operating parameter the minimum combustion temperature. For a catalytic

incinerator, the owner or operator shall establish as the operating

parameters the minimum gas temperatures both upstream and downstream of

the catalyst bed. These minimum temperatures are the operating

parameters used to demonstrate continuing compliance.

The affected source is in compliance if the overall HAP control

efficiency is at least 95 percent. Alternately, the source can comply

on the basis of HAP emission limitation. The facility would be required

to determine the organic HAP content and solids content of inks,

coatings, primers, adhesives, solvents and other materials applied on

the press. The mass of each ink, coating, primer, adhesive, solvent and

other material applied would be determined using company records. If

diluent solvents or other ingredients are added to a material prior to

application, then the total organic HAP content, solids content and

mass must be adjusted appropriately to account for such additions.

[[Page 13671]]

The organic HAP content would be determined from proposed EPA

Method 311 or, when this is not possible the owner or operator shall

submit to the Administrator, an alternative technique for determining

the organic HAP content. Manufacturer's formulation data may be used

provided that the data are equivalent to those obtained using proposed

EPA Method 311. The volatile matter and solids content of the materials

used shall be determined by manufacturers formulation data or by Method

24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

These values would be required for each monthly period. The

proposed standards would then require the owner or operator to

calculate the average mass of organic HAP in materials applied per mass

of solids applied. The overall control efficiency as determined above

would be used to determine the HAP emission limitation. To comply by

this combination of means, the owner or operator would have to

demonstrate a HAP emissions limitation of 0.20 kg HAP per kg of solids

applied.

2. Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring is required by the proposed standards to determine

whether a source is in compliance. For owners or operators using

thermal or catalytic incinerators, this can be accomplished by

measuring site-specific operating parameters, the values of which are

established by the owner or operator during the initial compliance

test. The operating parameter value is defined as the minimum or

maximum value established for a control device or process parameter

that, if achieved by itself or in combination with other operating

parameter values, determines that an owner or operator is complying

with the applicable emission limitation or standards. This type of

monitoring would be required for those emission points for which the

standards are expressed as a percent control, or for affected sources

using control devices to achieve an organic HAP emission limit. In

addition, the owner or operator is expected to install and operate the

monitoring equipment properly.

The proposed rule would require temperature to be monitored, using

a continuous recorder, for incinerators. For catalytic incinerators,

temperature monitors would be placed immediately before and after the

catalyst bed. For other incinerators, the temperature monitor would be

placed in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the

firebox and before any substantial heat exchange occurs. All monitoring

equipment would be installed, calibrated, maintained, and operated

according to manufacturer's specifications.

The proposed standards would require each owner or operator to

establish a range of values for each of these monitored parameters

during the initial performance test. As long as the control device is

operated within the established ranges, the proposed emission standards

are considered to be met. Consequently, exceedances of these parameters

would be considered a violation of the standards since operating the

control device outside of the established ranges may reduce the

efficiency of the control device.

Owners or operators of publication rotogravure sources operating

solvent recovery systems would be required to conduct monthly mass

balances as described in the section II.E.1 of the preamble. Owners or

operators of other sources operating solvent recovery systems would be

required either to conduct monthly mass balances as described in the

previous section or to operate continuous emission monitors. The

continuous emission monitors would be used to determine the total

volatile matter concentration at both the inlet to and the outlet from

the carbon adsorber, such that the percent efficiency of the carbon

adsorber can be calculated for each calendar month.

Owners or operators of package or product rotogravure or

flexographic printing facilities complying by means of use of materials

meeting the applicable HAP content threshold standards would

demonstrate compliance through recordkeeping as described in section

II.E.1 of the preamble.

Under 40 CFR 63.6(g), an owner or operator of an affected source

may request the use of alternative methods of emission reduction for

complying with design, equipment, work practice, or operational

emission standards, or combination thereof, established under this

part. Under the proposed rule, an owner or operator of an affected

source may also use control devices other than those specifically

identified in the proposed rule as a means for achieving compliance

with any portion of the rule. If devices other than those identified

are used, the proposed standards would require the owner or operator to

submit the parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for

approval. The authority to approve the use of alternate control devices

and the parameters to be monitored is retained by the Administrator and

is not delegated.

Section 114(a)(3) of the Act requires enhanced monitoring and

compliance certifications of all major stationary sources. The annual

compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been

continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of

detecting deviations from each applicable emission limitations or

standard with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision,

reliability, frequency, and timeliness to determine if compliance is

continuous during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation

satisfies the requirements of enhanced monitoring.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

The proposed rule proposes to adopt the requirements contained in

40 CFR 63.9 and 40 CFR 63.10. The proposed rule, however, contains

additional or clarifying elements and changes certain time periods

allowed for submitting or responding to certain reports and requests

required in Sec. 63.10. These elements and changes are summarized below

for each of the operations for which standards are being proposed.

1. Recordkeeping Requirements

a. Publication Rotogravure. Records must be maintained of the

organic HAP and volatile matter content, as received, and the monthly

usage of all inks, solvents, varnishes, adhesives and other materials

applied on publication rotogravure presses. Where incinerators are

used, records must be maintained of the overall control efficiency and

all test results, data, and calculations used in determining the

overall control efficiency.

Where solvent recovery systems are used, records must be maintained

of the overall control efficiency, all test results, data, and

calculations used in determining the overall control efficiency, and

the monthly material balances used to demonstrate compliance.

b. Packaging and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography.

Records must be maintained of the organic HAP, volatile matter and

solids content, as received, and the monthly usage of all inks,

solvents, varnishes, primers, adhesives and other materials applied on

packaging and product rotogravure presses and wide-web flexographic

presses. Each owner or operator would be required to keep records of

the equipment monitoring parameter measurements specified in the

proposed rule. For an incinerator other than a catalytic incinerator,

continuous records must be maintained of the firebox temperature (or

temperature in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox). For

a catalytic incinerator, continuous records must be maintained

[[Page 13672]] of the gas stream temperature immediately before and

after the catalyst bed. For both types of incinerators, records must be

maintained of the overall control efficiency and all test results,

data, and calculations used in determining the overall control

efficiency.

For carbon adsorbers, records must be maintained of the overall

control efficiency, all test results, data, and calculations used in

determining the overall control efficiency.

2. Reporting Requirements

The proposed rule would require four basic types of reports: (1)

Initial notification, (2) notification of compliance status, (3)

periodic reports, and (4) other reports. In addition, the proposed rule

would require that the results of any performance test required under

Sec. 63.7 be reported no later than 60 days after the completion of the

test. A permit application as required under 40 CFR part 70 may be used

in lieu of the initial notification provided the same information is

contained in the permit application as required for the initial

notification.

As stated above, the proposed standards adopt the reporting

requirements contained in Sec. 63.9(a) through Sec. 63.9(e) and

Sec. 63.9(h) through Sec. 63.9(j) and 63.10 (a), (b), (d), and (f).

However, the time period allowed for the Administrator to notify the

owner or operator in writing of approval or disapproval of the request

for an adjustment to a particular time period or postmark deadline

submitted under Sec. 63.9(i) has been changed to within 30 calendar

days of receiving sufficient information to evaluate the request,

rather than 15 calendar days as provided for in Sec. 63.9(i)(3).

Sections 63.9 and 63.10 identify the type of generic information to

be included in the initial notification, notification of compliance

status, and other reports and, therefore, this information is not

repeated in this preamble. The following paragraphs summarize the

additional information specific to the printing and publishing rule

that should be included in the notification of compliance status and

the type of information to be included in the periodic reports.

a. Publication Rotogravure. The notification of compliance status

should identify the control devices that were used to demonstrate that

the facility was in compliance. Specific reporting requirements are

dependent on how an owner or operator chooses to comply with the

regulation. If solvent recovery systems are used and liquid-liquid

material balances are conducted, semiannual reports would be required

that contain information on all months when the material balances were

not in compliance with the standards.

If incinerators are used, semiannual reports would be required that

contain information on all days when any 3-hour average temperature was

below the average temperature established during the most recent

performance test during which compliance was demonstrated. The first

three hour period will commence when the affected source begins

operation or restarts following a shutdown period. Subsequent three

hour periods commence every three hours of operation. When an affected

source shuts down during a three hour period, the average temperature

for the period between the commencement of the three hour period and

shut down would be used for the purpose of compliance demonstration.

If incinerators are used, or if solvent recovery systems are used

but liquid-liquid material balances are not conducted, semi-annual

reports would be required that contain information on all days when for

any three hour period, the average value of the site-specific operating

parameter used to monitor capture system performance was greater than

or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established

for the capture system.

If a semiannual report is required for the period covered by the

first semiannual report of the reporting year, a semiannual report

would be submitted for the following semiannual period even if no

exceedances occurred in that period. If no exceedances occur during the

entire reporting year, each owner and operator would submit annual

statements indicating that each affected facility has been in

compliance.

b. Packaging and Product Rotogravure and Wide-web Flexography. The

notification of compliance status should identify whether low-HAP

materials or control devices were used to demonstrate that the facility

was in compliance, and, for control devices and capture systems, what

operating parameters were identified for continuous monitoring in order

to ensure compliance with the proposed standards. Specific reporting

requirements are dependent upon how an owner or operator chooses to

comply with the regulation.

Owners and operators complying using low-HAP materials would be

required to report each exceedance of the organic HAP content level or

the low solids organic HAP content level. These reports would be

submitted on a semiannual basis.