List of Source Categories

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket No. A-99-31; FRL-6459-3]

List of Source Categories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a complete petition.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that EPA has created a two-piece beer

and beverage can coating (two-piece can) subcategory within the Metal

Can (Surface Coating) source category. This notice also announces the

receipt of a complete petition from the Can Manufacturers' Institute

(CMI) requesting EPA to remove the two-piece can subcategory from the

List of Source Categories (Source Category List). The Source Category

List was developed pursuant to section 112(c)(1) of the Amendments to

the 1990 Clean Air Act (Act) and published in the Federal Register on

July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).

We have determined that the original petition submittal by CMI,

dated November 4, 1996, plus the supplemental materials provided by CMI

through April 21, 1999, will support an assessment of the human health

impacts associated with hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from

two-piece can coating operations. In addition, the data submitted by

CMI will support an assessment of the environmental impacts associated

with HAP emissions from the two-piece can coating subcategory.

Consequently, we have concluded that CMI's petition is complete as of

April 21, 1999, the date

[[Page 56494]]

of the last supplement, and is ready for public comment and the

technical review phase of our delist petition evaluation process.

This notice invites the public to provide additional information,

beyond that filed in the petition, on sources, emissions, exposure,

health effects and environmental impacts associated with HAP emissions

from two-piece can coating operations that may be relevant to our

technical review.

DATES: Comments and additional data will be accepted if received on or

before November 19, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Documents. A copy of the complete petition is contained in a

docket available at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information

Office, 401 M Street SW, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall,

Washington, DC 20460. The docket number for this action is A-99-31. You

may inspect the petition and copy it for offsite review between 8:30

a.m. and 5:30 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

Comments and Data Submissions. Comments and additional data should

be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: The Docket Clerk, Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Office, 401 M Street SW, Room M-1500

(Mail Code 6102), Waterside Mall, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Rimer, Emission Standards

Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone (919) 541-2962, electronic mail address: [email protected].

I. Introduction

A. What Are Hazardous Air Pollutants?

Hazardous air pollutants include a wide variety of organic and

inorganic substances released from large and small industrial

operations, fossil fuel combustion, gasoline and diesel-powered

vehicles, and many other sources. The HAPs have been associated with a

wide variety of adverse health effects, including cancer, neurological

effects, reproductive effects, and developmental effects. The health

effects associated with the various HAPs may differ depending upon the

toxicity of the individual HAP and the particular circumstances of

exposure, such as the amount of chemical present, the length of time a

person is exposed, and the stage in life of the person when the

exposure occurs. The list of HAPs can be found in section 112(b)(1) of

the Act. The HAPs list provides the basis for research, regulation, and

other related EPA activities under section 112 of the Act.

B. What Is the Source Category List?

Section 112(c) of the Act requires the EPA to publish a list of all

categories and subcategories of major and area sources of HAPs which

will be subject to regulation. A ``major source'' is any stationary

source (including all emission points and units located within a

contiguous area and under common control) of air pollution that has the

potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons or more per year of

any HAP, or 25 or more tons per year of any combinations of HAPs. An

``area source'' is a stationary source that emits HAPs in amounts less

than 10 or 25 tons per year. For an area source category to be listed,

the EPA must determine that the source category presents a threat to

human health or to the environment. Under section 112(d), the Act

requires EPA to establish national emission standards for source

categories based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for

major source categories and to set either MACT or generally available

control technology (GACT) standards for area source categories.

The EPA published the initial Source Category List in the Federal

Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576); you can find the most recent

update to the Source Category List in the February 12, 1998 Federal

Register (63 FR 7155).

C. What Is a Source Category Delist Petition?

A source category delist petition is a formal request to the EPA

from an individual or group to remove a specific source category from

the Source Category List. The removal of a source category from the

list eliminates it from consideration in EPA's program to promulgate

MACT standards.

Any group or person may petition the EPA to delete a source

category from the Source Category List. The Administrator must grant or

deny a petition within 12 months of receiving a complete petition.

Section 112(c)(9)(B) provides that the Administrator may delete a

source category from the Source Category List if she determines that no

source in the category:

1. Emits carcinogens in amounts that may result in a lifetime risk

of cancer exceeding one in a million to the individual most exposed;

2. Emits noncarcinogens in amounts that exceed an ample margin of

safety to protect the public health; and

3. Emits HAPs in amounts that will result in adverse environmental

effects.

The EPA will not grant a petition to delete a source category or

subcategory from the Source Category List pursuant to section

112(c)(9)(B) unless EPA makes an initial determination that each of the

statutory criteria appear to be met for each HAP emitted by each

individual source within the category or subcategory.

D. What Is a Subcategory?

A subcategory is a group of similar sources within a given source

category. As part of the regulatory development process, EPA evaluates

the similarities and differences between industry segments or groups of

facilities comprising a source category. Different source categories

may be evaluated and subcategorized in different ways.

In establishing subcategories, EPA considers factors such as

process operations (type of process, raw materials, chemistry/

formulation data, associated equipment, and final products); emission

characteristics (amount and type of HAP); control device applicability;

and opportunities for pollution prevention. The EPA may also look at

existing regulations or guidance from States and other regulatory

agencies in determining subcategories.

The Act does not expressly establish a process for deletion of a

subcategory from the Source Category List. However, EPA construes the

Act to permit petitions to delete a specified subcategory in those

instances where EPA has previously created such a subcategory within

the applicable source category.

E. How Does EPA Review a Petition To Delist a Source Category or

Subcategory?

The petition review process proceeds in two phases: a completeness

determination and a technical review. During the completeness

determination, we conduct a broad review of the petition to determine

whether or not all the necessary subject areas are addressed and

whether reasonable information and analyses are presented for each of

these subject areas. Once the petition is determined to be complete, we

place a notice of receipt of a complete petition in the Federal

Register and commence the technical review phase of our decision-making

process.

That Federal Register notice announcing receipt of a complete

petition also announces a public comment period on the petition. The

technical review involves a more thorough scientific review of the

petition to determine whether the data,

[[Page 56495]]

analyses, interpretations, and conclusions in the petition are

appropriate and technically sound. The technical review will also

determine whether or not the petition appears to satisfy the necessary

requirements of section 112(c)(9)(B) and to provide adequate support

for a decision to delist the source category or subcategory. All

comments and data submitted during the public comment period are

considered during the technical review.

The Agency considers the following information relevant to the

evaluation of any petition:

1. Identification of sources included in the source category;

2. Estimation of emissions from identified sources;

3. Estimation of ambient levels, either modeled or measured, of the

emitted HAPs;

4. Assessment of the toxicity of chemicals being released; and

5. Evaluation of the impact to humans, plants, and animals from

such emissions (e.g., cancer, noncancer effects, ecological effects).

F. How Is the Decision To Delist a Source Category or Sub-Category

Made?

The decision to either grant or deny a petition to delist a

category or subcategory is made after a comprehensive technical review

of both the petition and the information received from the public to

determine whether the petition appears to satisfy the requirements of

section 112(c)(9)(B) of the Act.

The EPA may modify the Source Category List without rulemaking in

instances where we conclude that a category or subcategory did not

originally meet or no longer meets the quantitative emission criteria

for inclusion on the list. However, in instances where we delete a

category or subcategory based on the risk criteria set forth in section

112(c)(9)(B), we have determined that it is appropriate to utilize

rulemaking procedures. Thus, if the Administrator decides to grant a

petition to delist a category or subcategory under this provision, EPA

will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register.

That notice will propose to remove the source category or subcategory

from the Source Category List and present the reasoning for doing so.

However, if the Administrator decides to deny a petition under

section 112(c)(9)(B), an explanation of the reasons for denial will be

published instead. A notice of denial constitutes final Agency action

of nationwide scope and applicability and is subject to judicial review

as provided in section 307(b) of the Act.

II. Decision To Subcategorize

On November 4, 1996, we received a request from CMI to create a

two-piece beer and beverage can subcategory within the Metal Can

(Surface Coating) source category. We reviewed the request to

subcategorize and conducted our own analysis of existing metal can

manufacturing and surface coating operations. Based on the information

presented by CMI and on our analysis of the source category, we

determined that designating two-piece beer and beverage cans as a

subcategory was appropriate under the authority described below and for

the following reasons.

In general, we make the decision to establish subcategories within

a source category as part of the process of developing a MACT standard

applicable to that category. In establishing subcategories, we

typically consider factors such as process operations, emission

characteristics, control device applicability, and opportunities for

pollution prevention. For the two-piece aluminum beer and beverage can

subcategory of the metal can industry, the distinction is based

primarily on differences in the process operations (e.g., types of

coatings, inks and solvents used); associated process equipment; and

process configurations (e.g., overall process line size and facility

layout).

A two-piece beer and beverage can subcategory is consistent with

existing new source performance standards and control technology

guideline approaches. Subpart WW of 40 CFR part 63 addresses volatile

organic compound emissions (many of which are also listed as HAP) and

is specifically titled: ``Standards of Performance for the Beverage Can

Surface Coating Industry'' and defines beverage can as ``any two-piece

steel or aluminum container in which soft drinks or beer, including

malt liquor, are packaged'' and two-piece can as ``any beverage can

that consists of a body manufactured from a single piece of steel and

aluminum.''

Metal can surface coating operations are differentiated by the type

of product(s) stored inside the can which determine the types of

coatings applied to the interior/exterior surfaces of the can. The

manufacturing and coating processes equipment configuration within the

metal can industry segments are different in terms of configuration,

size, and complexity than other types of can manufacturing. None of the

61 two-piece beverage can facilities located in the U.S. produce other

types of cans. There are six facilities that have an ``ends'' (e.g.,

can tops with push/pull tab) line as part of the on-site manufacturing

operations, and there are three ``ends'' only facilities that produce

ends for two-piece beer and beverage cans. Can ``ends'' are not

included in this subcategory and will be addressed separately.

Our analysis of existing metal can manufacturing and surface

coating operations resulted in the decision to establish a subcategory

for two-piece aluminum beer and beverage cans. This subcategory

includes all coating; cleaning; and associated (i.e., storage, mixing,

transfer, handling, surface preparation (can washers), and wastewater)

operations related to can bodies, except ends.

As provided by section 112(e)(4), our decision to create the

specified subcategory is not a final Agency action and as such is not

reviewable at this time. The decision to create the specified

subcategory will be final and subject to review only at such time as we

decide to delete the subcategory or when we promulgate a MACT standard

applicable to the subcategory. In the event that we decide to deny the

present petition to delist this subcategory, we may reconsider our

decision on subcategorization during subsequent development of a MACT

standard for the Metal Can (surface coating) category.

III. Completeness Determination and Request for Public Comment

On November 4, 1996, the CMI submitted a petition to remove the

two-piece can subcategory from the Source Category List. The EPA

reviewed the initial petition to delete the subcategory and determined

that additional information was needed on several of the HAPs emitted

by this subcategory in order for the petition to be complete. The

petitioner submitted additional documents from 1997 through April 1999

to address the information gaps.

After reviewing all of the supplemental information, we determined

that the essential subject areas had been addressed, and that the

petition is complete and ready for technical review. The EPA has

therefore determined that the petition was complete as of the date of

the last supplemental submission on April 21, 1999. The EPA must act to

grant or deny this petition within 12 months from that date. The EPA

has begun its comprehensive technical review of the CMI petition. We

invite interested members of the public to submit any additional

information which may be relevant to our analysis of whether the

statutory criteria for delisting are met.

[[Page 56496]]

IV. Description of the Petition

The complete petition provided by CMI contains the following

information: A. Identification of 16 HAPs emitted from the two-piece

can subcategory (Table 1). The petition provides more detailed

information and analysis on ethylene glycol butyl ether (EGBE) and

formaldehyde than on the other HAPs. The petitioner provides more data

on EGBE due to the fact that it is the HAP emitted in highest

quantities, and more on formaldehyde because it is a probable human

carcinogen emitted in moderate quantities.

Table 1.--Identification of HAPs

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

Chemical

abstract

HAP service

registry No.

(CASRN)

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

Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (EGBE).................. 111-76-2

Formaldehyde............................................ 50-00-0

Diethylene glycol butyl ether (DGBE).................... 112-34-5

Diethylene glycol ethyl ether (DGEE).................... 111-90-0

Diethylene glycol hexyl ether (DGHE).................... 112-59-4

Ethylene glycol hexyl ether (EGHE)...................... 112-25-4

Benzene................................................. 71-43-2

Ethyl benzene........................................... 100-41-4

Ethylene oxide.......................................... 75-21-8

Hydrogen fluoride....................................... 7664-39-3

Methanol................................................ 67-56-1

Methyl isobutyl ketone.................................. 108-10-1

Propylene oxide......................................... 75-56-9

Styrene................................................. 100-42-5

Toluene................................................. 108-88-3

Xylenes................................................. 1330-20-7

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

B. For each HAP, the petitioner provides summaries of and

references for qualitative and quantitative human health effects

information based on data from EPA, the State of California and from

industry. For EGBE and formaldehyde, CMI presents analyses of human

health effects studies.

C. The petition includes emissions estimates for all HAPs listed in

Table 1 and identifies the route of exposure of potential concern as

being air. To assess maximum off-site air concentrations of HAPs, CMI

uses a tiered modeling approach described in a 1992 EPA document, ``A

Tiered Approach for Assessing Risks due to Emissions of Hazardous Air

Pollutants'' (EPA-450/4-92-001). Tiered modeling involves the use of

successive modeling techniques to move from conservative ``worst case''

estimates of the ambient concentrations of a substance emitted from a

source toward more realistic site specific estimates of the ambient

concentrations.

D. For all identified HAPs, the petitioner provides numerical

estimates of risks to humans.

E. The CMI's ecological assessment addresses whether HAP emissions

are likely to result in adverse environmental effects. The analysis and

discussion consider emission levels, atmospheric fate, biodegradation

and bioconcentration, and conclude that all HAP emissions from this

subcategory are unlikely to have an adverse effect on aquatic biota,

terrestrial wildlife, or other natural resources. To support this

position, the petitioner uses as its principle source of information

the EPA's Hazardous Substances Database. For EGBE, CMI provides

additional information; an ecological analysis for EGBE which was also

submitted to the Agency under the petition to remove EGBE from the HAP

list. The petitioner combines that analysis with a discussion of

potential adverse impacts of EGBE from two-piece can operations and

finds that adverse environmental effects are unlikely to occur as a

result of EGBE emissions from the subcategory.

F. The petition includes an uncertainty analysis which considers

emissions projections, emissions modeling, exposure analysis, mixtures

and co-location of facilities.

The petition states that the data and parameters employed in each

step of risk assessment embody some degree of uncertainty that could

affect the conclusions drawn. The petitioner has attempted to reduce

the likelihood of underestimation by using upper bound estimates,

parameters and assumptions which result in maximum exposure estimates

that do not exceed a health-based exposure limit for any emitted HAP.

To further reduce the likelihood of underestimating risks, the petition

considers additivity by summing the potential impacts of all of the

emitted noncarcinogens and by summing potential impacts of all emitted

carcinogens.

Dated: October 8, 1999.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

[FR Doc. 99-27142 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P