WPC8 $Xqeڂʶ3g$ my7>6,m[ضp- V22XZ)0(cG= MFs[OA < `(D6K|^eݠT3 ;;ƺBnk)IJ~:8-ot Mb ͏¯H#QDW&k#NB\ 3$Hhn.r MW+܃"Wjz"k$]3k=-qT.) ɓH0N[2sGx"0.h$e{T{inv8pqvCJ:j):q{,|no_?wC @RX&3~:?BՈ4.߼eA~Oqc2D2[;{ɥZZC-Tҧ퇏r.4KVwstuD%IVg%[֌38wn&o phae{#R UN %a 0:g^  1u 72"wT4Xl{ m} 1 72 0FcM 0D 1 0w{ 72 1$ 1 722 1d 0 0u 0 0 0 0k 72Zb b  1 72+ 1] 72 1 72 1 72V 1 72 1A 72b b b b b *b 6b BbNb\bjbx 0/(NUN 0N      T T 0T! 0Hn!n!n!n!n!n!n! 0V! 0K " D+W" A"!#6# ###f$a$$ B$ 0V7$7$7$7$7$7$7$7$ B*$ D5$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$@ $o$\\rtiprint01\P587Post,<<,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,Tu/s 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)$I.IEN.DL3|xUh>CEIMQUY]aAutoList1i)1)a) (;3$2#  0  .3  0  (F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# hNCEIMQUY]aAutoList2i)1)a)(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#h^CEIMQUY]aAutoList3i)1)a)hAG_cgkosw{Bullet ListBullet ListhnCEIMQUY]aAutoList4i)1)a)(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#1 - 2 - h~CEIMQUY]aAutoList5i)1)a)!hCEIMQUY]aAutoList6i)1)a)#hCEIMQUY]aAutoList7i)1)a)%hCEIMQUY]aAutoList8i)1)a)'hCEIMQUY]aAutoList9i)1)a))h*EGKOSW[_cAutoList10)1)a)+3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 9 - 8 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 -  ($(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(O$ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(,!$0  0` (#(#  ( K$0  0` (#(#(.3$ !USUS.,  ( $ Figure  1  'dxdCZNO I&mage <=8C HKKKK    M(USUS.,  _@  TABLEOFCONTENTS(continued)  !!G(#Page9EFTABLE D d(.3$ !USUS.,  &0 d dbbbb)!dxdx WPC=={u{u{u== ?FDDJLDOLLRTLVTTZ_T__TbdTZdT_d_fd_jd_bl_jl_fl_oldrldoldjtdvtdotdrtlrtlvtlztlrlvtztttzt¿,:4 "$&$*,/,$24$64,64,??4??4B?4FD4BD?JLDRT_ot     $ $$",,&,"4&4*4&4$*4$/4$2?$/?,2?$2D,:?,6?,:D,6D4?D,?L,:L4BL4FL4?L4BT?FL?JT?FTDJTDOT?J_DO_DR_LZ_LR_LV_LVdLZdT_lTbl_jt_ftdrdolzlvtt   $$ , ,,2D?BL 7{u}ffcafiHiff$fifLEf̰fffcfTffUKff6fff! ecff$ff=٩ffb7it&,fff Ƚffpffc٨ffd<f >icfff_fffffffefffnffib_ffff@ffAff 6Z_ffff22Pf=UffTffȡfffdfXff\f=ˑff ffcߑ&eff`6aff-fPfffUf`Effe TLff ff fffOiYf feXff f_f Kf62e=ff _ffi`fUf -f7fff ifL`f difff !ffef`f P=Aff$bffe˙fffffPfE 2XfGffT iffKif4iffYefdEffff6tefʓff6fdfffifef=6iffKffc$ffٚf Xc& ʛfTff6Uf0 Kfe ϔfc ffAf fi @f6ff=abYfM if f_ff ffΔf f fXff`f f KfUff_>ff fff Gf f`feff δOifcʅf |ffffʶfnEfʑf%fL_fffOjj']dff=ff$fEKffo bfPffLΗf>fnfnf[ˆfޘf_=ffZf&fJFf_fifoXfffOߗfxdf/fB{efn}قfAf]f ىffif_ЈЉfYfffțf!ߙfňff٭fx/bfL fN~fcff ʋfNfifd)!fE_ffhfs|SfGfe)ffUf*ffKO\`f.zFfbfhv4fffΧfffdffdZfffsJffRufffffE;5-Yf_fFgfPff; ofr:f$ffeeffN:f]$fitifbf<$ff, fddf(fTf]ffffrfbrfߌ-ffI?fiSfiL -ffffVaf:bff ήJf(tˈfЎfff ftrfcbfOXcf#f]Wfff ffL`faHfefMf/3ffۂfi5ffdffef)ifeffO1f4f ˈffXffffcf_Lf>ff,fb)fnHfff}f`ffȂfϐfI/f;bffififfffff3)fifff/bfeifPff =f#f ffffi)fdgfiff=AfefkوfGffffn^fQfff_Γf(Of ffiJfibfLeff<˓fBsbfQifrf:ifˑߊfffbsNfwdfe(fPffXc4fAٍfRx bfd3~fMv ~4bfiff=fWDh[])w3if ff Gafi:sQf ffif>fU%ffXff<f?<qhfύffE6fi 8HfίލffTLf]f34}_fff fȉfnyifeffffN pffi:|q"gfcf=ff-ȏf [C~1Qiff ^l!~~/QdfpbffXTf$ff fYff =fʌf9rfffOff>4f P ff ,6f_TfeT_ff TfYnf=f <(af_Ɣff =fffff5]ff 5f Q%f%fff efeYƴf6,fTKff _fT̯f ߌffffO=ffU=f YOffePff!ffffa`ffefiYf`f`fYifff==ȉf U!""H(#419f!!݌   Ќ  E!  E!>"0 r 0` r(#r(# r   4.1REGULATEDHAPD.<<""H(#` (#` (#41E!>"Y"݌   Ќ  E!  E!(#0 r 0` r(#r(# r   4.2THRESHOLDFORCONTROLD.'""H(#` (#` (#41E!(#C#݌ p Ќ  E!  E!$0 r 0` r(#r(# r   4.3OPERATINGLIMITSFORRECOVERYDEVICESD.7""H(#` (#` (#43#XXX<XF!#<XXXXE!$5$݌ \ Ќ  #XXX<X%#<XXXX9  9%  5.0STANDARDSFORPROCESSVESSELSD.,""H(#519%%݌ 4 Ќ  E!  E!g&0 r 0` r(#r(# r   5.1_MACT_ԀFLOORISSUESD.#""H(#` (#` (#51E!g&&݌  p Ќ  E!  E!u'0 r 0` r(#r(# r   5.2LEVELOFSTANDARDD.#""H(#` (#` (#55E!u''݌  \ Ќ  E!  E!c(0 r 0` r(#r(# r   5.3ALTERNATIVEFORMATSD.%!!G(#` (#` (#513#XXX<Xꌁ%#<XXXXE!c(~(݌ H Ќ  E!  E!)0 r 0` r(#r(# r   5.4MISCELLANEOUSISSUESD.&!!G(#` (#` (#515#XXX<X=)#<XXXXE!))݌ 4 Ќ  #XXX<Xq*#<XXXX9  9 +  6.0STANDARDSFOREQUIPMENTLEAKSD.,""H(#619 +(+݌   Ќ  E!  E!+0 r 0` r(#r(# r   6.1_MACT_ԀFLOORD. ""H(#` (#` (#61E!++݌  Ќ  E!  E!,0 r 0` r(#r(# r   6.2STANDARDD.  ""H(#` (#` (#62E!,,݌  Ќ  E!  E!-0 r 0` r(#r(# r   6.3ALTERNATIVESTANDARDSD.'""H(#` (#` (#64#XXX<X*#<XXXXE!--݌  Ќ  E!  E!.0 r 0` r(#r(# r   E!./݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  9  9/  7.0STANDARDSFORWASTEWATERSYSTEMSD./""H(#719//݌ X  Ќ  E!  E!\00 r 0` r(#r(# r   7.1DEFINITIONOFWASTEWATERD.*""H(#` (#` (#71E!\0w0݌ D! Ќ  E!  E!Q10 r 0` r(#r(# r   7.2_MACT_ԀFLOORANDSTANDARDD."")""H(#` (#` (#71E!Q1l1݌ 0"  Ќ  E!  E!e20 r 0` r(#r(# r   7.3RECOVERYDEVICED.!""H(#` (#` (#75#XXX<Xꌚ.#<XXXXE!e22݌ #l! Ќ  E!  E!30 r 0` r(#r(# r   E!33݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  9  934  8.0STANDARDSFORTRANSFEROPERATIONSD.0""H(#81#XXX<X:3#934N4݌ $D # Ќ  E!  E! 50 r 0` r(#r(# r   8.1_MACT_ԀFLOORD. ""H(#` (#` (#81E! 5;5݌ %0!$ Ќ  E!  E!'60 r 0` r(#r(# r   8.2STANDARDD.  ""H(#` (#` (#81E!'6B6݌ &"% Ќ  E!  E! 70 r 0` r(#r(# r   E! 7'7݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  9  97  9.0STANDARDSFORSTORAGETANKSD.  *""H(#91977݌ (#' Ќ  <XXXXE!  E!80 r 0` r(#r(# r   9.1_MACT_ԀFLOORANDSTANDARDD."")""H(#` (#` (#91E!88݌ )$( Ќ  E!  E!90 r 0` r(#r(# r   9.2RISKANALYSISD. ""H(#` (#` (#94E!99݌ |*%) Ќ  E!  E!:0 r 0` r(#r(# r   9.3DEFINITIONOFSTORAGETANKD.,""H(#` (#` (#94E!::݌ h+&* Ќ  E!  E!;0 r 0` r(#r(# r   E!;;݌ #T,'+` (#` (# #Ќ  E!  E!0<0 r 0` r(#r(# r   #XXX<Xp8#E!0<K<݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  9  9<  10.0POLLUTIONPREVENTIOND.$!!G(#1019<=݌ < Ќ  <XXXXE!  E!=0 r 0` r(#r(# r   10.1OPTIONSD.| | !!G(#` (#` (#101E!==݌ (  Ќ  #XXX<Xꌲ=#11.0COMPLIANCEREQUIREMENTSD.'!!G(#111   <XXXXE!  E!_?0 r 0` r(#r(# r   11.1INITIALCOMPLIANCEFORCONDENSERSD.DD4!!G(#` (#` (#111E!_?z?݌   Ќ  E!  E!_@0 r 0` r(#r(# r   11.2MONITORINGREQUIREMENTSD.hh*!!G(#` (#` (#112E!_@z@݌   Ќ  E!  E!UA0 r 0` r(#r(# r   11.3ALTERNATIVECOMPLIANCEMETHODSD.1!!G(#` (#` (#113#XXX<X@?#E!UApA݌  t Ќ  E!  E!uB0 r 0` r(#r(# r   11.4MISCELLANEOUSD. !!G(#` (#` (#114E!uBB݌ ` Ќ  9  9bC  12.0_RECORDKEEPING_ԀANDREPORTINGD.bb+!!G(#1219bC}C݌ 8  Ќ  <XXXXE!  E!gD0 r 0` r(#r(# r   12.1STARTUPANDSHUTDOWND.::'!!G(#` (#` (#121E!gDD݌ t$  Ќ  E!  E!ZE0 r 0` r(#r(# r   12.2INITIALNOTIFICATIOND.'!!G(#` (#` (#125E!ZEuE݌ `  Ќ  E!  E!MF0 r 0` r(#r(# r   12.3NOTIFICATIONOFCOMPLIANCESTATUSD.::4!!G(#` (#` (#125#XXX<XHD#E!MFhF݌ L  Ќ  E!  E!pG0 r 0` r(#r(# r   12.4NOTIFICATIONOFPROCESSCHANGESD.PP2!!G(#` (#` (#126E!pGG݌ 8  Ќ  E!  E!nH0 r 0` r(#r(# r   12.5REDUCINGBURDEND."!!G(#` (#` (#126E!nHH݌ $  Ќ  9  9]I  13.0MISCELLANEOUSD. !!G(#1319]IxI݌  Ќ  <XXXXE!  E!4J0 r 0` r(#r(# r   13.1STRUCTUREOFTHERULED.(!!G(#` (#` (#131E!4JOJ݌  Ќ  E!  E!(K0 r 0` r(#r(# r   13.2ONCEIN,ALWAYSINPOLICYD.((,!!G(#` (#` (#131E!(KCK݌  Ќ  E!  E! L0 r 0` r(#r(# r   13.3IMPACTSD. !!G(#` (#` (#132#XXX<XJ#E! L;L݌ p Ќ  E!  E!)M0 r 0` r(#r(# r   13.4COMPLIANCEDATED."!!G(#` (#` (#133E!)MDM݌ \ Ќ  E!  E!N0 r 0` r(#r(# r   13.5GUIDANCED.B B !!G(#` (#` (#134E!N2N݌ H Ќ  E!  E!N0 r 0` r(#r(# r   13.6MISCELLANEOUSD. !!G(#` (#` (#134E!NO݌ 4 Ќ  9  9O  9OP݌̌  9  9IP  9IPdP݌  H Ќ  R@#LISTOFTABLES  21.0 r LISTOF_COMMENTERS_ԀONTHEPROPOSED_NESHAP_ԀFORMISCELLANEOUS  COATINGMANUFACTURINGtr(#r(#   ` ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank. `    L  9rX Xr`  X9LISTOFACRONYMSANDABBREVIATIONSFORUNITSOFMEASURE  <XXXXACRONYMS  Act0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(# CleanAirActt` (#` (# Administrator ` 0 EPAAdministrator` (# (# Agency ` 0 EPAL  (# (# _APCD_  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#airpollutioncontroldevice(s)8  (# (# API0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#AmericanPetroleumInstitute$ t (# (# CAA  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#CleanAirAct ` (# (# _CEM_  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#continuousemissionsmonitor L  (# (# _CEMS_  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#continuousemissionsmonitoringsystem(s) 8  (# (# _CFR_ r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#CodeofFederalRegulations$  (# (# CMS0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Continuousmonitoringsystem  (# (# _CPMS_0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Continuousparametermonitoringsystem  (# (# DoD r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#U.S.DepartmentofDefense  (# (# _EIIP_0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#EmissionInventoryImprovementProgram  (# (# EPA r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyp (# (# FR0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(# FederalRegister\` (#` (# H2 r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#hydrogenH (# (# HAP r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#hazardousairpollutant(s)4 (# (# _HCl_0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(# hydrogenchloride p` (#` (# _LDAR_0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#leakdetectionandrepairprogram \ (# (# _MACT_ ` 0 maximumavailablecontroltechnologyH (# (# N2 r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#nitrogen4 (# (# _NAAQS_ ` 0 NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards  (# (# _NAICS_0 ` 0 ` (#` (#NorthAmericanIndustrialClassificationSystem  (# (# _NESHAP_0 ` 0 ` (#` (#nationalemissionstandardsforhazardousairpollutants (# (# NH3 r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#ammonia (# (# _NOx_ r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#nitrogenoxides (# (# _NSPS_  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#newsourceperformancestandardsl (# (# _NSR_ r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#newsourcereviewX  (# (# O2 r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#oxygenD! (# (# _OAQPS_ ` 0 OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards0"  (# (# OSHA  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#OccupationalSafetyandHealthAdministration#l! (# (# OVA0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Organicvaporanalyzer$X" (# (# Pb r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#lead$D # (# (# PM r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#particulatematter%0!$ (# (# POD0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#pointofdetermination&"% (# (# _POTW_0 ` 0 ` (#` (#PubliclyOwnedTreatmentWorks'#& (# (# PSD r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#preventionofsignificantdeterioration  (#' (# (# QA/QC0 ` 0 ` (#` (#qualityassurance/qualitycontrol)$( (# (# _RCRA_  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#ResourceConservationandRecoveryAct|*%) (# (# SARA/TRI0 ` 0 ` (#` (#SuperfundAmendmentsand_Reauthorization_ԀAct/ToxicReleaseInventoryh+&* (# (# SIC0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#StandardIndustrialClassificationT,'+ (# (# _SOCMI_0 ` 0 ` (#` (#SyntheticOrganicChemicalManufacturingIndustry@-(, (# (# SO2 r 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#sulfurdioxide (# (# _SSM_0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#startup,shutdown,andmalfunction (# (# TOC0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#totalorganiccompounds (# (# TRE0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#totalresourceeffectivenesst (# (# TRI0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#ToxicReleaseInventory` (# (# VOC  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#volatileorganiccompoundsL  (# (# &  ABBREVIATIONSFORUNITSOFMEASURE $ t Btu0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#= Britishthermalunit L ` (#` (# dscf0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#drystandardcubicfoot(@14.7psia,68$F) 8  (# (# '$ kdscfm0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#drystandardcubicfootperminute(@14.7psia,68$F)$  (# (# dscm0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#drystandardcubicmeter(@14psia,68$F)  (# (# $F r 0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#degreesFahrenheit  (# (# ft30 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#cubicfeet  (# (# hr0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#hour  (# (# lb0 r 0r(#r(#0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#poundp (# (# mg r 0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#milligrams(10-3grams)\ (# (# Mg r 0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#megagram(106grams)H (# (# MMm30 ` =0 ` (#` (#millioncubicmeters4 (# (# MW r 0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#megawatt p (# (# MWhr/yr ` =0 megawatthoursperyear \ (# (# ng r 0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#nanogram(10-9grams)H (# (# ppm r 0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#partspermillion4 (# (# ppmv  0 ` =0 ` (#` (#partspermillionbyvolume  (# (# ppmdv ` 0 =0 (# (#partspermillionbydryvolume (#(# ton/yr  0 ` =0 ` (#` (#tonsperyear (# (# g r 0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#microgram(10-6grams) (# (# wk r 0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#week (# (# yr r 0  0` (#(#=0 ` (#` (#year#XXX<XR# l (# (#  8XXdd8` ` @88$1.0SUMMARY `   r OnApril4,2002,theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)proposednational 8  emissionstandardsforhazardousairpollutants(_NESHAP_)formiscellaneousorganicchemical J  manufacturingandmiscellaneouscoatingmanufacturing(67FR16154)underauthorityof   Section112(d)oftheCleanAirActasamendedin1990(CAA).Publiccommentsonthe ^ proposalandtheissuesraisedbyEPAsproposedapproachtoregulatingmiscellaneousorganic p  chemicalmanufacturingandmiscellaneouscoatingmanufacturingsourceswererequestedwhen "  theproposalwaspublishedintheFederalRegister.Commentsontheproposalrelatingtothe 4 miscellaneouscoatingmanufacturing_NESHAP_Ԁwerereceivedfrom81sourcesconsistingof  paint,ink,andadhesivesmanufacturers;industrytradeassociations;afederalgovernment H agency;anenvironmentalgroup;andotherinterestedparties.Inaddition,apublichearingwas Z held,atwhich8of11speakersprovidedtestimonyrelatedtotheproposedmiscellaneouscoating   manufacturingrule.Allofthecommentssubmittedinwritingandatthepublichearing,and n EPAsresponsestothecomments,aresummarizedinthisdocument.Thissummaryandthe   Agencysresponsesformpartofthebasisfortherevisionsmadetothestandardsbetween !2 proposalandpromulgation.Otherbasesinclude,butarenotlimitedto,reassessmentofdatain D# the_rulemaking_Ԁrecord.Commentsonthemiscellaneousorganicchemicalmanufacturing $  _NESHAP_Ԁaresummarizedanddiscussedinaseparatedocument. &X!" 1.10 r SUMMARYOFCHANGESSINCEPROPOSALj'"$r(#r(#  r Numerouschangeshavebeenmadesincetheproposalofthemiscellaneouscoating ($&  manufacturing_NESHAP_.Majorchangesincludethefollowing: .*~%( & &    Structureandformatoftherule   (Nxx"3"  ?` X XrX X?3M2N3  0    Replacedlargesectionsoftextandtableswithmorecompleteandcomprehensivereferences b '&gtoprovisionsintheHON;theGeneric_MACT_Ԁ_subparts_ԀSS,_UU_,andWW;the t PharmaceuticalsProduction_NESHAP_Ԁ(subpart_GGG_);andtheGeneralProvisions.3M݌&(#(# Ќ  Compliancedates 8   )(xx"3"  323  0    Specifiedthatareasourcesthatbecomemajorsourceshave3yearstocomplyratherthan1    year.3݌ L (#(# Ќ  Emissionlimitsandworkpracticestandards ^   !(~xx)"3"  32~3  0    Providedanemissionsaveragingoptionforstationaryprocessvesselsatexistingsources.3օ݌ (#(# Ќ  "3"  32~3  0    Revisedthestandardforequipmentleaksatexistingsourcestoasensory_LDAR_Ԁprogram.3݌"r (#(# Ќ  "3"  32~3  0    Revisedthewastewatercontrolthresholdlevels.3݌ (#(# Ќ  "3"  3̈2~3  0    Revised_MACT_Ԁfloorforstoragetanksatnewsources.3̈݌6(#(# Ќ  Compliancerequirements H  #(xx!"3"  323  0    Allowedperformancetestingunderrepresentativeconditions.3݌(#(# Ќ  "3"  3{23  0    Eliminatedtherequirementtocalculateuncontrolledandcontrolledemissionsforvessels  \ equippedwithclosedventsystems.3{݌n(#(# Ќ  "3"  323  0    SpecifiedlessburdensomeQA/QCproceduresfor_CPMS_.3݌  (#(# Ќ  _Recordkeeping_Ԁandreporting 2"  +(*xx#"3"  32*3  0    Eliminatedtherequirementtoreportoperatingscenarios.3ώ݌$(#(# Ќ  "3"  32*3  0    Eliminatedtherequirementtodevelopandmaintainamaintenancewastewaterplan.3݌F&(#(# Ќ  "3"  32*3  0    Eliminatedthereportingrequirementtosubmitfloatingrooftankcapacitiesanddimensions3Ő݌X ((#(# Ќ  "3"  32*3  0    Eliminated_duplicative_Ԁ_LDAR_Ԁreportingrequirements3֑݌! *(#(# Ќ  Definitions #l,  '(xx+"3"  3x23  0    Reviseddefinitionsforstartupandshutdown3x݌~$.(#(# Ќ  1.20  SUMMARYOFIMPACTSOFFINALRULE%0!0(#(# 9X X` X X9  Thefinalstandardswillreducenationwideemissionsofhazardousairpollutants(HAP) B'"2 frommiscellaneouscoatingmanufacturingoperationsfacilitiesby4,460_megagrams_Ԁperyear (#4 (Mg/yr)(4,900tonsperyear[tons/yr]),or64percentcomparedtothebaselineemissionsthat *V%6 wouldresultintheabsenceofthestandards.Nosolidwasteisexpectedtobegeneratedfrom h+&8 controls.Also,anadditionalenergyusageof40billionBritishthermalunitsperyear(Btu/yr)  wasdeterminedtoresultfrompromulgationofthesestandards. b   Theimplementationofthisruleisexpectedtoresultinanoverallannualcostof$16 t millionforexistingsources.Theeconomicimpactanalysisshowsthattheestimatedprice & increasefromcompliancewiththerecommendedstandardsforprocessvessels,storagetanks, 8  transferoperations,equipmentleaks,andwastewateris0.26percent.Estimatedreductionin    marketoutputis0.14percent.   L  ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank.  `   ` ` @ 2.0OVERVIEWOFPUBLICCOMMENTS `    ThepubliccommentperiodfollowingtheApril4,2002FederalRegisternotice $  (proposedrule)lastedfromApril4,2002toJune28,2002.Atotalof116letterscommentingon 6  theproposedrulesformiscellaneousorganicchemicalmanufacturingandmiscellaneouscoating  manufacturingweresubmitted,andthesecommentshavebeenplacedinthedocketforthis J  _rulemaking_Ԁ(DocketA-96-04)undercategoryIV-D.Ofthe116letters,81containedcomments \  ontheproposedruleformiscellaneouscoatingmanufacturing.Inaddition,8ofthe11speakers  atthepublichearingprovidedcommentsontheproposedruleformiscellaneouscoating  p manufacturing.Table2-1liststhenamesofthe81personssubmittinglettersandthe8persons  speakingatthepublichearing,theiraffiliations,andtherecordeddocketitemnumberassignedto 4 theircorrespondence.Commentsontheproposedmiscellaneousorganicchemical F manufacturingrulearesummarizedanddiscussedinaseparatedocument.    Many_commenters_Ԁsupportedthecommentssubmittedby_commenter_ԀIVD99.By  Z convention,ratherthanidentifyallofthesupporting_commenters_Ԁineachdiscussionofissues l! raisedbythis_commenter_,wehavedecidedtoidentifythesupporting_commenters_Ԁonlyinthis " chapter.Intheremainderofthisdocumentitistobeunderstoodthateachreferenceto 0$  _commenter_ԀIVD99standsforallofthesupporting_commenters_Ԁaswell._Commenters_ԀIVD6,8 % " through16,18through23,25through31,34,35,37,42,44,48,53,56,58,60through62,64 &D"$ through66,71,73,76,83,96,97,101through103,105,116,and124through127concurwith V(#&  thecommentsofIVD99. )%(   Chapters3.0through13.0presentasummaryofthecommentsontheproposedrulealong   withEPAresponses.Thecommentsaregroupedbysubjectareas,andtheorganizationoftopics b issimilartotheorganizationofthepreambletothefinalrule. t &  @wwTABLE21.LISTOF_COMMENTERS_ԀONTHEPROPOSED_NESHAP_ԀFOR 8  @  MISCELLANEOUSORGANICCHEMICALMANUFACTURING    *VcYWddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,dd ,pdd +   L  L  @YY DocketItem_No.a_  `   @%%_Commenter_ԀandAffiliation'8 Ԉ `   IV-D-06  0  J.Adams,AmericanCoatings  0  IV-D-07  `  K._Garbin_,NationalCoilCoatingAssociation  `  IV-D-08  0  P.Formica,_Bondo_ԀCorporation  0  IV-D-09  ` G.Hyde,RPMWoodFinishesGroup  ` IV-D-10  0 M._Tellor_,Rust_Oleum_ԀCorporation  0 IV-D-11  ` D.Finn,RPM,Inc.  ` IV-D-12  0 J.Lee,DavisPaintCompany  0 IV-D-13  ` D.Ness,FlintInkCorporation  ` IV-D-14  0 D.Hood,_Induron_ԀProtectiveCoatings  0  IV-D-15  `! H.McNair,_Pflaumer_ԀBrothers,Inc.  `" IV-D-16  0# P.Schneider,_Preservo_ԀPaint&CoatingsManufacturing  0$ IV-D-18  `% S.Berg,EllisPaintCompany  `& IV-D-19   0' K.Bernard,AceHardwareCorporation,PaintDivision   0( IV-D-20  `") T.Byrne,_Adheron_ԀCoatingsCorporation  `"* IV-D-21  #0+ W.Vogel,_Cloverdale_ԀPaintInc.  #0, IV-D-22  `% - R._Lefelar_,CliftonAdhesive,Inc.  `% . IV-D-23  &0"/ K.Bernard,AceHardwareCorporation,PaintDivision  &0"0 IV-D-24  `(#1 W._Leclerc_,KellyMoorePaintCompany,Inc.  `(#2 IV-D-25  )0%3 D.Smith,_TCR_ԀIndustries  )0%4 IV-D-26  `+&5 L._Ruckgaber_,TheEgyptianLacquerMfg.Co.  `+&6 _IV-D-27  d B.Hamm,JamestownPaintCompany  d IV-D-28   N._Zucker_,_Kalcor_ԀCoatingsCompany   IV-D-29   d W.Richards,W.C.RichardsCompany   d IV-D-30    M._Angerer_,IowaPaintManufacturingCompany,Inc.    IV-D-31   d  R.Williamson,TrinityCoatingsCompany   d  IV-D-34    F.Chin,UniversalChemicals&Coatings,Inc.    IV-D-35  d  P._Pesola_,DeltaLaboratories,Inc.  d  IV-D-37    R.Oliver,_Fibergrate_ԀCompositeStructures,Inc.    IV-D-38  d  K.Johnston,SovereignSpecialtyChemicalsInc.  d  IV-D-40    J.Davis,StarBronzeCompany,Inc.    IV-D-41  d A.Keane,NationalPaint&CoatingsAssociation  d IV-D-42   D.Hampton,TheLawrenceMcFaddenCo.   IV-D-43  d M.Frank,TheBoeingCompany  d IV-D-44   K.Dahl,TheDowChemicalCompany   IV-D-45  d R._Singhal_,FlexiblePackagingAssociation  d IV-D-46   T.Feldman,NationalElectricalManufacturersAssociation    IV-D48  d! J._Tovey_,AkzoNobelCoatings,Inc.  d" IV-D-50   # V._Ughetta_,AllianceofAutomobileManufacturers   $ IV-D-53  !d% M._McGruther_,U.S.PaintCorporation  !d& IV-D-54  #' A._Hentzen_,_Hentzen_ԀCoatings,Inc.  #( IV-D-55  $d) K.Larkin,Shook,Hardy,&Bacon_L.L.P._  $d* IV-D-56  &+ C.Browne,AkzoNobelCoatingsInc.  &, IV-D-58  'd!- M._Nichols_,TrueValueManufacturingCompany  'd!. IV-D-60  )"/ R.Thomas,The_Sherwin_ԄWilliamsCompany  )"0 IV-D-61  *d$1 J._Gatto_,TheLawrenceMcFaddenCompany  *d$2 IV-D-62  d  P.Beck,TheLawrenceMcFaddenCompany  d IV-D-64   S.Henry,RedSpotPaint&VarnishCo.,Inc.   IV-D-65   d D._Puryear_,HarrisonPaintCompany   d IV-D-66    H.Flack,AkzoNobelAerospaceCoatingsInc.    IV-D-68   d  L._Surowitz_,CodingProducts   d  IV-D-71    J.Wolf,_XIM_ԀProducts,Inc.    IV-D-73  d  G._Bockus_,StrathmoreProducts,Inc.  d  IVD75    J._Dege_,E.I.duPontde_Nemours_ԀandCompany    IVD76  d  R.Forrest,ForrestPaintCompany  d  IVD80    T.Hunt,AmericanForest&PaperAssociation    IVD81  d L._Frede_,ChemicalIndustryCouncilofIllinois  d IVD83   P.Robinson,_Valspar_ԀCorporation   IVD84  d G.Anderson,PressureSensitiveTapeCouncil  d IVD85   R.Raiders,_Atofina_ԀChemicals,Inc.   IVD87  d S.Rink,_Earthjustice_ԀLegalDefenseFund  d IVD89   S.Brown,InternationalPaper_Particleboard_    IVD90  d! S.Brown,InternationalPaperLaminates  d" IVD91   # D._Foerter_,InstituteofCleanAirCompanies   $ IVD93  !d% E._Trauner_,EssexGroupInc.  !d& IVD96  #' J._Kantzes_,_ICI_ԀPaintsNorthAmerica  #( IVD97  $d) S.Yankee,_Tnemec_ԀCompany,Inc.  $d* IVD98  &+ FranklinInternational  &, IVD99  'd!- A.Keane,NationalPaint&CoatingsAssociation  'd!. IVD100  )"/ D._Chapin_,EastmanKodakCompany  )"0 IVD101  *d$1 K.Bond,LordCorporation  *d$2 IVD102  d  R._Winn_,IPSCorporation  d IVD103   R.Porter,DiamondVogelNorth,Inc.   IVD105   d G.Hammer,AshlandInc.   d IVD106    C._Wacker_,3MCompany    IVD107   d  S.Capone,GeneralElectricCompany   d  IVD112    K.Hatch,BASFCorporation    IVD113  d  M._Collatz_,TheAdhesiveandSealantCouncil,Inc.  d  IVD114    O._Dominguez_,NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration    IVD115  d  S._Faeth_,_PPG_ԀIndustries,Inc.  d  IVD116    J._McLarty_,_Camie_ԄCampbell,Inc.    IVD122  d A._DeConti_,SyntheticOrganicChemicalManufacturersAssociation  d IVD124   S._Heemstra_,DiamondVogelPaintCo.,Inc.   IVD125  d S._Heemstra_,DiamondProductsCo.  d IVD126   S._Heemstra_,VogelPaint&WaxCo.,Inc.   IV-D-127  d W._Cleverley_,BenjaminMoore&Co.  d IVF1a   M._Collatz_,AdhesiveandSealantCouncil,Inc.    IVF1b  d! A.Keane,NationalPaintandCoatingsAssociation  d" IVF1c   # D._Mazzocco_,_PPG_ԀIndustries,Inc.   $ IVF1d  !d% R.Thomas,The_Sherwin_ԄWilliamsCompany  !d& IVF1e  #' P.Robinson,The_Valspar_ԀCorporation  #( IVF1f  $d) J._Gatto_,TheLawrenceMcFaddenCompany  $d* IVF1g  &+ C.Browne,AkzoNobelCoatings,Inc.  &, IVF1h  'd!- D.Darling,NationalPaintandCoatingsAssociation 'd!. ] aThedocketnumberfortheMiscellaneousOrganicChemicalManufacturing_NESHAP_Ԁis &)". A-96-04.  *#/ ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank. `       - @``!3.0APPLICABILITY   3.10  ENDUSERSOFCOATINGS (#(#   Comment:Anumberof_commenters_Ԁopposedregulationofactivitiessuchasmixing B  additivesandotheringredients,thinning,andadjustingtintthatareconductedbyfacilitiesthat T  aretheendusersofcoatingsandaresubjecttoanyofthesurfacecoating_NESHAP_;severalof   the_commenters_Ԁdescribedtheseactivitiesas affiliatedoperations,andtheyconcurredwiththe h  definitionanddraftpreamblelanguageforthePaperandOtherWebCoating(_POWC_)_NESHAP_ z thatwerediscussedduring_POWC_ԀstakeholdermeetingsonMay22andJune26,2002.For , example,severalofthe_commenters_Ԁ(IVD43,IVD45,IVD46,IVD84,IVD90,IVD100, > andIVD106)requestedspecificexemptionsforaffiliatedoperationsatfacilitiessubjectto  surfacecoatingrulesinsubpartGG,subpart_KK_,and/orsubpart_JJJJ_._Commenter_ԀIVD114 R requestedanexemptionfortheonsiteformulationandmixingofspecialty,ablativecoatingsthat d areappliedtospacevehiclesataNASAsiteandareexemptfromcontrolundersubpartGG.  Two_commenters_Ԁ(IVD80andIVD89)requestedspecificlanguageineitherthepreambleor (x finalruletoclarifythatoperationsatfacilitiessubjecttosubpart_DDDD_Ԁarenotsubjectto  subpart_HHHHH_._Commenter_ԀIVD80alsosuggestedextendingtheprovisiontoallequipment  <  associatedwithaprocessforwhichanother40_CFR_Ԁpart63standardhasbeenpromulgated. N"" _Commenter_ԀIVD101statedthatendusers,particularlythoseatfacilitiessubjecttosubpart #$ _MMMM_,shouldbeexemptbecausesubpart_MMMM_Ԁalreadyaddressesemissionsassociated %b & withtheuseofdiluentsatsuchfacilities._Commenter_ԀIVD50notedthattheexemptionin t&!( 63.7985(a)(4)ofoperationsthatarepartofanaffectedsourceunderanothersubpartof40_CFR_ '&#* part63shouldapplytoenduserssubjectto_subparts_Ԁ_MMMM_Ԁ(miscellaneousmetalpartsand 8)$, products),_IIII_Ԁ(autosurface),and_PPPP_Ԁ(plasticpartsandproducts)becauseaffiliatedoperations *%. arepartoftheaffectedsourcesunderthoserules;the_commenter_Ԁrequeststhatwemakethispoint +L'0 clearinthepreambletothefinalrule._Commenter_ԀIVD105requestedclarificationthatthe  exemptionin63.7985(a)(4)isnotlimitedonlytooperationsthatarerequiredtoimplement b controlsunderotherstandards. t   Two_commenters_Ԁ(IVD7andIVD99)requestedexemptionsforaffiliatedoperationsat & facilitiessubjecttoanyofthesurfacecoating_NESHAP_.Accordingtothe_commenters_,the 8  exemptionisnecessarybecauseweobtainednoinformationonenduserswhiledeveloping    subpart_HHHHH_,someoftheregulatedcommunitywouldnothaveanopportunitytocomment  L  ontheproposalbecausesomeofthesurfacecoatingruleswillnotbepublisheduntilaftersubpart ^  _HHHHH_Ԁisfinalized,andweconsideredemissionsfromaffiliatedoperationsinsomesurface   coatingsourcecategoriestobeinsignificantwhenweweredevelopingthesurfacecoating "r  _NESHAP_.Toexcludeendusersingeneral,_commenter_ԀIVD44recommendedmoreclearly   defining coatingsmanufacturingwithadefinitionsimilartothatfor batchprocessinsubpart 6 _GGG_,usingamorenarrowlistingofStandardIndustrialClassification(SIC)andNorth H AmericanIndustrialClassificationSystem(_NAICS_)codes,andaddingspecificexemptionsfor  temporaryactivitiessuchasmixingpriortopaintingatankorstructureatamajorsource.  \ _Commenter_ԀIVD80suggestedchanging coatingprocessto coatingmanufacturingprocess n asawaytoclarifythattheruleappliesonlytomanufacturers,notsourcesthatapplycoatings.      Response:Thefinalruledoesnotapplytoactivitiesconductedbyendusersofcoating 2" productsinpreparationforapplication.Asnotedbysomeofthe_commenters_,wehavedecided $ toexemptaffiliatedoperationsat_POWC_Ԁfacilitiesfromsubpart_HHHHH_.Inthepreambletothe F& final_POWC_Ԁsurfacecoating_MACT_Ԁrule(67FR72330,December4,2002)wedefineaffiliated X ( operationsat_POWC_Ԁfacilitiesandindicatethattheyarepartofthe_POWC_Ԁsourcecategory,but ! * theyarenotpartofthe_POWC_Ԁaffectedsourceforavarietyofreasons.Wealsoexaminedother #l, surfacecoatingrules,anddeterminedthattheexemptionforaffiliatedoperationsshouldalsobe ~$. appliedtosourcesthataresubjecttotheprintingandpublishingrule(subpart_KK_),theaerospace %0!0 manufacturingrule(subpartGG),themetalcoilcoatingrule(subpart_SSSS_),andthe B'"2 miscellaneousmetalpartsandproductsrule(subpart_MMMM_).Thesefiveruleslack (#4 requirementsforaffiliatedoperations,butaffiliatedoperationswereconsideredduringthe *V%6 developmentoftherulesandcontrolsweredeterminednottobewarranted.Wehavenot h+&8 extendedthisexemptiontoothersurfacecoatingrules(orcertainotherrules)thatalreadyinclude  affiliatedoperationsaspartoftheaffectedsourceundertheapplicablesubpartbecause b operationsthatarepartofanotheraffectedsourceareexemptfromthefinalsubpart_HHHHH_ t accordingto63.7985(a)(4)._Commenter_ԀIVD105'sassumptionthatthisexemptionisnot & limitedtothoseoperationswithinanotheraffectedsourcethatmustimplementcontrolsis 8  correct.Preparationsforpaintingequipmentorstructuresatafacilityarenotpartofa    manufacturingprocessandthusarenotsubjecttosubpart_HHHHH_.  L  3.20  OVERLAPPINGRULES^ (#(#   Comment:Three_commenters_Ԁ(IVD85,IVD93,andIVD107)requestedclarification   ofhowtodeterminewhethersubpart_FFFF_Ԁorsubpart_HHHHH_Ԁappliestotheiroperations.One "r  _commenter_Ԁ(IVD122)notesthattheproposeddefinitionof coatingmanufacturingis   expansiveandwouldunnecessarilysubjectfacilitiestobothsubpart_FFFF_Ԁandsubpart_HHHHH_. 6   Response:Iftheproductbeingmanufacturedisacoating,andthemanufacturingsteps H involveblending,mixing,diluting,andrelatedformulationoperations,withoutanintended  reaction,thentheprocessissubjecttosubpart_HHHHH_.Ifareactionaswellasvariousother  \ operationsareinvolved,thentheprocesstypicallyissubjecttosubpart_FFFF_.However,ifthe n downstreamformulationoperationsaredistinctfromtheprecedingsynthesisprocess(es),    (perhapsbecausethesynthesizedproductisisolatedandsomeofitissoldortransferredoffsite), 2" thentheformulationoperationsaresubjecttosubpart_HHHHH_,andthesynthesisoperationsare $ subjecttosubpart_FFFF_.Intheeventthatequipmentusedformanufacturingproductsin F& processesthataresubjecttosubpart_FFFF_Ԁisalsousedforcoatingmanufacturingoperationsthat X ( aresubjecttosubpart_HHHHH_,thentheprimaryuseoftheequipmentdeterminesapplicability. ! * 3.30  MISCELLANEOUSTECHNICALISSUES#l,(#(#   Comment1:Several_commenters_Ԁ(IVD80,IVD99,andIVD100)recommended ~$. clarifyingtheprovisionin63.7985(c)(3)oftheproposedrulethatwouldexemptallequipment %0!0 associatedwithaprocessthathaslessthan5percentHAPinprocessvessels.One_commenter_ B'"2 (IVD99)notedthatthisprovisionwillnotexemptallwaterbasedcoatingmanufacturing (#4 becausetheactualHAPcontentintheprocessvesselvariesduringtheprocess.Tobeuseful,this *V%6 _commenter_ԀstatedthedeterminationmustbebasedontheHAPcontentofthefinalproduct. h+&8 Accordingtoanother_commenter_Ԁ(IVD80),theexemptionshouldbebasedon organicHAP,  andsourcesshouldbeallowedtodeterminethispercentagebasedonmaterialsafetydatasheets b (_MSDS_)orotheravailableinformationasanalternativetochemicalanalysis.One_commenter_ t (IVD100)suggestedthattheexemptionwouldbelessconfusingifitwereappliedtoindividual & vesselsratherthana coatingprocessbecauseequipmentisgenerallyassociatedwithaspecific 8  processvesselandthedefinitionof processistoobroad.This_commenter_Ԁalsostatedthatifa    processvesselisnotsubjecttocontrolbecauseitscapacityislessthan250gallonsortheHAP  L  emissionsarelessthan50partspermillionbyvolume(_ppmv_),thenitisalsoreasonablethatno ^  otherrequirementsshouldapplytoanyoftheequipmentassociatedwiththatprocessvessel(i.e.,   thestoragetank,equipmentleak,andwastewaterstandards). "r    Response:Undertheproposedrule,wheneverthecontentsofaprocessvesselcontain   lessthan5percentHAPbyweight,theowneroroperatorwouldbeexemptfromallrequirements 6 fortheprocessvesselandrelatedequipment.Underthefinalrule,thisprovisionhasbeen H replacedwithaprovisionthatprovidesforcompliancewiththestationaryprocessvessel  standardsatexistingsourceswhenthevesselisbeingusedtomanufactureacoatingthatcontains  \ lessthan5percentHAPbyweight.Ourrationaleforallowingthemasslimitasanalternative n standardisbasedonanestimatedequivalentreductioninHAPemissionsascomparedto    complyingwiththeprocessvesselstandards.Althoughwedidnotcollectspecificdataon 2" coatingscontent,wereviewedinformationthatwecollectedinthedevelopmentofstandardsfor $ othercoatingmanufacturingsourcecategories.Basedonthesedata,weconcludedthatwecould F& achieveequivalentreductionsinHAPemissionsifcoatingmanufacturersreducetheHAP X ( contentoffinalproductstolessthan5percentbyweight.Inordertoachieveequivalent ! * reductionsof75percentforprocessvessels,theaverageHAPcontentofcoatingswouldhaveto #l, begreaterthan20percent.Otherdatacollectioneffortssupporttheconclusion.Forexample, ~$. theaverageHAPlevelsinallthe_solventborne_Ԁcoatingsreportedinthemetalcanandwood %0!0 buildingproductssourcecategoriesare32and28percent,respectively.Onaconsumption B'"2 weightedbasis,theHAPcontentofcoatingsinthemetalcansourcecategoryis20percent. (#4  Further,althoughtheHAPcontentofmanywaterbasedcoatingsislessthan5percentbyweight, *V%6 wedidnotincludeanexplicitexemptionforwaterbornecoatingsbecausetheHAPcontentof  somewaterbornecoatingscouldberelativelyhighaslongastheHAPissolubleinwater. b    Indevelopingthisalternative,wearepersuadedbyone_commenter_ssuggestiontoapply t ittoallvesselsthatareassociatedwiththemanufacturingofthefinalproduct.Althoughanother & _commenter_Ԁsuggestedthatidentifyingallprocessvesselsinamanufacturingprocesswouldbe 8  confusing,wethinkthatthisalternativewouldactuallysimplifycomplianceformostownersand    operators.Aslongastheprocessvesselmeetsthedefinitioninthefinalrule,anowneror  L  operatorcouldcomplywiththealternativestandardwhenthevesselwasprocessingmaterialthat ^  wouldultimatelycontainlessthan5percentHAPbyweightasfinalproduct.     Tofurthereliminateconfusion,weclarifiedthatthealternativeappliesonlytoprocess "r  vessels.Storagetanksarenotconsideredbecausetheircontrolrequirementsaredetermined   basedonthesizeofthetankandtheHAPpartialpressure,notwhetherthetankisusedforan 6 individualproduct.Transferoperationsarenotconsideredbecausetheircontrolrequirementsare H determinedbasedonthetotalannualquantityofcoatingthatisloadedanditsweightedaverage  partialpressure.Equipmentleaksalsoarenotconsideredbecausetheneedforcontrolis  \ determinedbythenumberofhoursaparticularcomponentisinorganicHAPservicewithinthe n affectedsource,notthespecificproductbeingproduced.Also,wedidnotexemptwastewater    streamsfromprocessvesselssmallerthan250galbecausewehavenoevidencethatsuchvessels 2" arecleanedbyadifferentprocedurethanlargervesselsorthatthewastewaterstreamsfromsuch $ cleaningoperationsarekeptseparate. F&   Comment2:Tominimizethecomplianceburden,one_commenter_Ԁ(IVD100)requested X ( exemptionsforimpuritiesandtraceconstituentspresentinquantitieslessthan0.1percentby ! * weightforcarcinogensandlessthan1.0percentbyweightforallotherHAP,valueswhichare #l, consistentwiththelevelsthatmustbeprovidedon_MSDS_.The_commenter_Ԁstatedthatthis ~$. wouldreducetheburdenofdeterminingtheHAPcontentinavesselforcomparisonwiththe5 %0!0 percentexemptionlevelandfordeterminingtheHAPcontentinprocessvesselventsfor B'"2 comparisontothe50_ppmv_Ԁlimit.The_commenter_Ԁnotesthatthedefinitionof storagetank (#4  excludesvesselsthatcontainHAPonlyasimpurities. *V%6   Response:Wedidnotallowinthefinalruleade_minimis_Ԁexemptionof0.1or1.0weight   percentHAPfortraceconstituents.Thisexemptionisnotrelevanttothe5weightpercentHAP b productalternativestandard.Further,wedonotfeelthatanadditionalde_minimis_Ԁortrace t constituentexemptionforcompliancewiththeremainingstandardsisnecessary. &   Comment3:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD98)requestedanexemptionforprocesseswith 8  uncontrolledemissionslessthan10,000lb/yr.      Response:Wehavenotincorporatedtherequestedexemptionbecauseitisnotsupported  L  bytheavailabledata. ^    Comment4:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD98)requestedanexemptionforwaterbornecoatings.     Response:Wehavenotincludedanexplicitexemptionforwaterbornecoatingsbecause "r  theHAPcontentofawaterbornecoatingcouldberelativelyhighaslongastheHAPissolublein   water.However,asourcecanreformulatecoatingstocontainlessthan5percentHAPasa 6 meansofmeetingtheprocessvesselventemissionlimitsandworkpracticestandardsfor H existingsources.    Comment5:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD107)recommendedrevisingthedefinitionof  \  mixingtoexcludeanychemicalreaction otherthananunintended,inconsequentialreaction n becausesomeinconsequentialreactionssuchasanequilibriumshiftreactioncanoccurduring    mixing.Similarly,_commenter_ԀIVD100recommendedbroadeningthedefinitionofmixing 2" becausemanycoatingsarenotmanufacturedatambienttemperature(agitationitselfgenerally $ addsheat),andmanymayincludeinsignificantreactions. F&   Response:Weagreewiththesuggestedclarifications.Itwasnotourintenttoexclude X ( processeswithinconsequentialreactionsorminorheatingeffectsduetoagitationfromthe ! * miscellaneouscoatingsourcecategory. #l,   Comment6:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD100)suggestedaddingadefinitionof coatingto ~$. mean aprotective,decorative,orfunctionallayerthatcontainsvolatileorganicHAPandis %0!0 intendedtobeapplieduniformlytoasubstrate,butthatexcludesextrudedmaterial.According B'"2 tothe_commenter_,thebenefitofthisdefinitionisthatitwouldpreventapplicationoftheruleto (#4 coatingsthatcontainHAPonlyasthesolidcomponent(i.e.,particulateHAP)ortopolymer *V%6 extrudingunits(asdefinedin63.1312(b)). h+&8   Response:Weaddedadefinitionofcoatingtothefinalrulethatincorporatessomeofthe  elementsofthe_commenter_sdefinition,withoutsomeconceptsthatweconsiderunnecessary. b ThefinalruledoesnotspecificallyexemptparticulateHAP,butweareunawareofanycoatings t processesorvesselsthatemitparticulateHAP.Further,anexceptionforextrudedmaterialisnot & necessarybecausetheextrusionshouldbepartofthepolymermanufacturingprocessthatispart 8  ofsourcecategoriessubjecttootherrulessuchassubpartU,SSS,or_FFFF_,andthusisexempt    fromsubpart_HHHHH_.Thefinalrulealsospecifiesthatmiscellaneouscoatingoperationsmust  L  process,use,orproduceHAPinordertobesubjecttotherule.Therefore,wedidnotincludethe ^  conceptthatacoatinghadtocontainavolatileorganicHAP.Thefinalrulecontainsthe   followingdefinitionofcoating: "r  0  Coatingmeansanymaterialsuchasapaint,ink,oradhesivethatisintendedtobeapplied   toasubstrateandconsistsofamixtureofresins,pigments,solvents,and/orother p additives.Typically,thesematerialsaredescribedbyStandardIndustrialClassification \ (SIC)Codes285or289andNorthAmericanIndustrialClassificationSystem(_NAICS_) H codes3255and3259.4(#(# (  Comment7:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD98)requestedanexemptionforlowvaporpressure  p HAP.    Response:WedidnotprovideanexemptionforlowvaporpressureHAPmaterials 4 becausewecouldnotjustifyanoemissionsreduction_MACT_Ԁfloorforthesematerialsbasedon F ourinformation.Wedidnotcollectinformationthatcouldbeusedtosupporttheconceptthat ! processvesselscontainingonlylowvaporpressurematerialswouldnotbecontrolledtothesame  Z# levelsasthosecontaininghighervaporpressurematerials.Further,wereviewedHAPstorage l% tankthroughputatfacilitiesthatreportedcontrolofprocessvessels,andnotedthatlowervapor  ' _HAPs_,suchasglycolethersandethyleneglycolwerealsousedatthesefacilities.However,for 0") thefinalrule,wehavewrittenthestandardforstationaryprocessvesselsatexistingsourcesto #+ require75percentreductiononlyforHAPwithavaporpressuregreaterthanorequalto0.6_kPa_. $D - Wemadethischangebasedonarevisedanalysisthatshowedthetotalimpactsoftheregulatory V&!/ alternativeareunreasonableforHAPwithvaporpressureslessthan0.6_kPa_.Thus,theseHAP '#1 mustbecontrolledtothe_MACT_Ԁfloorlevelof60percent. )j$3   Comment8:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD106)requestedanexemptionforQA/QClabsfrom |*%5 thedefinitionof process. +.'7   Response:Weagreewiththe_commenter_ԀbecausenoinformationforQA/QClabsis  includedinourdatabase.Therefore,QA/QClabsareexemptedinthefinalrule. b   Comment9:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)supportedtheprovisionin63.7990(c)tobase t applicabilityforstoragetanksonpredominantuseforfacilitieswithoperationssubjecttoboth & subpart_FFFF_Ԁandsubpart_HHHHH_,butfornewtanks,recommendedreducingtheperiodover 8  whichexpectedusemustbeestimatedfrom5yearsto1year.      Response:Wedidnotreducethe_redeterminaton_Ԁperiodtooneyearfornewsources,as  L  requestedbythe_commenter_,becausewebelievethatmorefrequentredeterminationwouldbe ^  moreburdensomeforthemajorityoffacilities;further,theproposedredeterminationprocedures   areconsistentwiththoseof40_CFR_Ԁpart63,subpart_FFFF_. "r    Comment10:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD93)recommendedestablishingapplicabilitybased   ontheaffectedsourceratherthanthemajorsourcesothatsmallcoatingmanufacturing 6 operationscolocatedwithlargesurfacecoatingsources(specificallythosesubjectto40_CFR_ H part63,subpart_MMMM_)arenotsubjectto40_CFR_Ԁpart63,subpart_HHHHH_.    Response:Wehavenotmadethesuggestedchangebecausethedefinitionofa major  \ sourceencompassesanentireplantsitewithoutbeingsubdividedaccordingtoindustrial n classificationsoractivities.Thisdefinitioniscontainedinsection112(a)(1)oftheCAA,which    includes anystationarysourceorgroupofstationarysourceslocatedwithinacontiguousarea 2" andundercommoncontrolthatemitsorhasthepotentialtoemitconsideringcontrols,inthe $ aggregate,10tons/yrormoreofanyHAPor25tons/yrormoreofanycombinationofHAP. F&   Comment11:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)requestedexemptionsforminorsources, X ( includingsyntheticminorsources,usinglanguagelikethatinthepreambletothefinalmetalcoil ! * surfacecoating_NESHAP_Ԁ(67FR39795,June10,2002). #l,   Response:Syntheticminorsourcesandareasourcesareexemptfromtherule,provided ~$. theyachievethisstatuspriortothecompliancedateoftherule.Section63.7985(a)(1)ofsubpart %0!0 _HHHHH_Ԁspecificallystatesthattheruleappliesonlytomajorsources.Thus,thereisnoreason B'"2 toprovideanexemptionforsourcesthatarenotmajorsources. (#4   Comment12:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD106)supportedtheproposedexemptionforR&D *V%6 facilities,withoutathresholdlimit. h+&8   Response:Thisprovisionisretainedinthefinalrule.    b ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank.  `    .-@4.0GENERALISSUESREGARDINGTHESELECTIONOFSTANDARDS   4.10  REGULATEDHAP (#(#   Comment:Accordingtoone_commenter_Ԁ(IVD87),thelackofstandardsforallHAPis B  unlawful.The_commenter_Ԁcited_HCl_,hydrogenfluoride,chlorine,potassiumcompounds,and T  maleicandphthalicanhydridesasexamplesofHAPthatarenotregulated.Another_commenter_   (IVD85)recommendedlistingtheHAPthataresubjecttotherule,orcrossreferencingTable2 h  insubpartFoftheHON. z   Response:Thestandardsinsubpart_HHHHH_ԀapplytoallHAPthatareusedincoating , manufacturing.Ofthesixcompoundscitedbythefirst_commenter_,however,only_HCl_Ԁand > phthalicanhydridearelistedinourdatabase.Allprocessvesselslargerthan250gallonsthat  emitanyHAP,includingthesixcitedbythefirst_commenter_,mustbecontrolled.Similarly,any R storagetankthatmeetsthecapacityandvaporpressurethresholdsforcontrol,mustimplement d controls.WedidnotlisttheHAPintherulebecausetheruleappliestoallHAPlistedinthe  CleanAirAct. (x 4.20  THRESHOLDSFORCONTROL(#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD87)statedthethresholdsintheruleunlawfullyexempt  <  emissionpointsfromcontrol.Accordingtothe_commenter_,allemissionpointsmustbe N"" controlled. #$   Response:Wedisagreethateveryemissionpointatamajorsourcemustberequiredto %b & reduceemissions.First,section112(a)oftheCAAdefines stationarysource(through t&!( referencetosection111(a))as: ...anybuilding,structure,facility,orinstallationwhichemits '&#* ormayemitanyairpollutant....(42U.S.C.7412(a)(3)and7411(a)(3)).TheGeneral 8)$, Provisionsforthe_MACT_Ԁprogramdefinetheterm affectedsourceas ...thecollectionof *%. equipment,activities,orbothwithinasinglecontiguousareaandundercommoncontrolthatis +L'0 includedinasection112(c)sourcecategoryorsubcategoryforwhichasection112(d)standard  orotherrelevantstandardisestablishedpursuanttosection112...."(40_CFR_Ԁ63.2).Nothingin b thedefinitionof"stationarysource"orintheregulatorydefinitionof"affectedsource"statesor t impliesthateachemissionpointorvolumeofemissionsmustbesubjectedtocontrol & requirementsinstandardspromulgatedunderCAAsection112. 8    Further,evenunderthe_commenter_sinterpretationof stationarysource,theAgency    wouldstillhavediscretioninregulatingindividualemissionsources.Section112(d)(1)ofthe  L  CAAallowstheAdministratorto ...distinguishamongclasses,types,andsizesofsources ^  withinacategoryorsubcategoryinestablishingsuchstandards....Weinterpretthisprovision   forthemiscellaneouscoatingmanufacturing_NESHAP_,aswehaveforpreviousrules,as "r  allowingemissionlimitationstobeestablishedforsubcategoriesofsourcesbasedonsizeor   volumeofmaterialsprocessedattheaffectedsource.UnderthediscretionallowedbytheCAA 6 fortheAgencytoconsidersizesofsources,wemadethedeterminationthatcertainsmall H capacityandlowuseoperations(e.g.,smallerstoragetanks)canbeanalyzedseparatelyfor  purposesofidentifyingthe_MACT_Ԁflooranddeterminingwhetherbeyondthefloorrequirements  \ arereasonable.Inaddition,our_MACT_Ԁfloordeterminationsforcertaincategories(e.g., n stationaryprocessvessels),whicharesetaccordingtosection112(d)(3)oftheCAA,reflectthe    performancelevelsofthebestperformingsourcesforwhichwehadinformation,including 2" vaporpressurethresholdsorcutoffsbelowwhichthebestperformingsourcesdonotreduce $ emissions. F&   Ingeneral,our_MACT_Ԁfloordeterminationshavefocusedonthebestperformingsources X ( ineachsourcecategory,andtheyconsideraddoncontroltechnologiesaswellasotherpractices ! * thatreduceemissions.Aspartofourinformationcollectioneffort,werequestedinformationon #l, emissionreductionmeasures.Wegenerallydidnotreceiveinformationindicatingthat,forthe ~$. emissionpointscoveredby40_CFR_Ԁpart63,subpart_HHHHH_,sourcesarecurrentlyreducing %0!0 emissionsthroughmeasuresotherthancontroltechnologies(e.g.,byfuelswitchingorraw B'"2 materialsorprocesschanges)insufficientnumberstosupporta_MACT_Ԁfloorbasedonsuch (#4 measures.Accordingly,ourstandardsincludeaperformancelevelthatrepresentsthelevel *V%6 achievedbythebestcontroltechnology,andathresholdorcutoffthatrepresentsthelowest h+&8 emissionpotentialthatiscontrolledbythebest12percentofsources.Becausethe  miscellaneouscoatingmanufacturingsourcecategoryisbroadintermsofthenumbersandtypes b ofprocessingoperationsthatarecovered,onechallengewastodevelopaformatbywhichall t sourcescouldbecomparedtoeachothertoestablishthebestperformingsources.The & performancelevelgenerallyisoftheformatthatcanbeappliedtodifferenttypesofcontrol 8  technologyandprocessesandisgenerallyconsistentwithexistingStateandlocalrules.Thus,    differenttypesofcontroltechnologyandemissionlevelsresultingfromexistingrulesare  L  capturedinour_MACT_Ԁflooranalysis.Thecutoffallowsownersandoperatorsthathavereduced ^  theiremissionsbelowacertainlevelusingoneormoremethods,includingprocesschangesto   reduceoreliminatepollutionatthesource,tocomplywithoutadditionalcontrol.Both "r  performancelevelsandcutoffshavebeensettoaccountforvariationsinemissionstream   characteristicssothatthestandardscanbeappliedconsistentlyacrossthesourcecategory.This 6 approachisconsistentwiththelanguageofCAAsection112(d)(3)thatrequiresustosetthe H _MACT_Ԁfloorbasedonthebestperforming12percentofexistingsources.  4.30  OPERATINGLIMITSFORRECOVERYDEVICES \(#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD44)statedthattherequirementin63.8000(d)tomeet n operatinglimitsforrecoverydevicesshouldbedeleted,orweshouldexplainwhysubpart    _HHHHH_Ԁismorestringentthanotherrulesthatdonotrequiremonitoringofrecoverydevices. 2"   Response:Weagreewiththe_commenter_.Theterm recoverydeviceisusedonlyinthe $ wastewaterprovisions.Thereare,ineffect,nomonitoringrequirementsforrecoverydevicesin F& thisruleand,therefore,thereferencetomeetingoperatinglimitsforrecoverydeviceshasbeen X ( deleted.  ! * ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank.  `   /.@ 5.0STANDARDSFORPROCESSVESSELS   5.10  _MACT_ԀFLOORISSUES (#(#   Comment1:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD87)isnotconvincedthatthefloorforportable B  vesselsshouldbeonlyacoverbecausesomeportablevesselshaveacoverplusaddoncontrol T  devices,andtheactualperformanceofacoveredvesselvariesdependingonthetypeofcover   andotherfactorssuchastheHAPcontentandvaporpressureofthematerialbeingprocessed. h  Similarly,_commenter_ԀIVD87alsoobjectedtothefloorforstationaryprocessvessels,claiming z thatitdoesnotreflecttheactualperformanceofthebestperformers,andthatwehavenot , accountedforvariousfactorsthataffecttheperformance. >   Other_commenters_Ԁindicatedthattheflooristoostringent,orattheveryleastthecontrol  levelshouldnotbeincreasedfrom60percentto80percent.Forexample,_commenter_ԀIVD99 R isnotconvincedthat6percent,ortheaverageofthebestperforming12percent,arecontrolled d becausemanyofthecontrolsareappliedonlytovesselswithspecificcharacteristicsratherthan  _facilitywide_._Commenter_ԀIVD60questionedthevalidityofaveraginguncontrolledsources (x withcontrolledsourcesindevelopingthe_MACT_Ԁfloor,andconcludedthatthefloorshouldbeno  control.Inresponsetoasolicitationforcommentregardingthesettingofthefloorbasedonthe  <  meanorthemedianofcontrolledvessels(i.e.,60percentversus80percentcontrol, N"" respectively),_commenter_ԀIVD99statedthemeanisappropriateforseveralreasons:(1)there #$ aresufficientdatapointstousethemean,(2)60percentrepresentsarealworldtechnology,(3) %b & EPAclaimedin_MACT_Ԁfloormemorandathatthemeanisabettermeasureofthecentral t&!( tendencyofthedata,(4)EPAindicatedduringthestakeholderprocessthatthemeanwouldbe '&#* usedasitisrepresentativeoftheindustryandconsistentwithCongressintentundertheCAA, 8)$, and(5)EPAguidelinesfor_MACT_Ԁdeterminationsundersection112(j)statethatthe_MACT_Ԁfloor *%. shouldbebasedonthemeanunlessthereisalargediscrepancybetweentheemissionreductions +L'0 achievedbyavailablecontroloptions(whichthe_commenter_Ԁindicatedisnotthecasehere  becausecontrolefficienciesareuniformlydistributedbetween2and99percent).Numerous b other_commenters_Ԁ(IVD8,9,11,12,23,28,35,54,96,102,103,124,and125)simplystated t thatthe_MACT_Ԁfloorhasbeenadequatelycharacterized,andshouldnotberevised. &   Nearlyallofthe_commenters_Ԁ(IVD6,8,10,11,13through16,18,19,20,22through 8  25,27through30,35,37,38,40,42,48,54,55,56,58,60,61,62,64,65,66,68,73,76,83,96    through99,100,101,102,103,113,124through127,IVF1a,IVF1d,andIVF1g)objected  L  totheapparentrequirementfor100percentcaptureofemissions,andtheystatedthefloorcontrol ^  levelshouldspecifyonlytheefficiencyofthecontroldevice.Theyexpressedparticularconcern   withastatementinthepreambletotheproposedrulethatindicatedcoversmustbe sealedand "r  _gasketed_.The_commenters_Ԁnotedthat100percentcaptureisnotfeasible(andthereforenot   achievedinpracticeexceptpossiblyifusingchemicalreactiontypevesselsandclosedsolids 6 chargingsystems)becausecoversoftenmustincludeanopeningforanagitatorshaft,andvessels H mustbeopenedperiodicallytotakesamples,addmaterial,andperforminspections.Theyalso  notedthatthisrequirementcontradictsourpositioninstakeholdermeetingsandbackground  \ memoranda,andtheybelievetheICRdatadonotsupportacapturecomponenttothefloor(i.e., n onlyinformationaboutthecontrolefficiencywasrequested)._Commenter_ԀIVF1dnotedthat    sixteenfacilitieshaveprovidedconfirmationthatthevaluesreportedforcontrolefficiencyonthe 2" surveywereinfactforthecontroldeviceonly.Evenifactualcaptureefficienciesareallowed, $ theynotedthattheproposedoverallcapturepluscontrolefficiencyof95percentfornewprocess F& vesselswouldbevirtuallyimpossibletoachievebecauseiteffectivelyrequiresnearly100 X ( percentcapture. ! *   Numerous_commenters_Ԁ(IVD8,9,10,11,23,28,53,96,98,99,102,103,122,124,and #l, 125)objectedtotherequirementthatemissionsfromcleaningaresubjecttocontrol,atleastif ~$. thevesseldoesnothaveanautomaticwashsystem._Commenter_ԀIVD99notedthatmostvessels %0!0 arecleanedbyhand,butevenvesselsthathaveautomaticwashsystemsmustbeopenedfor B'"2 inspectionsaftercleaning. (#4   Response:Wedidnotadjustthe_MACT_Ԁfloorsforportableorstationaryvessels.For *V%6 portablevessels,the_MACT_Ԁflooristoequipeachvessellargerthan250galwithacover.Our h+&8 datashowthatlessthan6percentofportablevesselsareequippedwithaddoncontroldevices,  butover90percentareequippedwithcovers.Wedidnotreceiveinformationregardingany b otheremissionreductiontechniquesbesidestheuseofcoversoraddoncontroldevicesfor t portablevesselsinresponsestoourICRrequestforsuchinformation.Thus,wedonothave & informationindicatingthatasufficientpercentageofsourcestosetafloorareusinganyemission 8  reductiontechniquesotherthancovers,andwecannotsupportafloordeterminationbasedonthe    useofanyothertechniques.  L    Ourdatabaseincludesinformationfor4,628stationaryprocessvesselslargerthan250 ^  gal.Sixpercentofallstationaryprocessvesselscorrespondstoatotalof278vessels.Atotalof   368vesselsareequippedwithsometypeofaddondevice,orabout8percent.Theaverage "r  controlofthebestperforming12percent(60percentreduction)representsatechnicallyfeasible   levelofcontroland,therefore,wedisagreewiththeassertionthatthefloorshouldbenocontrol. 6 Theaveragecontrolefficiencywasdeterminedfor368vessels,including278controlledvessels H andfactoringinnocontrolfortheremaining187toprecords.    The_commenters_Ԁalsocontendedthatreportedefficienciesdonotconsidercapture  \ efficiency.Ofthe378vesselsthatarecontrolled,over278(6percentofthestationaryprocess n vessels)reportedeitherdirectventilationtocontroldevices,reportedclosedventsystemsto    controldevices,orreportedoperatingessentially100percentcapture(routingbuildingexhausts 2" toanincineratoracapturesystem)andcontrol.Therefore,weconcludedthatitisappropriateto $ settheexistingsource_MACT_Ԁfloorforstationaryprocessvesselslargerthan250galonan F& overallcontrolefficiencybasedonthereportedefficiencies. X (   Thenewsource_MACT_Ԁfloorsforportableandstationaryprocessvesselslargerthan250 ! * galarebasedonthebestperformingsource.Forbothportableandstationaryprocessvessels,the #l, bestperformingsourcecoversthevesselsandventsemissionsthroughaclosedventsystemtoa ~$. thermalincineratorwithanoverallcontrolefficiencyof95percent.Thus,the_MACT_Ԁfloorsare %0!0 basedontheseconditions. B'"2   Werecognizethatbasing_MACT_Ԁfloorsforstationaryandportablevesselsoncaptureand (#4 controldoesnotovertlyconsiderfuel,materials,process,orsimilarchangesthatcouldresultin *V%6 loweroverallmassemissions.However,basedontheinformationwehave,wecannot h+&8 accuratelyquantifyalevelofmassemissionsthatcouldresultfromsuchemissionreduction  techniquesasa_MACT_Ԁfloorandthatcouldbeachievedbyallcoatingmanufacturersgiventhe b variabilityinprocessingoperations,thescaleofprocessingoperations,andproducts t manufactured. &   Wedidnotspecificallyrequestinformationforportableorstationaryprocessvesselswith 8  capacitieslessthan250gal,andwedonothaveanysuchinformation.Weseta_MACT_Ԁfloorof    noemissionsreductionsbecausewedonothaveinformationindicatingthatasufficient  L  percentageofsourcesareusingemissionreductiontechniquesoraddoncontrolstoenableusto ^  seta_MACT_Ԁfloor.     The_MACT_Ԁfloorforstationaryprocessvesselsatexistingsourcesisbasedonoverall "r  control.Thus,thefinalrulespecifiesthattheseprocessvesselsmusteitherbeequippedwith   tightlyfittingventedcoversandclosedventsystemsmeetingtherequirementsofsubpartSSof 6 40_CFR_Ԁpart63.Wehavedecidedtoexemptsomeemissionsreleasesthatresultfromsafetyand H hygienepracticesbecauseitisunlikelythattheseventswouldreachthe50_ppmv_Ԁconcentration  leveldefinedtobeaprocessvesselvent.Theexemptionalsowillrelieveownersandoperators  \ fromtheburdenofdemonstratingthattheymeettheconcentrationlevel.Specifically,the n definitionofprocessvesselventexcludesflexibleelephanttrunksystemsthatdrawambientair    (i.e,systemsthatarenot_ducted_,piped,orotherwiseconnectedtotheunitoperations)awayfrom 2" operatorsthatcouldbeexposedtofumeswhenvesselsareopened.Asanalternative,capture $ efficiencymustbeconsideredintheoverallcontrolefficiencydeterminationifvesselsarenot F& equippedwithtightlyfittingventedcoversandclosedventsystems.Openingofcoversfor X ( additionofmaterials,sampling,etc.,isincludedaspartofthecaptureefficiencydemonstration. ! * Fornewsources,thefinalrulerequirestheuseoftightlyfittingventedcoverstocontrols; #l, determiningcaptureisnotanoptionbecause,asthe_commenters_Ԁnoted,achieving95percent ~$. overallcontrolwouldrequirenearly100percentcapture. %0!0   Finally,wehavenotrequiredcontrolofcleaningthatisaccomplishedmanually. B'"2 However,emissionsresultingfromautomaticwashsystemsarerequiredtobeconsideredand (#4 controlled.Similarly,controlisrequiredforemissionsresultingfromflushingoflinesorother *V%6 equipmentwithsolventattheendofabatchbecausetheseareclosedoperations. h+&8   Comment2:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD38)requestedthatweclearlydefinethestarting  pointwhenwediscusspercentreductionrequirementsbecausethe_commenter_Ԁisconcernedthat b Statesdonotconsistentlyconsidercapturewhendeterminingtheoverallpercentreduction.The t _commenter_Ԁalsonotedthatdifferentrawmaterialfeedmechanismsaffecttheoveralllevelof & controlthatisachieved.Forexample,ifemissionsarecontrolledbyusingacondenserata 8  particulartemperature,the_commenter_Ԁnotedthattheoverallcontrolwouldbebetterifraw    materialsareaddedthroughaclosedhopperandscrewconveyorfeedsystemthaniftheraw  L  materialsareaddedmanuallythroughopenhatches. ^    Response:Asdiscussedabove,thefinalrulerequirestheowneroroperatortocomplyby   usingaclosedventsystem,butitalsoallowsuseofemissionsaveragingtoachieveanoverall75 "r  percentforallstationaryprocessvessels.   5.20  LEVELOFSTANDARD6(#(#   Comment:Mostofthe_commenters_Ԁ(IVD6,11through16,18through21,24,25,27 H through30,34,35,40,42,48,54,56,61,62,64though66,68,76,83,99,101,103,113,122,  124through126,andIVF1g)statedthatthestandardforstationaryprocessvesselsatexisting  \ sourcesshouldbesetatthe_MACT_Ԁfloor.Accordingtothe_commenters_,thecostofthe n regulatoryalternativeisunreasonablebecauseouranalysisoverstatedtheuncontrolledemissions,    usedunrealisticmodelplantandemissionstreamcharacteristics,andunderstatedthecosts. 2"   The_commenters_Ԁnotedaboveand_commenter_ԀIVF1edisputedourestimateof $ uncontrolledemissionsforanumberofreasons.Theirprimaryargumentisthattheybelieve F& usingtheEmissionInventoryImprovementProgram(_EIIP_)equationswouldgiveamore X ( accurateestimateoftheHAPemissionsthantheAP42VOCemissionfactor.Theynotedthat ! * EPAhasidentifiedthe_EIIP_Ԁequationsasthepreferredmethod,companiesusethemasthebasis #l, fortitleVpermits,Statespreferthemforpermittingandcompliancedemonstrations,andEPA ~$. specifiestheuseofsimilarequationsinsubpart_GGG_.Conversely,theynotedthattheAP42 %0!0 VOCemissionfactorisinappropriatebecause,typically,halforlessoftheVOCisHAP;the B'"2 factorismeanttoestimateemissionsfromtheentireprocess,notjuststationaryprocessvessels; (#4 andtheindustryhasshiftedtolessvolatilesolventsinrecentyears._Commenter_ԀIVD60 *V%6 provideddatashowingthatthe_EIIP_Ԁmethodology,calibratedwithstacktesting,resultsin h+&8 emissionsequaltoabout0.2to0.6percentofHAPthroughput._Commenter_ԀIVD99alsonoted  thatourbaselineemissionsestimateexceedsfacilitywideToxicReleaseInventory(TRI) b emissions(whichalsoincludenonHAP,fugitives,emissionsfromportablevessels,and t emissionsfromotherprocesses)byfactorsbetween3and36._Commenter_ԀIVD99alsodoesnot & believethat5facilitiesgeneratehalfoftheemissionsinthesourcecategory.Forexample,the 8  _commenter_Ԁcontactedfacilitynumber106(thefacilitywiththehighestestimatedemissions)and    determinedthatonly2percentofthesolventthroughputisattributabletothemanufactureofinks  L  andcoatings;theremainderisassociatedwiththedistributionofpaintthinnersandpaint ^  reducers.     The_commenters_Ԁconsideredmanyofthemodelplantparametersandemissionstream "r  characteristicstobeunrealistic.Relatedtotheirconcernsnotedinsection5.1that100percent   captureisinfeasible,theynotedthatlocalexhaustventilationsystemsusuallyconveylarge 6 volumesofairtominimizeworkerexposure,reducetheriskoffires,andcontaindust.Asa H resultofthehighairflowrates,theynotedthattheHAPconcentrationismuchlowerthanthe  40,000_ppmv_Ԁinourimpactsanalysis.Basedonstacktestdata,_commenter_ԀIVD99statedthat  \ actualconcentrationsarelessthan1,200_ppmv_._Commenter_ԀIVD68indicatedthe n concentrationsareinthehundredsof_ppmv_.The_commenters_Ԁnotedthatfortoluene,the    surrogateHAPusedinouranalysis,40,000_ppmv_Ԁiswithintheflammablerange,whichposes 2" safetyconcernsandwouldnecessitatetheuseofexpensivefire/explosionpreventionequipment $ and_inerting_Ԁsystems._Commenter_ԀIVD99statedthatxyleneshouldbeusedasthesurrogate F& HAPbecauseitisnowfourtimesmoreprevalentthantoluene.The_commenters_Ԁnotedthatthe X ( modelincludedemissionsonlyfromfilling,butemissionsalsoresultfromotherprocesssteps ! * suchasmixing,gassweep,heatup,holding,emptying,andcleaning.Theyalsodisagreedwith #l, theassumptionthatacontroldeviceneedstobesizedtohandleemissionsfromonly5vesselsat ~$. atime.Forexample,_commenter_ԀIVD99indicatedthatmanyfacilitieshavedozensofprocess %0!0 vesselsbeingfilledsimultaneously(asmuchas50to75percentofallvesselsonsite). B'"2 _Commenter_ԀIVD66notedthateachvesselwouldhavetohaveitsowncondenserbecausea (#4 commonheaderposessafetyandproductqualityrisks._Commenter_ԀIVD99objectedtothe *V%6 assumptionthatcondenserscanbeusedtocontrolallprocessvesselsbecausewatercooled h+&8 condenserswillnotbeeffectiveforthelowconcentration(andhighflow)streamsintheindustry,  andcondensersaremeanttooperateforlongperiodsoftimeundersteadystateconditions,not b intermittentlyduringfillingsteps. t   Accordingto_commenters_ԀIVD99andIVF1g,ourcostanalysisincludedanumberof & errorsanddeficiencies.Forexample,theanalysisdidnotincludethecosttoreplaceexisting 8  vesselswithchemicalreactiontypetanksandrawmaterialadditionequipment,whichwouldbe    neededtoevenapproach100percentcapture.Ifcleaningemissionsmustbecontrolled,the  L  _commenter_Ԁindicatedthatacostforautomaticwashsystemsmustbeincluded.Fireandsafety ^  instrumentationandsystemswouldbeneededsincethemodeloperateswithtolueneinthe   flammablerange. "r    Evenifcondensersareassumedtobeapplicableforallprocessvessels(whichthe   _commenter_Ԁopposed,asnotedinsection5.1),the_commenter_Ԁnotedthefollowingconcernswith 6 theanalysis:(1)solventrecoveryisnotfeasiblebecausethecondensedsolventiscontaminated H withcondensedwatervapor(andmustbedisposedofashazardouswaste);(2)theamountof  coolantpipingandvalvespercondenserisunderestimated;(3)_baghouses_Ԁwillbeneeded  \ upstreamofthecondensertoremoveparticulateifsolidmaterialsareaddedtotheprocessvessel; n (4)twostageratherthansinglestagecondenserswillberequiredtooperateatthemodel    operatingtemperatureof32$F;(5)therefrigerationunitneedstobelargeenoughtoservice75 2" percentofthefacilityscondensers;and(6)costsareneededforfoundationsandsupports, $ electricalcomponents,instrumentation,insulation,sitepreparation,andbuildings. F&   _Commenter_ԀIVD99alsostatedtheanalysisunderstatestheincrementalcost X ( effectivenessrelativetothefloorbecauseituseduncontrolledemissionsratherthanbaseline ! * emissions;thecondensercountisincorrectformorethan30facilities;thecostsforcoverswere #l, notincludedforthevesselsthatdonotcurrentlyhavethem;theresultsreportedin$/Mgare ~$. actuallyin$/ton;andthesaturationtolueneconcentrationis37,370_ppmv_,not40,000_ppmv_. %0!0 Basedonasensitivityanalysisthatincorporatessomeofthesesuggestedchangesandlooksata B'"2 rangeofemissionstreamflows,HAPconcentrations,andcontroldevices,the_commenter_ (#4 estimatedthatcostsareatleast5to20timeshigherthanourestimate.The_commenter_Ԁnotedthat *V%6 theseestimatesareconservativelylowbecausetheydonotincludecostsforchemicalreaction h+&8 tanks,rawmaterialadditionequipment,andfiresafetyequipment;theyalsodonotconsiderthe  impactofusingalessvolatilesurrogateHAPonemissionreductions.Evenwithoutchanging b theelementsintheanalysis,_commenter_ԀIVD99statedweshouldconsidertheaveragefacility t costeffectivenessvalueratherthanthenationwidevaluebecauseamajorityofthefacilitiesin & theanalysishaveincrementalcostsabove$3,500/Mg;typically,thesefacilitiesaresmallor 8  producepredominatelywaterbasedcoatings.      Response:Weagreethatthe_EIIP_Ԁguidanceisappropriateforuseinestimatingemissions  L  fromcoatingmanufacturingprocesssources.Wedidnotuse_EIIP_Ԁmodelsbecausewedidnot ^  havethelevelofdetailrequiredtoconductemissionestimatesfromthefacilitiesinourdatabase.   Weconsideredthe1to2percentsolventthroughputvaluescontainedintheChapter5AP42 "r  documentationtobeadequateforcharacterizingthelevelofemissionsfornationwideimpacts.   And,although_commenter_ԀIVD60indicatedthatthe_EIIP_ԀmethodologywouldresultinHAP 6 emissionsbetween0.2and0.6percentofHAPthroughputforhisfacilities,this_commenter_Ԁalso H calculatedalossof1.3percentforonefacilityduetomoreconservativeassumptionsassociated  withthatfacilitysoperations.Whileour1percentfactormaybeconservative,itwasa  \ reasonablevaluefortheimpactsanalysis.The_commenters_ԀstatedthattheAP42VOCemission n factorisinappropriatebecause,typically,halforlessthanhalfoftheVOCisHAP;however,    becausethefactorisbasedonHAPthroughput,onlytheportionofsolventthatisHAPis 2" considered,andtherefore,basingtheemissionsonHAPthroughoutappropriatelylimitsthe $ estimatestoHAP,notVOC.Regardingthecommentthatourbaselineemissionsestimate F& exceedsfacilitywideTRIemissions,wenotethat_commenter_ԀIVD99indicatedthatbaseline X ( HAPemissionstotal6.3millionpoundsforall127facilitiesinthedatabase,ascomparedtoour ! * estimateof13.5millionpounds,roughlyafactoroftwo.Becauseoftheuncertaintyassociated #l, withestimationmethods,andvaryingoperationalpracticesfromsitetosite,theseestimatesare ~$. reasonable. %0!0   Regardingassumptionsmadeinourcostanalysisoftheregulatoryalternativefor B'"2 stationaryprocessvessels,wenotethatthelowoverallcontrolefficiency(75percent)enables (#4 numerouscontrolscenariosforachievingcompliance,includingthosescenarioswhereairflows *V%6 areincreasedtoenablepropercaptureofemissionsfromopeninginvessels.Whilewedidnot h+&8 costoutthisalternativeforpresentationofimpacts,itwouldlikelybeascenarioemployedby  ownersandoperators.Asdiscussedpreviously,thetwopredominanttypesofdevicesare b condensersandthermalincinerators.Therefore,tofurtherexaminethecosteffectivenessofthe t regulatoryalternative,weevaluatedthecosteffectivenessofapplyingacaptureandcontrol & systemusingthermalincineration.Westartedwiththeanalysisgeneratedby_commenter_ԀIVD 8  99,whicharebasedonEPAsCO$TAIRspreadsheetsforregenerativethermaloxidizersand    includedthe_commenter_sestimatedinstallationcostsfor_ductwork_,auxiliaryequipment,vapor  L  collectionsystems,andlidsfortanks.The_commenter_Ԁalsonotedthatcostcalculationsdidnot ^  include chemicalreactiontypetankstoapproach100percentcapture,automaticcleaning   systems,rawmaterialadditionequipment,_baghouses_,orfirecontrolsystemcosts.Wealso "r  excludedchemicalreactiontanksandrawmaterialfeedequipmentbecausetheywouldnotbe   neededwhenacapturesystemandhighairflowratesareusedtocollectandrouteemissions 6 fromtheexistingtankstoathermalincinerator. H   The_commenter_Ԁapparentlygeneratedanindustrywidecosteffectivenessestimatefor  thermaloxidizersfromaverageflowandconcentrationvalueranges.The_commenter_Ԁdidnot  \ provideenoughinformationtomethodicallystepthroughtheproceduretoarriveattheresulting n valueof$16,138/Mg.Infact,itwasnotclearwhetherthe_commenter_Ԁselectedrangesof    concentrationsand_flowrates_Ԁcorrespondingto36stacktestdatapointsandthencalculatedcost 2" effectivenessvaluesfromthemidpointsoftheserangesorwhetherthe_commenter_Ԁcalculatedthe $ costeffectivenessof36stacktestdatapointsanddevelopedanarithmeticaverage.Wenotethat F& thetablesuppliedbythe_commenter_Ԁidentifyingconcentrationand_flowrate_Ԁrangesindicatesthat X ( _flowrates_Ԁandconcentrationswereconsideredtobeindependentofeachotherandproduceda ! * counterintuitiveresultthat_flowrate_Ԁandconcentrationswouldbedirectlyproportional,as #l, opposedtoinverselyproportional.Forexample,thelowflowraterangemidpointvalueswere ~$. listedas300cfmand50_ppmv_,whilethehigh_flowrate_Ԁrangemidpointswerelistedas7,500cfm %0!0 and1,750_ppmv_.Wewouldexpectthatas_flowrates_Ԁincreased,concentrationswoulddecrease, B'"2 andweconcludedananalysisresultingfromtheuseoftheserangeswouldlikelynotrepresent (#4 theactualemissionstreamcharacteristics.Further,weestimatedthecosteffectivenessof *V%6 incineratorcontrolsforthese5rangesandobtainedvaluesrangingfrom$290,000/Mgforthe h+&8 streamwith300cfmand50_ppmv_Ԁconcentrationto$400/Mgforthestreamwith7,500cfmand  1,750_ppmv_,indicatingawiderangeofcosteffectiveness. b   Wereasonedthatamorerepresentativeevaluationwouldbebasedonaselectedmodel t emissionstream.Thismodelstreamwasbasedonacommonvalueresultingfromthehistogram & presentedbythe_commenter_;weselectedasmodelemissionstreamcharacteristicsa_flowrate_Ԁof 8  5,000_scfm_Ԁwastegasandaconcentrationof500_ppmv_.Ouranalysisindicatedthatthecost    effectivenessvalueforthismodelstreamwouldbe$2,200/Mg,assumingonly75percent  L  reductionofpotentialHAPemissionwasachieved.Basedonthisresult,weconcludedthata ^  captureandcontrolsystemusingthermalincinerationwouldresultinreasonablecosts.     Ouroriginalanalysisthatwasthebasisforselectingthe75percentregulatoryalternative "r  basedoncondensercontrolisstillvalidandthetotalimpacts,consideringtheemissionreduction   achievedaswellascost,nonairqualityhealthandenvironmentalimpacts,andenergy 6 requirements,arereasonable.Thus,wecontinuetobasethestandardforstationaryprocess H vesselsatexistingsourcesontheregulatoryalternative..However,the_commenter_Ԁhaspointed  outvalidconcernsregardingsomeofourassumptions.Uponreview,weagreethatwe  \ mistakenlyoverestimatedreductionsfromtheregulatoryalternativebyapproximately10percent n fromtheuncontrolledlevels.Therefore,ourestimatedreductionsfortheregulatoryalternative    shouldbeontheorderof4,400Mg/yr,not5,000Mg/yr.TherevisedincrementalHAPreduction 2" achievedbytheregulatoryalternativeisabout1,000Mg/yr,anditreducescostsbyanestimated $ $130/MgofHAPcontrolled.Theincrementalelectricityconsumptiontooperatethe F& refrigerationunitforthecondensersisabout1.7millionkilowatthoursperyear(kWh/yr),and X ( thefuelenergytogeneratetheelectricityisabout16billionBtu/yr.TotalCO,NO<!F! x! !F,andSO<!F! 2! !F ! * emissionsfromcombustionoftheadditionalfueltogeneratetheelectricityis14Mg/yr.There #l, wouldbenowastewater,solidwaste,orothernonairqualityhealthorenvironmentalimpacts. ~$.   Regardingconcernsexpressedbythe_commenter_Ԁonthesystemdesignrequirements,such %0!0 astherequiredsizeoftherefrigerationunits,theamountofpipingandvalvespercondenser,and B'"2 variousinstallationcostelements,werecognizethatthesecostscouldbehigher,dependingon (#4 thesitespecificsituation.Ingeneral,thecostswouldincreaseforthe_MACT_Ԁfloorcondenser *V%6 systemaswellastheregulatoryalternativecondensersystem.Thebasisforselectingthe75 h+&8 percentregulatoryalternativeisthattheincrementalcostbetweenthe_MACT_Ԁfloorof60percent  andtheregulatoryalternativeisreasonablewhenconsideredinlightofthenonairqualityhealth b andenvironmentalimpactsandenergyrequirements.Inouroriginalanalysisbasedonthe t condensationoftoluene,thedifferenceintotalannualcostofthetwomodelsystems,one & renderinganexitgastemperatureof36$Fandonerenderinganexitgastemperatureof50$F,was 8  aboutthesame($45,100fortheregulatoryalternative,and$43,417forthe_MACT_Ԁfloor    alternative).Ourcostsdidnotspecificallyassumethatthecondensersystemrenderinganoutlet  L  gastemperatureof36$Fwouldrequirea_precooler_;however,ourconservativeapproachto ^  estimatingcondensercostsbasedonaminimumsurfaceareawouldaccountforthe_precooler_   costs,sincethecalculatedsurfaceareaofthemodelcondensersystemwaslowerthanthe "r  minimumsizeforwhichcostsareavailable.Givenallofthecostelements,wenotethatthe   significantfactorinannualizedcostdifferencesbetweenthetwoalternativesistherecovery 6 credit,whichfortheregulatoryalternativewas$37,063whiletherecoverycreditforthe_MACT_ H flooralternativewas$29,650.Whensubtractedfromthetotalannualcost,theannualizedcost  fortheregulatoryalternativewas$8,038,whiletheannualizedcostforthe_MACT_Ԁfloor  \ alternativewas$13,766.Becausecosteffectivenessisexpressedastotalannualizedcostdivided n byemissionsreduction,recoverycreditfactorsinnotonlybyloweringthetotalcostofthe    option,butincreasesthedenominatorinthecosteffectivenessterm.Theincrementaldifference 2" betweenthetwomodels,andalsobetweenthenationwideimpactsthatwereessentially $ extrapolatedfromthesetwomodels,isnegative.Further,theeffectoftherecoverycredit F& essentiallydrivesthisdecisionandisvalidforouranalysis.Weassumedthateachvesselwould X ( beequippedwithacondenserandthecondensedmaterialcouldbereturneddirectlytothevessel ! * withoutfurtherrefinement;wedonotagreethatcrosscontaminationwouldbeaproblemunder #l, thisscenario;further,moisturegeneratedfromcondensationofhumidairdoesnotappeartobea ~$. concerncurrentlyasindicatedbythepredominanceofairsystemsandlackofnitrogen %0!0 blanketingsystemsonstoragetanks. B'"2   The_commenters_Ԁsuggestedthatourcostanalysiswouldhaveyieldeddifferent (#4 conclusionshadwedesignedthemodelcondensationsystemsforxylene,ratherthantoluene. *V%6 Weagreethatcosteffectivenessofimplementingthemodelcondensationsystemslargely h+&8 dependsonemissionpotential,whichinturnvariesaccordingtothevolatilityoftheHAP  materials.Therefore,wedecidedtoexpandthe_commenter_sissueanddeterminetheHAP b materialsforwhichincrementalcostsforthe75percentregulatoryalternativearereasonable. t Weconductedanadditionalanalysisonamodelsetofemissioneventsconsistingofidentical & processingsteps,butprocessingadifferentHAP.Fortheanalysisweevaluatedthefollowing 8  HAP:toluene,xylene,_cumene_,phenol,andethyleneglycol.Thesecompoundsrepresentarange    ofvaporpressuresforcommonHAPintheindustry.Wefoundthattheincrementalcostimpacts  L  ofgoingabovethe_MACT_ԀfloorareunreasonableforHAPwithvaporpressureslessthanthatof ^  _cumene_.Therefore,werevisedtheregulatoryalternativeandstandardforstationaryprocess   vesselsatexistingsourcestoincludeaHAPvaporpressurethresholdof0.6_kPa_Ԁat25$C. "r  EmissionsofHAPwithvaporpressuresabovethethresholdmustbecontrolledtotheregulatory   alternativelevelof75percent,whereasHAPwithlowervaporpressuresmustbecontrolledto 6 the_MACT_Ԁfloorlevelof60percent.About1percentofthetotalHAPthroughputintheindustry H consistsofHAPwithvaporpressuresbelowthethreshold;thus,wedidnotrevisethe  incrementalimpactsfortheregulatoryalternative.  \   Notethatwecouldnotdoasimilaranalysisforthermalincineratorsbecausethe n efficiencyofincineratorsisgenerallyassumedat98percent,andtheanalysisbecomesdependent    onassumptionsmadeaboutincrementalcostsofcaptureefficiency.Instead,weassumedthatthe 2" incrementalanalysisbasedoncondensercontrolalonecouldalsobeusedtojustifytheregulatory $ alternative. F&   Weexaminedthefeasibilityofaregulatoryalternativeforportableprocessvesselswith X ( capacitiesgreaterthanorequalto250galatexistingsourcesthatwouldrequirethesame75 ! * percentoverallcontrolastheregulatoryalternativeforstationaryprocessvesselswithcapacities #l, greaterthanorequalto250galatexistingsources.Usingthesamecondensercostanalysis,we ~$. concludedthatthetotalimpactsofthisoptionareunreasonableinlightoftheemissions %0!0 reductionsachieved.TheincrementalHAPreductionachievedbythisbeyondtheflooroptionis B'"2 approximately400Mg/yr,andtheincrementalcostwasestimatedtobeapproximately (#4 $21,000/MgofHAPcontrolled.Inaddition,electricityconsumptiontooperaterefrigeration *V%6 unitswouldincreasefromzeroatthe_MACT_Ԁfloortonearly2.0million_kwh_/yr.Fuel h+&8 consumption(coal)togeneratetheelectricitywouldincreasebymorethan19.0billionBtu/yr;  collectively,CO,NO<NbxbN,andSO<Nb2bNԀemissionswouldincreasebyabout16.5Mg/yr;andtherewould b benowastewater,solidwaste,orothernonairqualityhealthorenvironmentalimpacts. t   Wealsoevaluatedaregulatoryalternativeforportableandstationaryprocessvessels & smallerthan250galatexistingsourcesthatwouldrequirethesame75percentoverallcontrolas 8  theregulatoryalternativeforstationaryprocessvesselslargerthan250galatexistingsources.    Wedonotknowthenumberofsuchvesselsortheirsizedistribution.Therefore,weconducted  L  theanalysisforamodel250galvesselwithatightlyfittingventedcoveratbaselinethatisused ^  intheproductionofacoatingthatismanufacturedusingtoluene.Asfortheotheranalyses,we   assumedthevesseliscontrolledusingacondensertomeettheregulatoryalternative,andthe "r  condensercanbeservedbythesamerefrigerationunitasforthestationaryprocessvessels.We   concludedthatthetotalimpactsofthisalternativeareunreasonableinlightoftheemission 6 reductionachieved.TheincrementalHAPreductionachievedbythisbeyondthefloor H alternativeis0.07Mg/yr,andtheincrementalcostisover$25,000/MgofHAPcontrolled.Ifthe  vesselatbaselinedoesnothaveatightlyfittingventedcover,thebaselineemissionswouldbe  \ greaterbyanunknownamount,butthetotalcostswouldstillbeunreasonable.Wealsoassumed n thattherewouldbenoadditionalelectricityorenergyimpactsbecausetheyarebasedonsized    refrigerationsystems,andadditionofoneormorevesselssmallerthan250galwouldnotrequire 2" additionalrefrigerationcapacity.Also,therewouldbenowastewater,solidwaste,orothernon $ airqualityhealthorenvironmentalimpacts. F& 5.30  ALTERNATIVEFORMATSX ((#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)requestedflexibilityinthecontrolrequirements ! * forprocessvessels.The_commenter_Ԁnotedthattheproposedstandardwastailoredtotheuseof #l, condensersoneveryprocessvessel,butitisnotsuitedfortheuseofothercontroltechnologies ~$. orvaryingcontrollevelsamongprocessvessels.Thus,the_commenter_Ԁrequestedaprovisionthat %0!0 allowstheuseofemergingcontroltechnologies(e.g.,_biofiltration_),especiallysincetheymay B'"2 havelessnegativeaspectsthanexistingtechnologies.The_commenter_Ԁalsourgedustoprovide (#4 flexibleaveragingprovisionsthatwouldallowdifferentlevelsofcontrolondifferentvessels *V%6 whileachievingoverallcontrolequivalenttothatachievedbyrequiringthesamecontrol h+&8 efficiencyforeachvessel.Furthermore,the_commenter_Ԁstatedtheproposedemissionsaveraging  provisionsarenotusefulbecause(1)mostvesselsarenotlargerthan10,000gallons;(2)toofew b emissionpointsareallowedintheaverage(andtherestrictionismuchmoreseverethanfor t batchprocessventsundersubpart_FFFF_,wherealloftheventswithinaprocessareconsideredto & beasinglepointforaveraging);(3)itistoocomplexandburdensome(e.g.,recording 8  temperatureandHAPcontentofeachbatch);(4)submittingaplaninthe_precompliance_Ԁreport    18monthsbeforethecompliancedateisinfeasiblebecausefacilitieswouldnothavedetermined  L  howtocomplybythatdate,andtherequirementtoobtainapprovalpriortomakingchangesis ^  cumbersomeandrestrictsoperations;(5)itdoesnotaccountforchangesinthemixofprocesses   beingrun;and(6)itshouldbeavailableforuseatanytime,notjustwhendemonstratinginitial "r  compliance.     Response:Thefinalruleincludesanemissionsaveragingoptionforstationaryprocess 6 vesselsatexistingsourcesthatmayaddressthe_commenter_sconcerns.Todemonstrateinitial H compliancewiththeemissionsaveragingoption,anowneroroperatormustestimatethreesetsof  emissionsforeachvesselintheaveraginggroup.First,theowneroroperatormustdeterminethe  \ uncontrolledemissions.Proceduresforestimatinguncontrolledemissionsarespecifiedin n 63.1257(d)(2),exceptthatforpurgingeventsthefinalsubpart_HHHHH_Ԁspecifiesaprocedure    forestimatingthespecificpartialpressureofeachHAPratherthanallowinganassumptionof 2" saturationor25percentofsaturation.Second,theowneroroperatormustestimateemissions $ fromeachvesselintheaveraginggroupasifitwerecontrolledinaccordancewiththepercent F& reductionstandard(i.e.,60percentor75percentreductionsdependingonthevaporpressureof X ( theHAPintheemissionstream).Third,theowneroroperatormustdeterminetheactual ! * emissions,whichmayrangefromuncontrolledforsomevesselstocontrollevelssignificantly #l, higherthanthosedeterminedinthepreviousstep.Theowneroroperatormustincludethesedata ~$. andcalculationsinthe_precompliance_Ԁreportalongwithrationaleforwhythesumoftheactual %0!0 emissionsonaquarterlybasiswillbelessthanthesumoftheemissionsif60percentor75 B'"2 percent,asapplicable,wereachievedforeachindividualvessel.Todemonstrateongoing (#4 compliance,theowneroroperatormusttrackthenumberofbatchesproduced,calculatethe *V%6 quarterlyactualemissionsandemissionsundertheregularpercentreductionstandardforeach h+&8 vessel,andsumthetwosetsofquarterlyemissions.Complianceisdemonstratedifthesumof  theactualemissionsislowerthanthesumofemissionsundertheregularpercentreduction b standard. t 5.40  MISCELLANEOUSISSUES&(#(#   Comment1:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)statedtheprovisionexemptingstoragetanks 8  fromcontrolduringperiodsofplannedroutinemaintenanceforcontroldevicesshouldalsobe    appliedtocontroldevicesforprocessvessels.  L    Response:Wedonotagreewiththe_commenter_.Provisionsforplannedroutine ^  maintenanceareavailableforstoragetanksbecausetheyconstantlystorematerials;the   provisionsconsidertheissuethatemissionsfromtheemptyinganddegassingofstoragetanksfor "r  eachplannedroutinemaintenanceeventwouldlikelyexceedemissionsfromoperatingthetanks   withoutacontroldevice.Wenotethatthisisnotthesituationforprocessvessels,however,in 6 thatvesselsareroutinelyemptied.Thereforewehavenotprovidedthesuggestedexemption. H   Comment2:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)foundnoneedfortheterm familyofcoatings  inthedefinitionof processbecausetheprocessvesselstandarddoesnothaveamassemission  \ thresholdforcontrol(i.e.,likethebatchprocessventstandardinsubpart_FFFF_). n   Response:Uponreview,weagreewiththe_commenter_Ԁandhaveremovedtheterm.      Comment3:Two_commenters_Ԁ(IVD99andIVD100)recommendedspecifyingthat 2" the50_ppmv_Ԁcutoffinthedefinitionof processvesselventisanannualaverageofallbatch $ cycles.Alternatively,_commenter_ԀIVD99suggestedexemptingemissionstreamsthatcontain F& lessthan500lb/yrofHAP. X (   Response:Thefinalrule,liketheproposedrule,doesnotrequirethecalculationof ! * emissionsforcompliance;thereforeacutoffbasedonannualHAPemissionsisnotappropriate. #l,   Comment4:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD102)wasunsurehowpackaginglines(i.e.,for ~$. containerswithcapacitiesof1gallonorless)wouldberegulated.Itappearsthe_commenter_Ԁmay %0!0 bethinkingthatsuchemissionpointsaresubjecttothebatchprocessventrequirementsin B'"2 subpart_FFFF_,butthe_commenters_Ԁstatethatthoserequirementscouldnotbemetunlessthe (#4  operationswereconductedwithinahermeticallysealedenvironment. *V%6   Response:Inthefinalrule,liketheproposedrule,requirementsfortransferoperations   applytobulkloadingintotanktrucksandrailcarsbutnotloadingoperationsintodrums,pails,or b othercontainers.  t  0/@Y Y 6.0STANDARDSFOREQUIPMENTLEAKS   6.10  _MACT_ԀFLOOR (#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD87)objectedtoourdeterminationthatthe_MACT_ B  floorisaleakdetectionandrepair(_LDAR_)program.Accordingtothe_commenter_,theactual T  performanceofthebestsourceswasnotdetermined,andtheselectedprogramwassimply   borrowedfromanother_rulemaking_.Ifwemakeadeterminationofthefloorbasedontheactual h  performanceofrelevantsources,the_commenter_Ԁnotedthatwemustprovidethepublican z opportunitytocommentonit,ortherulewouldbeunlawful,andarbitraryandcapricious. ,   Response:Theproposedfloorwasbasedonactualperformance,butthisconcepttakesa > differentformforequipmentleakcontrolsthanforcontrolsonothertypesofemissionpoints  becauseequipmentleaksareessentiallymalfunctions,whicharenotpredictable.However,a R programofinspectionsandrepairwillensurethatanyleaksthatdooccurareidentifiedand d fixed.Weratetheperformanceofdifferent_LDAR_Ԁprogramsbasedonthetypeofleakdetection  method,leakdefinition,andleakfrequency.Specifically,performanceishigherforlowerleak (x definitions,increasedinspectionfrequency,andinstrumentbasedprograms(i.e.,usingportable  organicvaporanalyzersandEPAMethod21)ratherthansensoryprograms.  <    BasedontheICRresponsesfromcoatingmanufacturers,morethan12percentofthe N"" facilitiesareimplementingsometypeof_LDAR_Ԁprogram.Onefacilityreportedusinganorganic #$ vaporanalyzer(OVA),a10,000_ppmv_Ԁleakdefinition,andvariousmonitoringfrequenciesforthe %b & differenttypesofcomponents;thisprogramappearstobesimilartotherequirementsof40_CFR_ t&!( part63,subpartTTand40_CFR_Ԁpart60,subpartVV.Theothersreportedusingasensory '&#* program,withmostofthemconductinginspectionsmonthly.Nofacilitiesarecapturingallof 8)$, theirequipmentleakemissionsandventingthemthroughaclosedventsystemtoacontrol *%. device.Thus,the_MACT_Ԁfloorforexistingsourceswasdeterminedtobeasensorybased_LDAR_ +L'0 programwithmonthlyinspectionsofallcomponents.Thenewsource_MACT_Ԁfloorwas  determinedtobean_LDAR_Ԁprogrambasedon40_CFR_Ԁpart63,subpartTT,consistentwiththe b programimplementedbythebestperformingsource. t 6.20  STANDARD&(#(#   Comment1:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD87)objectedtothestandardbeingbasedonan 8  _LDAR_Ԁprogrambecauseitisaworkpracticestandardratherthananemissionlimit.According    tothe_commenter_,theCAArequiresustosetanemissionlimitratherthanaworkpractice  L  standardunlessitisnotfeasibletoprescribeorenforceanemissionlimit,andthe_commenter_ ^  foundnoevidenceoranalysisintherecordsuggestingthatitinfeasibletodoso.     Response:Wedeterminedthatan_LDAR_Ԁprogramisthemostreasonableoptionfor "r  controlofleakingcomponents.Unlikeotheremissionsources,leakingcomponentsarenot   deliberateemissionsourcesbutratherresultfrommechanicallimitationsassociatedwithprocess 6 pipingandmachinery.Awellmanagedfacilityfollowsapreventivemaintenanceprogramto H minimizeleaksbutinallpracticalitycannotguaranteethatnoleakswilloccur.Therefore,an  emissionstandardforequipmentleakswouldbedifficulttoenforceorprescribe.Inorderto  \ developsuchanoption,allprocessesandequipmentcontainingprocesspipingthatcould n potentiallyleakwouldrequirecompletecaptureandcontrol.Whilethepracticeofenclosing    componentsandventingtocontrolisallowedasanalternativeto_LDAR_,itisnotpracticed 2" exceptinlimitedcases. $   Comment2:Many_commenters_Ԁ(IVD6,8through11,13through16,18,20through25, F& 27through30,34,35,37,40,42,48,54,56,60,61,62,64,65,66,68,76,83,96through103, X ( 113,122,124through127,IVF1a,andIVF1h)statedthestandardshouldbebasedonthe ! * _MACT_Ԁfloor(i.e.,asensorybased_LDAR_Ԁprogram).Accordingtothe_commenters_,weassumed #l, leakfrequenciesandleakratesthataretoohighandcoststhataretoolow.Theystatedthat ~$. changingtheseassumptionswillshowtheregulatoryalternative(i.e.,an_LDAR_Ԁprogram %0!0 requiringmonitoringusingMethod21)isnotcosteffective.Accordingtothe_commenters_,the B'"2 _SOCMI_Ԁaveragefactorsarenotrepresentativeofthecoatingsmanufacturingindustrybecause (#4 coatingsprocessesgenerallyuselessvolatileHAP,operateatlowertemperaturesandpressures, *V%6 andalloperationisintheliquidphase.The_commenters_Ԁconsideredcoatingsprocessconditions h+&8 tobesimilartothoseforgasolinedistributionfacilities,whichtheynotedarerequiredtocomply  withasensorybased_LDAR_Ԁprogram.Tosupporttheirpositionthatleakfrequenciesand b emissionratesforcoatingsmanufacturingprocessesarelow,one_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)provided t monitoringdatafor13facilitiesintheindustry,includingbaggingsampledataforafewofthe & pumps,valves,andconnectorsatonefacility._Commenter_ԀIVF1halsodiscussedtheresultsof 8  themonitoringstudyandconcludedthattheemissionfactorsthatweusedarenotrepresentative    ofthesurfacecoatingmanufacturingindustry.  L    Response:Wereviewedtheleakdatasubmittedby_commenter_ԀIVD99for13facilities, ^  including3facilitiesfromwhichdatawasrecentlycollectedbyafugitiveemissionscontractor.   The3facilitystudywaswelldocumentedandconductedbythesamecontractorandusingthe "r  samemonitoringinstrumentthatwascalibratedonmethane.Datafromtheremaining10   facilitieswerenotaswelldocumentedandinsomecases,themonitoringdataappeartohave 6 beenbasedonvariousinstruments,andtheinstrumentswerecalibratedoncompoundsotherthan H methane.Whilethesedatamayhavebeenadequatefortheindividualfacilitypurposes,wedid  notconsidertheminouranalysisbecausewefeltthesedatawerenotconsistentlyobtained.The  \ _commenter_Ԁalsoconductedabaggingstudyatoneofthethreeplantsforwhichscreeningdata n wascollected.Usingtheresultsofthebaggingstudy,the_commenter_Ԁcalculatedemissionfactors    thatare0.00054kilogramsperhour(kg/hr)sourceforvalves,0.0025kg/hrsourceforpumps, 2" and0.0000422kg/hrsourceforconnectors.Indevelopingtheemissionfactors,the_commenter_ $ essentiallytookanarithmeticaverageoftheVOCemissionratesforallcomponentsinthe F& baggingstudy. X (   Afterreviewingtheinformation,wedecidedtorecalculatetheemissionfactorsaccording ! * tothemethoddocumentedinbothAmericanPetroleumInstitute(API)andEPApublications #l, ( DevelopmentofFugitiveEmissionFactorsforPetroleumMarketingTerminals,Publication ~$. Number4588,March1993,PreparedbyRadianCorporationforAPI;and Protocolfor %0!0 EquipmentLeakEmissionEstimates,EPAPublicationEPA453/R95017,November1995). B'"2 Usingthebaggingstudyandthecorrespondingscreeningdata,wedevelopedemissionrate (#4 equationsforpumps,valves,andconnectorsthatrelatetheVOCemissionrate(inkg/hr)tothe *V%6 averagescreeningvalue(in_ppmv_)foreachcomponent.Asasecondstep,weusedthedatafrom h+&8 the3facilityscreeningstudytocalculateaverageemissionfactors.Ouranalysisresultedin  averageemissionfactorsof0.000412kg/hrsourceforvalves,0.0042kg/hrsourceforpumps, b and0.000015kg/hrsourceforconnectors.Whenweappliedtheseemissionfactorstoourmodel t plantthatwasthebasisforthecostanalysis,wefoundthattheuncontrolledHAPemissionsare & 0.7_tpy_,versusthe4.03_tpy_Ԁthatwasusedintheoriginalanalysis.Forcomparison,ifwehad 8  usedthe_commenter_scalculatedemissionfactors,wewouldhaveestimated0.66_TPY_ԀHAP,a    slightlylowervaluebutwellwithinthesameorderofmagnitudeasthefactorwedeveloped.In  L  eithercase,wenotethattherevisedestimateisonlyabout20percentoftheprevious ^  uncontrolledestimate.     Werevisedourimpactscalculationbyconservativelyassumingthattherelative "r  reductionsachievedbythe_MACT_Ԁfloorsensory_LDAR_Ԁprogramandtheregulatoryalternative   (subpart_UU_Ԁprogram)wouldbethesameasassumedinprioranalyses.Forthemodelfacilities, 6 ourpreviousanalysisassumeda29percentreductionfromuncontrolledbaselineforthe_MACT_ H flooranda62percentreductionforthesubpart_UU_Ԁregulatoryalternative.Wemultipliedthe  previouslyestimatednationwidereductionsofimplementingthe_MACT_Ԁfloorandtheregulatory  \ alternativebytheratioofreviseduncontrolledemissionsovertheearlierestimateofuncontrolled n emissionsforthemodelfacility,or0.7/4.03,toobtainrevisedemissionreductions.Weassumed    thatthecapitalandtotalannualcostestimatesareunchangedfromthepreviousanalysis.The 2" incrementalcosteffectivenessofgoingbeyondthe_MACT_Ԁfloorusingthisanalysiswasestimated $ tobe$15,800,andthereareessentiallynoenergyimpactsornonairqualityhealthand F& environmentalimpactsassociatedwiththeregulatoryalternative.Therefore,wecannotjustify X ( goingbeyondthefloorinthefinalrule. ! * 6.30  ALTERNATIVESTANDARDS#l,(#(#   Comment1:Ifthestandardinthefinalruleisrevisedtorequirecompliancewitha ~$. sensorybased_LDAR_Ԁprogram,one_commenter_Ԁ(IVD44)recommendedthatwealsoallowthe %0!0 proposedstandardasanalternativebecauseitisconsistentwithequipmentleakstandards B'"2 requiredinotherrulesthatapplytothesamefacilities.Another_commenter_Ԁ(IVD106) (#4 requestedthatthefinalruleincludeapressuretestingoptionasanalternativetoconductingthe *V%6 sensorybased_LDAR_Ԁprogram.The_commenter_Ԁrecommendedusingthepressuretesting h+&8 alternativein63.1036ofsubpart_UU_Ԁwiththefollowingchanges:(1)requiretestingonlyif  thereisnewordisturbedequipmentintheequipmenttrain,(2)limitpressuretestingfrequencyto b nomorethanoncepermonthregardlessofthenumberofdisturbancesinthattime,and(3) t requirepressuremeasurementdevicestohaveaprecisionof2psiratherthan2.5mmHg. &   Response:ThefinalruleallowscompliancewithsubpartTTor , subpart_UU_Ԁas 8  alternativestothesensorybased_LDAR_Ԁprogrambecausethesealternativesareequivalenttoor    morestringentthanthesensorybased_LDAR_Ԁprogram.Byallowingcompliancewithsubpart  L  _UU_,thepressuretestingoptionisavailableasanalternativetothesensorybasedstandard.We ^  havenotrevisedthepressuretestingrequirementsofsubpart_UU_Ԁforthepurposesofcompliance   withsubpart_HHHHH_.If,atalaterdate,wedeterminethatchangesarewarranted,wewill "r  changesubpart_UU_,whichwillmaketherequirementsavailableunderallrulesthatreference   subpart_UU_. 6   Comment2:Thepreambletotheproposedrulesolicitedcommentsonanalternativeto H the_LDAR_Ԁprograminsubpart_UU_Ԁthatwewereconsidering(67FR16175,April4,2002).This  alternativewouldrequirecompliancewithasensorybased_LDAR_Ԁprogram,anditwouldrequire  \ coversonallprocessvesselswithcapacitieslessthan250gallonsifthecalculatedemission n reductionequalsorexceedstheanticipatedreductionthatwouldbeachievedbythe_LDAR_    programinsubpart_UU_.One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)statedthatthisalternativeisnotviable 2" becauseemissionsfromthesmalltanksintheindustryarelessthanthepotentialreductionsfrom $ the_LDAR_Ԁprogram. F&   Response:Wewereconsideringthealternativeasawaytominimizethecompliance X ( burdenforsomefacilities.Asdiscussedinsection6.2,thestandardinthefinalrulerequires ! * compliancewithasensorybased_LDAR_Ԁprogramratherthantheprograminsubpart_UU_. #l, Therefore,wenolongerbelievetheproposedalternativeisnecessary._Commenters_Ԁalsodidnot ~$. providedatathatwouldallowustoevaluatetheeffectivenessofsuchanalternative.  %0!0 ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank. `      10 @4 4 7.0STANDARDSFORWASTEWATER   7.10  DEFINITIONOFWASTEWATER (#(#   Comment:Several_commenters_Ԁ(IVD44,IVD48,IVD56,IVD66,IVD98,IVD B  99,IVD113,IVF1a,andIVF1c)objectedtotheinclusionofrawmaterials,intermediates, T  products,byproducts,coproducts,andnonaqueouswasteintheproposeddefinitionof    wastewater. h    Response:Ourintentwiththeproposeddefinitionwasthatwastewaterisanystreamthat z containswaterandmorethan2,000_ppmw_ԀofHAPlistedonTable9ofsubpartG,andis , discardedfromthecoatingmanufacturingoperations.Wedidnotmeanrawmaterials,product, > andothernonwastestreamsarewastewater.Toclarifythedefinitionforthefinalrule,we  deletedthelanguagereferringtorawmaterials,products,andothernonwastematerials. R 7.20  _MACT_ԀFLOORANDSTANDARDd(#(#   Comment:Four_commenters_Ԁdisagreedwithourdeterminationthatthe_MACT_Ԁfloorfor  wastewaterisHONequivalentmanagementandtreatmentproceduresforwastewaterthat (x containsmorethan4,000_ppmw_ԀofHAPlistedinTable9ofsubpartG._Commenter_ԀIVD87  statedthatthefloorshouldberecalculatedtobebasedontheactualperformanceofthebest  <  sources,notsimplysetatthemedianconcentrationofcontrolledstreams.Accordingto N"" _commenter_ԀIVD113,thefloorshouldbenocontrolbecausenoaddoncontrolisusedbymore #$ than6percentofallwastewaterstreams._Commenter_ԀIVD99indicatedthatwehaveobtained %b & accurateinformationon30wastewaterstreams,andallofthedatamustbeusedinsettingthe t&!( floor,includingdataforstreamsthatcontainlessthan1,000_ppmw_ԀofHAPandstreamsthat '&#* containonlyinorganicHAP.Further,the_commenter_Ԁstatedthatflowisneededaswellas 8)$, concentrationtodeterminethebestperformers.Flowisneededtoconvertconcentrationsto *%. massloadings,andit,ortotalvolume,hasbeenusedtodetermineapplicabilityinpastrulesand +L'0 isthedeterminingfactorindisposalcosts.Accordingtothe_commenter_,ourassumptionsthat  coatingmanufacturingfacilitiesareonlysmallquantitygenerators,andonlytheconcentration b drivesthecostofdisposal,areincorrect.The_commenter_Ԁnotedthatourdatabaseincludes t wastewaterstreamsthathavehigherflowsthanthefivetopperformingstreamsthatweusedto & setthe_MACT_Ԁfloor,butthesestreamsarenotsentoffsitefortreatmentbecausethecosttodoso 8  wouldbeprohibitive.Inaddition,ifourassumptionthatconcentrationdrivesthecostofdisposal    weretrue,the_commenter_Ԁstatedthatotherstreamsinthedatabasewithconcentrationssimilarto  L  thoseofthetop5streamswouldalsobetreatedoffsite,buttheyareactuallytreatedonsite,sent ^  toa_POTW_,orsentoffsiteforsolidification.Takingallofthesefactorsintoaccount,_commenter_   IVD99concludedthefloorshouldbenocontrol._Commenters_ԀIVD122andIVF1aagreed; "r  _commenter_ԀIVD122alsostatedthestandardshouldbenocontrol.     _Commenter_ԀIVD99alsoprovidedadditionalcommentsintheeventthatwemaintain 6 thatafloorexistsanddevelopastandard,despitetheirobjectionsnotedabove.First,the H _commenter_Ԁstatedthatthresholdsforcontrolmustbebasedonthemeanratherthanthemedian  becauseourhierarchyistousethemeanfirstwhenitresultsinastandardthatmatchesrealworld  \ technology,whichthe_commenter_Ԁclaimedistrueinthiscase.Second,ifthestandardstill n requiresmanagementandtreatmentprocedureslikethoseintheHON,the_commenter_Ԁrequested    anexemptionfromthesteamstrippingrequirementforstreamscontainingsolubleHAPbecause 2" steamstrippingisinefficientandexpensiveforsuchstreams;the_commenter_Ԁalsostatedthat $ enclosedsewersareunnecessaryforsuchstreams.Third,both_commenter_ԀIVD85andIVD99 F& requestedthatoffsite_RCRA_Ԁwastetreatmentfacilitiesnotberequiredtocertifythattheywill X ( meettherequirementsforwastewaterinsubpart_HHHHH_Ԁbecausesuchfacilitiesarealready ! * stringentlycontrolled._Commenter_ԀIVD99wasconcernedthat_RCRA_Ԁfacilitiesmaydeclineto #l, acceptwastewateriftheyareunnecessarilyburdenedwithcompliancerequirementsunder ~$. subpart_HHHHH_._Commenter_ԀIVD99notedthatasimilarchangewasmaderecentlytothe %0!0 _POTW_Ԁ_MACT_Ԁinresponsetolitigation. B'"2   Response:Themiscellaneouscoatingmanufacturingdatabasecontains10streamsfrom (#4 9facilities.The30streamscitedbyone_commenter_Ԁwasapreliminarydraftvaluethatwas *V%6 subsequentlychangedbecauseitwasincorrect. h+&8   Afterconsiderationofthecomments,wedecidedtomaketwochangestothe_MACT_  flooranalysis.First,tosimplifytheanalysiswehavefocusedononlytheactualmanagementand b treatmenttechniquesusedforthetopperformingfivestreamsratherthancallingthemHON t equivalent.Allfiveofthesestreamsarecollectedandshippedoffsitefordestructionby & combustionata_RCRA_Ԁhazardouswastetreatmentfacility.Second,wehavedecidedthat 8  specifyingonlyaconcentrationcutofffordeterminingwhichstreamsaresubjecttocontrolis    insufficient.Specifyingonlytheconcentrationmeansevenverysmallstreamswouldbesubject  L  tocontrolaslongastheconcentrationofHAPlistedonTable9oftheHON(i.e., Table9 ^  HAP)isgreaterthanorequalto4,000_ppmw_,butthisisinconsistentwiththestatutory   requirementtobasethefloorontheaverageofthetopfivestreams.Weconsideredspecifying "r  eitherloadorflowrateinadditiontotheconcentration,andwedecidedthatloadisthebest   choice.Forthetopfivestreams,theloadtracksbetterwiththeconcentration(i.e.,rankingthe 6 controlledstreamsbyincreasingloadisthesameasrankingbyincreasingconcentration). H   Ofthetopfivestreams,themedianstreamhasaHAPconcentrationof4,000_ppmw_Ԁanda  HAPloadof750lb/yr.Wecontinuetousethemedianratherthanthemeanbecausethemedian  \ betterrepresentsthecentraltendencyofthedata.Thetopfivestreams(aswellastheotherfive n streamsinthedatabase)areskewedtowardslowconcentrations;threeofthefivehaverelatively    similarlowconcentrations,buttheothertwostreamshaveconcentrationstenormoretimes 2" higher.Ameanwouldbeclosertothemidpointoftherange,butitwouldnotrepresentthebulk $ ofthedata.Therefore,therevisedexistingsource_MACT_Ԁfloorconsistsoftreatmentasa F& hazardouswasteforallstreamswithpartiallysolubleandsolubleHAPataconcentrationgreater X ( thanorequalto4,000_ppmw_Ԁandaloadgreaterthanorequalto750lb/yr.Weestimatethata ! * standardbasedonthe_MACT_ԀfloorwillreduceHAPemissionsby12.9Mg/yr(14.2_tpy_)atacost #l, of$306,000peryear. ~$.   Therevisednewsource_MACT_Ԁfloorisbasedontherequirementsforthebestperforming %0!0 stream,whichisastreamthatcontains1,600_ppmw_Ԁand12lb/yrofHAP.Sincethisloadis B'"2 negligible,thenewsource_MACT_Ԁfloorconsistsoftreatmentasahazardouswastefor (#4 wastewaterstreamsthatcontainpartiallysolubleandsolubleHAPataconcentrationgreaterthan *V%6 orequalto1,600_ppmw_Ԁatanyload. h+&8   Insettingthe_MACT_Ԁfloor,weconsideredwhethersomefacilitiesmayimplement  emissionreductionmeasuresotherthancontroltechnologiestoreduceHAPemissionsfrom b wastewater.WerequestedinformationonemissionreductionmeasuresinourCAAsection114 t informationcollectionrequest.Severalfacilitiesreportedthattheyhaveimplementedchangesin & thetypeorquantityofcleaningsolutionused,orinthemethodofcleaning.However,wedonot 8  knowhoweffectivethesechangeswereinreducingHAPemissions,andwehavenoinformation    toconcludethatsimilarmeasurescouldbeimplementedbythefacilitiesthatreportedHAPin  L  theirwastewater.Further,someHAPinthewastewaterisHAPthatisusedincoatingsproducts, ^  andthisHAPcannotbereducedwithoutimpactingthecoatingproductsproduced.Therefore,   wewereunabletoseta_MACT_Ԁfloorbasedonemissionreductionmeasuresotherthantreatment. "r    Weexaminedoneregulatoryalternativebeyondthefloorforexistingsourcesthatwould   requiretreatmentasahazardouswasteforwastewatercontainingpartiallysolubleandsoluble 6 HAPataconcentrationgreaterthanorequalto1,000_ppmw_Ԁandaloadgreaterthanorequalto H 100lb/yr.Weconcludedthatthetotalimpactsofthisalternativeareunreasonablebecausethe  incrementalcostwouldbeabout$280,000/Mg;itwouldincreaseelectricityconsumptionby640  \ _kwh_/yr;increasefuelconsumptionby182millionBtu/yr;andincreaseCO,NO<nxn,andSO<n2n n emissionsby0.02Mg/yr.Therewouldbenowastewaterorsolidwasteimpacts.Therefore,the    standardforwastewaterinthefinalruleisbasedontherevised_MACT_Ԁfloor. 2"   Inaddition,analysesfortheHONandotherprojectsconcludedthatenhanced $ _biotreatment_ԀforsolubleHAPcompoundscouldachievereductionsashighas99percent. F& BecausewastewatercontainingsolubleHAPisgeneratedatmiscellaneouscoating X ( manufacturingfacilities,thefinalrulealsoallowsonsiteoroffsitetreatmentinanenhanced ! * biologicaltreatmentunit asaneffectivelyequivalentalternativeforsolubleHAP.This #l, alternativealsomayprovetobelesscostlythantreatmentasahazardouswasteforhighvolume ~$. wastewaterstreams.Finally,weagreewiththecommentthatResourceConservationand %0!0 RecoveryAct(_RCRA_)facilitiesdonotneedtocertifythattheyaremeetingtherequirementsof B'"2 subpart_HHHHH_;therefore,thefinalrulerequiresaffectedsourcesthatshiptheirwastewaterto (#4 anoffsitefacilityfortreatmentasahazardouswastetonotethisfactalongwiththenameofthe *V%6 facilitytowhichthewastewaterisshippedintheirnotificationofcompliancestatusreport. h+&8 Ї7.30  RECOVERYDEVICE(#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD44)recommendedchangingthedefinitionof b  recoverydeviceforwastewaterstreamstobeconsistentwiththedefinitionintheHONand t otherrulesbecauserecoverydevicesareoftensharedbyprocessessubjecttodifferentrules.In & particular,the_commenter_Ԁobjectedtothestatementspecifyingthatdecantersmustreceiveonly 8  twophaseliquidstreamsinordertobearecoverydevice.The_commenter_Ԁnotedthatthis    excludesthreephasestreamsandstreamsthatdonotseparateintotwophasesuntiltheyhave  L  hadtimetocoolinthedecanter. ^    Response:Althoughitisunlikelythatwastewaterfromcoatingmanufacturingoperations   willbeatelevatedtemperatureorthatitwillseparateintomorethantwophases,ourintentwas "r  thataslongaseachinletstreamseparatesintomorethanonephaseattheoutlet,thenthe   decanterisarecoverydevice.Therefore,wehavemodifiedthedefinitionofrecoverydevicein 6 thefinalruletorequire multiphaseinletstreams.Wealsorevisedthedefinitiontoclarifythat H aslongaseachstreamseparatesintoatleasttwophasesbytheoutletofthedecanter,thenitisa  recoverydevice.Note,however,thatthisdoesnotmeanthatadecantercanbeconsidereda  \ recoverydevicesimplyiftherearetwophasesattheoutlet;eachinletstreammustseparateinto n atleasttwophasesbytheoutlet.      ThesolubilitylimitofmanypartiallysolubleHAPislessthan4,000_ppmw_.Thus,atthe 2" outletofadecanter,thesestreamswillnotrequirecontrol.Ifonephasestreamswereallowedto $ mixwithamultiphasestreaminadecanter,thenthedecanterwouldnotachieveasmuch F& recoveryasiftheonephasestreamswerenotincluded,andmoreHAPwouldbedischarged X ( fromthedecanter.Ineffect,theonephasestreamswouldbedilutingthemultiphasestream, ! * resultinginincreasedemissions.Therefore,theproposedandfinalrulesdonotallowadecanter #l, thatreceivessinglephasestreamstobeconsideredarecoverydevice. ~$.   %0!0 ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank. `      31 @m m 8.0STANDARDSFORTRANSFEROPERATIONS   8.10  _MACT_ԀFLOOR (#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD87)statedwemustseta_MACT_Ԁfloorfortransfer B  operations.Accordingtothe_commenter_,notsettinga_MACT_ԀfloorbecausenoStateregulations T  applytotransferoperationsisunlawful.     Response:Insettingthe_MACT_Ԁfloorforexistingsources,weconsideredtheavailable h  information.WedidnotspecificallyrequestinformationfortransferoperationsinourCAA z section114informationrequest.Basedonfollowupconversationswithrepresentativesfrom , fivefacilitieswithhighsolventthroughputratesthatpotentiallyarethemostlikelytocontrol > emissionsfromtransferoperations,wedeterminedthatthesefacilitiesarenotcontrollingtheir  emissionsfromtransferoperations.WealsoexaminedStateregulationsanddeterminedthat R theyapplyonlytothroughputratesabovethoseatcoatingmanufacturingfacilities,andthey d applyonlytoloadingoftanktrucksandrailcars,whichislesscommonthanfillingofsmaller  containersatcoatingmanufacturingfacilities. Therearenootherknownmeansbywhichsources (x maybereducingemissionsfromtransferoperations.Therefore,weconcludedthatthe_MACT_  floorfortransferoperationsatexistingsourcesisnoemissionsreductions.Becausewelack  <  informationindicatingthatanysourceisimplementingorrequiredtoimplementanymeasuresto N"" reduceHAPemissionsfromtransferoperations,weconcludedthatthenewsource_MACT_Ԁfloor #$ alsoisnoemissionsreductions. %b & 8.20  STANDARDt&!((#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)opposedthebeyondthefloorstandardand '&#* claimedthatwehavenotdemonstratedthatemissionsfromtransferoperationswarrant 8)$, regulationbecausethefacilityonwhichimpactswereestimatedisnotrepresentativeofthe *%. industry.The_commenter_Ԁcontactedthatfacilityandlearnedtheyprimarilyrepackageand +L'0 distributepaintstripper,thinners,andsprayguncleaningsolvent.Accordingtothe_commenter_,  wegenerallyoverestimatedemissionsfromtransferoperationsbecauseweassumedthatthe b industrytransferspuresolventsormixtureswithhighvaporpressureswheninfacttheindustry t transfersprimarilymaterialswithlowvaporpressures,includingwaterborneproducts. & Furthermore,the_commenter_Ԁstatedthattheregulatoryalternativecannotbejustifiedbasedon 8  costbecausetheimpactsarebasedonincorrectassumptions.Forexample,the_commenter_    suggestedthefollowingchanges:(1)usetheAP42saturationfactorof0.6for submerged  L  loading:dedicatedvaporbalanceserviceinsteadoftheassumptionthatdisplacedvaporsare ^  saturated;(2)useatanktruckfillingrateof25gal/mininsteadof150gal/min;(3)use   characteristicsoftoluene(orbetteryet,xylene)insteadofanarbitraryHAPwithamolecular "r  weightof80andavaporpressureof3.93_psia_;(4)useagasflowrateof100_scfm_Ԁinsteadofless   than4_scfm_;(5)includecapitalcostsforarefrigerationunitandauxiliaryequipmentsuchasa 6 _precooler_,_ductwork_,afan,andpumpforcollectedsolvent;and(6)conducttheanalysisovera H rangeofcoatingthroughputratestobrackettheactualoperationsintheindustry.Takingthese  changesintoaccount,the_commenter_Ԁestimatedacostofmorethan$30,000/Mgforbulkloading  \ tanktrucksatratesbetween1.8milliongal/yrand7.3milliongal/yr.The_commenter_Ԁalso n estimatedacostofmorethan$100,000/Mgforloadingdrumsat0.5milliongal/yrto3.0million    gal/yr.Another_commenter_Ԁ(IVD122)statedthatthestandardshouldbenocontrol. 2"   Response:Itappearsthatthefirst_commenter_Ԁbelievesweusedtheresultsoftheimpacts $ analysisforonefacilityasthebasisforourdecisiontosetthestandardatalevelbeyondthe F& floor.Thisisnotcorrect.Weactuallyconductedtwoanalyses.Thefirstwasasensitivity X ( analysis,comparabletothatsuggestedbythe_commenter_,todeterminethecharacteristicsof ! * emissionstreamsforwhichthecosttoreduceemissionsby75percent(thesamelevelasthe #l, standardforprocessvessels)wasreasonable.Thesecondanalysisinvolvedestimatingthe ~$. impactsforfacilitiesthatmetthecharacteristicsfromthefirstanalysis. %0!0   Basedontheresultsofoursensitivityanalysis,weconcludedthatthetotalimpactsare B'"2 reasonableinlightoftheemissionsreductionsachievedifthecoatingproductsthatarebulk (#4 loadedcontainatleast3.0milliongal/yrofHAPwithapartialpressureofatleast1.5_psia_.The *V%6 incrementalHAPreductionachievedtomeettheregulatoryalternativeforamodelfacilitywith h+&8 thesecharacteristicswasestimatedtobe10.8Mg/yr,andtheincrementalcostwasestimatedto  be$3,200/MgofHAPremoved.Theseestimatesassumetheemissionsarecontrolledusinga b condenser,andthattherefrigerationunitusedintheprocessvesselsanalysiscanbereplacedby t onewithaslightlylargercapacitytoaccommodateallofthecondensers.Theincremental & electricityconsumptiontooperatetheenlargedrefrigerationunitis3,200_kwh_/yr,andthe 8  incrementalfuelenergyconsumptiontogeneratetheelectricityis31millionBtuperyear.Total    CO,NO<8  Lx L8 ,andSO<8  L2 L8 Ԁemissionsfromcombustionoftheadditionalfuelis0.03Mg/yr.The  L  condensedHAPwouldbeahazardouswaste.Therewouldbenowastewaterorothernonair ^  qualityhealthorenvironmentalimpacts.     Atthemaximumproductloadingvolumecitedbythe_commenter_,weestimatetheHAP "r  orsolventthroughputwouldbeabout2.0milliongal/yr(i.e.,basedonanaverage1.75lb   HAP/galcoating);thus,noneofthebulkloadingscenariosevaluatedbythe_commenter_Ԁwouldbe 6 subjecttocontrolunderthestandard.However,weprovidethefollowingdiscussionofthe H analysisintheeventthatafacilitymayexpandproductionbeyondtheratesusedinthe  _commenter_sanalysis,orthequantityofHAPintheirproductishigherthantheaveragevalue  \ thatweused.(Note,however,thatwehavenotevaluatedthecommentsregardingthecostof n drumloadingbecausetheseoperationsarenotsubjecttothestandard.)      Inouranalysis,weassumedtheemissionstreamissaturatedbecauseemissionsoccur 2" onlyasaresultofvapordisplacement,andtheventfromthetanktruckorrailcarcanbehard $ pipedtoacontroldevice.Becauseouranalysisassumesthatthecontrolisacondenserwith F& coolantsuppliedfromthesamerefrigerationunitthatweassumedwouldbeusedwith X ( condensersforprocessvesselemissions,wedidnotincludethecostofaseparaterefrigeration ! * unitinthisanalysis.Wealsoincludedasmallermaintenancelaborfactorthanwouldbeusedfor #l, aseparaterefrigeratedcondensersystem.Theseassumptionsmeanthecostsforoverhead,taxes, ~$. andcapitalrecoveryarelowerinouranalysisthanthe_commenter_s.Therevisionstothe %0!0 refrigerationunitcostsfortheprocessvesselanalysis(seesection5.2)havenoimpactonthe B'"2 resultsofthisanalysis. (#4   Althoughweagreethataddingcostsfora_precooler_,_ductwork_,andapumpwouldbe *V%6 reasonable,wenotethattheoverallcostoftheauxiliaryequipmentinouranalysisequalsmore h+&8 than50percentofthecostforallauxiliaryequipmentinthe_commenter_sanalysis,eventhough  wehaveamuchsmallercondenser.Furthermore,basedonthe_commenter_sdata,itappearsthat b weoverestimatedthecostofthecondenserandwastesolventstoragetank,whichoffsetsourlack t ofcostsforotherauxiliaryequipment. &   Weassumedafillrateof30gal/min,whichweconsidertobeconsistentwiththe 8  _commenter_ssuggestedrateof25gal/min(the150gal/minratewasonlyusedinourprocess    vesselandstoragetankanalyses).Thisratealsodefinesthegasflowintothecondenserinour  L  analysisbecausethesystemcanbehardpiped,andthereisnoneedtoincludesupplemental ^  dilutionairatarate25timestheflowofthedisplacedvolume.Asthe_commenter_Ԁnoted,we   assumedthecoatingproductconsistsonlyofHAPsolventandsolids.Thiswasdonetosimplify "r  theanalysis.Also,productsthatcontainlittleHAPorlessvolatileHAParenotlikelytomeet   thethresholdsthatweset.Finally,wenotethatouranalysislikelyoverestimatestheactualcosts 6 becauseweassumedawastedisposalunitcostfourtimeshigherthanthecostthe_commenter_ H considerstoberealistic.Therefore,wemaintainthatfortransferoperationsmeetingthe  specifiedflowrateandpartialpressurelevelsintheregulatoryalternative,theincrementalcostto  \ controlemissions(relativetothefloorofnoemissionsreduction)isreasonable. n   Inoursecondanalysis,wesearchedthedatabaseforanyfacilitieswithHAPthroughput    andpartialpressurethatmeetthecutoffsestablishedfortheregulatoryalternative.Weidentified 2" onlyonefacilitythatpotentiallymetthecriteria.Theestimatedimpactsforthisfacilityare $ comparabletothoseforthemodelfacility.Assumingthe_commenter_Ԁiscorrectthatmostofthe F& reportedthroughputatthisfacilityisnotassociatedwithcoatingmanufacturing,thentheimpacts X ( ofthestandardmaybelowerthanweestimated.Possiblytherewillbenoimpact(otherthan ! * documentationimpacts)becausenofacilitywillmeetthethresholdsforcontrol.  #l, 23 @ 9.0STANDARDSFORSTORAGETANKS   9.10  _MACT_ԀFLOORANDSTANDARD (#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD87)statedthe_MACT_Ԁfloorforstoragetankswas B  determinedincorrectlybecausewedidnotconsidertheactualperformanceofscrubbercontrols. T  Accordingtothe_commenter_,thestandardmustberevisedbecausetankcapacityandHAPpartial   pressurecutoffsareillegal. h    Response:NoneofthestoragetankscontainingorganicHAPatthesurveyedfacilities z wascontrolledwithascrubber.Therefore,the_MACT_Ԁfloorsforbothexistingandnewsources , arebasedontheactualreportedperformanceofsourcescontrolsandourconsiderationof > whethersourcesarereducingemissionsbyothermeansbesidescontrols.    Regardingtankcapacitycutoffs,weconsideredtwosubcategoriesofstoragetanksinour R flooranalysis:tankswithcapacitieslessthan10,000galandstoragetankswithcapacities d greaterthanorequalto10,000gal.Wedidnotspecificallyrequestinformationforstoragetanks  withcapacitieslessthan10,000gal,andwedidnotreceiveanyinformationaboutsuchsmaller (x tanks.However,sincethecostsrelativetotheamountofcontrolachievedtendtoincreaseasthe  sizeofthestoragetankdecreases,weconsiderithighlyunlikelythattheindustryisreducing  <  emissionsfromtankswithcapacitiessmallerthan10,000galwhentheyarenotreducing N"" emissionsfromtankswithlargercapacities.Thus,weconcludedthattheexistingsourceand #$ newsource_MACT_Ԁfloorsforstoragetankswithcapacitieslessthan10,000arenoemissions %b & reduction.Wedidnotsetbeyondthefloorstandardsforthesesmallertanksbecausethetotal t&!( impactstoreduceemissionsfromstoragetankswithcapacitiesbetween10,000galand20,000 '&#* galwerefoundtobeunreasonable,andimpactsforsmallertankswouldbeevenlessfavorable. 8)$,   Withrespecttostoragetankswithcapacitiesgreaterthanorequalto10,000gal,fewer *%. than6percentofthestoragetanksinourdatabaseusecontrolsorreduceemissionsbyanyother +L'0 means.Thus,weconcludedthattheexistingsource_MACT_Ԁfloorforallstoragetankswith  capacitiesgreaterthanorequalto10,000galisnoemissionsreduction. b   Insettingthe_MACT_Ԁfloorforexistingsources,weconsideredwhethersomefacilities t mayimplementemissionreductionmeasurestoreduceemissionsfromstoragetanks,insteadof & usingcontroltechnologies.Internalandexternalfloatingroofsareusedtominimizeemissions 8  inmanyotherindustries,andvaporbalancingwhenfillingthetankisanothercommontechnique    inotherindustries.However,wedidnotobtainanyinformationintheresponsestotheICRor  L  fromotherresourcesthatsuchmeasuresarebeingusedinthemiscellaneouscoating ^  manufacturingindustry.Anotherfactorthatcanaffecttheemissionslevelisthecolorofthe   tank,butwehavenoinformationtosuggestthatanyfacilitiesarenotalreadyusingthemost "r  favorablecolorscheme.Also,wehavenoinformationthatanyothermeasuresarebeingusedto   reduceemissions.Therefore,becausewelackinformationindicatingthatasufficientnumberof 6 storagetanksemploymeasuresotherthancontroltechnologiestoreduceHAPemissionstoseta H floor,wewereunabletoseta_MACT_Ԁfloorbasedonemissionreductionmeasures.    Weexaminedtworegulatoryalternativesforstoragetankswithcapacitiesgreaterthanor  \ equalto10,000galatexistingsources,bothofwhichwouldrequiretheuseofeitherafloating n rooforventingtoacontroldevicethatreducesemissionsby90percent.Thefirstalternative    wouldapplytostoragetankswithcapacitiesgreaterthanorequalto20,000galthatstore 2" materialwithaHAPpartialpressuregreaterthanorequalto1.9_psia_.Thesecondalternative $ usesasizecutoffof10,000galwiththesameHAPpartialpressurecutoff.Wesetthestandard F& atthelevelofthefirstregulatoryalternativebecause,consideringthelevelofemissionreduction X ( achieved,thetotalimpactsofthatalternativeweredeterminedtobereasonable,whereasthetotal ! * impactsofthesecondalternativeweredeterminedtobeunreasonable.Specifically,thefirst #l, regulatoryalternativereducesHAPemissionsby2.5Mg/yratanincrementalcostof$2,700to ~$. $4,900perMgofHAPcontrolled,dependingonthecharacteristicsofthetank.Inaddition, %0!0 becausethisoptioncanbeachievedbyusingfloatingroofs,therearenononairqualityhealthor B'"2 environmentalimpacts,includingwastewaterimpactsandsolidwasteimpacts,andnoenergy (#4 impacts.Thesecondalternativereducesemissionsby7.5Mg/yratanincrementalcostofatleast *V%6 $17,000perMgofHAPcontrolled,dependingonthecharacteristicsofthetank.Thesecond h+&8 regulatoryalternativealsohasnononairqualityhealthorenvironmentalimpacts,including  wastewaterimpactsandsolidwasteimpacts,andnoenergyimpactsfortanksthatcanbe b controlledwithfloatingroofs.However,horizontaltanks(allofwhichinourdatabaseare t smallerthan20,000gal)mustbecontrolledwithanaddoncontroldevicesuchasacondenser. & Theincrementalelectricityconsumptiontorunthecondensersandfuelenergyconsumptionto 8  generateelectricitywouldbe31,000_kwh_/yrand300millionBtu/yr,respectively.TotalCO,    NO<8  Lx L8 ,andSO<8  L2 L8 Ԁemissionsfromcombustionofadditionalfueltogeneratetheelectricitywouldbe  L  about0.26Mg/yr.Therewouldbenowastewater,solidwaste,orothernonairqualityhealth ^  andenvironmentalimpacts.     Thenewsource_MACT_Ԁfloorforstoragetanksisbasedonthecontrolachievedbythe "r  bestperformingsource.Theproposedfloorconsistedof90percentcontrolofemissionsfrom   storagetankswithcapacitiesgreaterthanorequalto20,000galthatstorematerialwithaHAP 6 partialpressuregreaterthanorequalto1.5_psia_Ԁand90percentcontrolofemissionsfromstorage H tankswithcapacitiesgreaterthanorequalto25,000galthatstorematerialwithaHAPpartial  pressuregreaterthanorequalto0.1_psia_.However,anotherfacilityreducesemissionsby80  \ percentfromstoragetankswithcapacitiesof10,000galthatstorematerialwithaHAPvapor n pressureof0.02_psia_.Uponfurtherconsiderationsinceproposal,wedeterminedthatwecannot    excludethesetanksfromtheflooranalysissimplybecausetheHAPvaporpressureisextremely 2" low.Thus,therevisednewsource_MACT_Ԁfloorforstoragetanksconsistsofventingthrougha $ closedventsystemtoacontroldevicethatreducesHAPemissionsbyatleast80percentfor F& storagetankswithacapacitygreaterthanorequalto10,000galthatstorematerialwithaHAP X ( partialpressuregreaterthanorequalto0.02_psia_;thenewsourceflooralsoconsistsofventing ! * emissionsthroughaclosedventsystemtoacontroldevicethatreducesHAPemissionsbyat #l, least90percentforstoragetankswitheithercapacitiesgreaterthanorequalto20,000galthat ~$. storematerialwithaHAPpartialpressuregreaterthanorequalto0.1_psia_Ԁorcapacitiesgreater %0!0 thanorequalto25,000galthatstorematerialwithaHAPpartialpressuregreaterthanorequalto B'"2 1.5_psia_.Eachofthesenewsourcestandardsreflects,orisequivalentto,theperformanceofthe (#4 bestcontrolledsourcebecausethecontrollevelsforexistingtanksincreasewithbothincreasing *V%6 tankcapacityandincreasingHAPpartialpressure. h+&8   Therevisedemissionlimitsforstoragetanksatnewsourcesarebasedonthe_MACT_  floorbecausethe_MACT_Ԁfloorismorestringentthanthesecondregulatoryalternativefor b existingsources,whichwedeterminedtohaveunreasonableimpacts. t 9.20  RISKANALYSIS&(#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD38)statedthatweshouldconductacost/riskanalysis 8  thatconsidersthepossibilityofexposureandinjurytomaintenanceworkersrelativetothe    emissionreductionachievedbyfloatingroofs.  L    Response:The_NESHAP_Ԁaretechnologybasedstandards,notriskbased.Therefore,we ^  didnotconducttheanalysissuggestedbythe_commenter_.   9.30  DEFINITIONOFSTORAGETANK"r (#(#   Comment1:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD80)foundthedefinitionof storagetanktobe   confusingbecauseitstatesthatstoragetanksarestationarybutthengoesontoprovidewhat 6 seemstothe_commenter_Ԁtobeanunnecessaryexclusionforvesselspermanentlyattachedto H motorvehicles.Therefore,the_commenter_Ԁrequestedclarificationthatallnonstationaryvessels,  notjustthosethatarepermanentlyattachedtomotorvehicles,arenot storagetanksforthe  \ purposesofsubpart_HHHHH_. n   Response:Thedefinitionof storagetankisconsistentwiththedefinitioninotherrules    thatapplytomanyofthesamesources.Webelieveitwouldbemoreconfusingtoprovidea 2" differentdefinitioninthisrule. $   Comment2:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD100)recommendedrevisingthedefinitionof F&  storagetanktobeconsistentwith63.7985(b)(2)oftheproposedrule,whichstatedthat X ( storagetanksareusedfor _feedstocks_,recoveredsolvents,andproducts,whereastheproposed ! * definitionappliesto_feedstocks_Ԁandstorageof usedsolventintankfarms. #l,   Response:Sincesolventrecoveryoperationsarenotsubjecttosubpart_HHHHH_,storage ~$. ofusedsolventforthepurposesofsolventrecoveryalsoisnotsubjecttosubpart_HHHHH_Ԁ(butit %0!0 ispotentiallysubjecttosubpart_FFFF_).Similarly,storageofrecoveredsolventsisnotsubjectto B'"2 subpart_HHHHH_,exceptiftherecoveredsolventisafeedstocktothecoatingmanufacturing (#4 operationsandthestoragetankisnotassignedtoaprocessunitunderanothersubpartof40_CFR_ *V%6 part63.Therefore,werevisedboth63.7985(b)(2)andthedefinitionof storagetanktoclarify h+&8 thesepoints.Wealsorevisedthedefinitionof storagetanktoincludeproductstorage,  consistentwith63.7985(b)(2). b   t ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank. `      42 @ 10.0POLLUTIONPREVENTIONALTERNATIVE   10.10  OPTIONS (#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)statedthattheexemptionforequipmentthat B  containlessthan5percentHAPisnotaviablepollutionpreventionalternative.This_commenter_ T  andothersbelieveapollutionpreventionalternativeisneeded,andtheysuggestedseveral   optionsforconsideration.First,numerous_commenters_Ԁ(IVD8,9,11,16,23,28,34,48,54,60, h  71,96,99,102,122,127,andIVF1b)favoredanoptionthatallowsmanufacturerstotake z creditforreductionsachievedbyvoluntarilychoosingtomanufacturelowerHAPcoatingsor , makingotherchangesinproductiontechnology.Second,_commenters_ԀIVD60andIVD99 > suggestedexemptinganycompliancecoatingmanufacturingfromsubpart_HHHHH_Ԁifthefacility  certifiesthatthecoatingsaremanufacturedtomeetthesurfacecoatingrules.Third,_commenter_ R IVD99suggestedthatweconsiderallowingdelayedimplementationofsubpart_HHHHH_Ԁor d provideanoptoutprovisionforfacilitieswhoseemissionsdropbelowmajorsourcethresholds;  thiswouldminimizetheimpactofthe oncein,alwaysinpolicy(discussedfurtherinsection (x 13.2).Fourth,ifnoneoftheprecedingoptionsisacceptable,_commenter_ԀIVD99requestedthat  thestringencyofthestandardsbereducedbecausetheindustryhasalreadyachievedreductions  <  asgreatasorgreaterthanthoseexpectedbytheproposedstandards.Many_commenters_Ԁ(IVD N"" 10,11,13,14,16,19,24,30,40,53,58,64,65,83,99,101,103,124,125,andIVF1b)cited #$ numerouschangesintheindustryoverthepastfewyearsthathavereducedemissionsfrom %b & coatingmanufacturingandhavenotbeenaccountedforinsettingthestandards.Forexample, t&!( theshiftinproductiontowaterborne,UVcure,andhighsolidscoatings,someofwhichhasbeen '&#* drivenbyotherregulatoryrequirements,contributetoreducingemissionsfromcoating 8)$, manufacturingaswellasfromcoatingapplication._Commenters_ԀIVD99andIVF1bestimated *%. thattheshifttomanufacturingcompliantcoatingstomeetthesurfacecoating_MACT_Ԁwillreduce +L'0 HAPcontentofcoatingsby265,000tons/yr,whichalsotranslatesintothesamereductionin  HAPthroughputforthemanufacturingprocesses.Assuming0.5to1.0percentofthethroughput b isemittedduringmanufacturingmeansthisreductioninthroughputhasalreadyachieveda t significantfractionoftheexpectedreductionsundersubpart_HHHHH_.Otherchangesthathave & reducedemissionsincludetheshifttousinglowvaporpressuresolvents,makingcoatings 8  exclusivelyinonevessel,andtheproductionofsmallerbatchsizeswithshorterleadtimes.    Finally,the_commenters_Ԁnotedthattheindustryhasundertakenvariousvoluntaryeffortsto  L  reduceemissionsincludingthepaintindustrysCoatingsCareprogram,_ACC_sResponsibleCare ^  program,EPAsNationalEnvironmentalTrackprogram,andvariousStateandlocalprograms.     Response:Wedonotagreethatfacilitiescandemonstratethatanyofthesuggested "r  alternativesarecomparabletothespecifiedemissionstandards.ApercentreductionintheHAP   contentofproductsmaynotnecessarilyyieldanequivalentpercentreductioninemissions.A 6 formatsuchasademonstrationinreductionofHAPcontentatcoatingsmanufacturersisnot H easilylinkedtooverallHAPusageuponapplication.     \ 54 @j j 11.0COMPLIANCEREQUIREMENTS   11.10  INITIALCOMPLIANCEFORCONDENSERS (#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD38)hasencountereddifficultyinapplyingexisting B  EPAstacksamplingmethodstodeterminecondenserinletconcentrationsofVOCandHAPfor T  useindemonstratingthecontrolefficiencyofthecondenser.The_commenter_Ԁmanufactures   adhesivesandsealantsinclosedvesselstowhichsolventisintroducedthroughclosedpiping h  systems,andsolidsareintroducedviaclosedscrewconveyors.Nitrogenisusedtopurgethe z conveyorsandvessels,andtheexhaustgasisventedtoachilledwatercondenser.The , _commenter_Ԁnotedthatthevaporspaceintheprocessvesselsistypicallysaturatedwithsolvent > vapor,whichquicklyoverwhelmsthesamplingequipment.The_commenter_Ԁnotedthatthe  samplingequipmentalsoartificiallyincreasestheemissionsbydrawingoffvaporfromthe R _precondenser_Ԁ_headspace_Ԁthatwouldnototherwiserepresentemissions.Furthermore,the d _commenter_Ԁstatedthatthemethodandvolumeofnitrogen_inerting_Ԁdramaticallyaffectsthe  samplingeffectivenesswithoutactuallyalteringtotalemissions.Therefore,the_commenter_ (x supportedtheproposedoptionthatwouldallowcompliancetobedemonstratedbydocumenting  operationatasuitableoutlettemperature,butthe_commenter_Ԁrecommendedmodifyingtheoption  <  toconsiderthecombinedeffectofcoversandothervesselsealingdevicesaswellasthe N"" efficiencyofthecondenser. #$   Response:Withoutadditionaldetailsregardingoperationoftheequipment, %b & characteristicsofthegasstream(s),andmodificationstothetestingprotocolthathavealready t&!( beenattempted,wecannotprovideconstructivesuggestionsformodifyingthesampling '&#* methods.However,wenotethatperformancetestingisonlyoneofthreeoptionsfor 8)$, demonstratinginitialcomplianceforcondensers.Asthe_commenter_Ԁindicated,asecondoptionis *%. todemonstratethatthecondenseroperatesbelowaspecifiedtemperature,wheretherequired +L'0 levelisbasedontheHAPpartialpressureofthegasstreamenteringthecondenser.Thethird  optionistodeterminethepercentreductionbasedoncalculationsoftheuncontrolledand b controlledemissionsusingtheequationsspecifiedin63.1257(d)ofsubpart_GGG_Ԁ(the t pharmaceuticalsproduction_NESHAP_). & 11.20  MONITORINGREQUIREMENTS8 (#(#   Comment1:Accordingtoone_commenter_Ԁ(IVD87),themonitoringprovisionsare    arbitraryandcapriciousbecausetheyexemptsourceswiththegreatestemissions(i.e.,thosethat  L  falloutsideofthe_MACT_Ԁfloorduetosizehavetheloosestmonitoring). ^    Response:Wedisagreewiththe_commenter_sassertions.Thefinalrule,likethe   proposedrule,requiresmonitoringofallcontroldevices.Insomecases,tominimizetheburden "r  onsmalloperations(e.g.,smallcontroldevicescontrollingprocessvesselvents),therulehas   differentmonitoringrequirementsforloweremittingsources;however,thesesourcesarenot 6  sourceswiththegreatestHAPemissionsasassertedbythe_commenter_. H   Comment2:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD44)consideredtheproposedQA/QCrequirements  forcontinuousparametermonitoringsystems(_CPMS_)tobeundulyburdensomeandstatedthat  \ theycontraveneexistingEPAstandardsandtestmethods.The_commenter_Ԁrecommendedthat n sourcesberequiredtodeveloppreventivemaintenanceprogramsthatarebasedon    manufacturersrecommendationsandactualoperating/maintenancehistoryoftheinstruments. 2" Another_commenter_Ԁ(IVD100)recommendedaddingaprovisionthatallowssourcestorequest $ approval,usingthe_precompliance_Ԁreport,ofalternativestotheQA/QCproceduresspecifiedin F& 63.8035oftheproposedrule. X (   Response:ThefinalrulereferencestheQA/QCrequirementsfor_CPMS_ԀinsubpartSS. ! * Wedeletedtheproposedrequirementsforthesamereasonswedecidednottoimplementsimilar #l, proposedQA/QCrequirementsinsubpartSS(67FR46260,July12,2002).Specifically,weare ~$. currentlydevelopingperformancespecificationsfor_CPMS_Ԁtobefollowedbyownersand %0!0 operatorsofallsourcessubjecttostandardsunder40_CFR_Ԁpart63,whichincludessubpart B'"2 _HHHHH_.Also,subpartSScurrentlyspecifiesrequirementsfor_CPMS_,andtherequirementsof (#4 subpartSSarereferencedby40CFpart63,subpart_HHHHH_.Eventhoughtheymaynotbeas *V%6 specificasthoseproposed,wedecideditwouldbeprematuretopromulgateperformance h+&8 specificationsforsubpart_HHHHH_Ԁwhentheperformancespecificationsthatwouldultimatelybe  promulgatedforall40_CFR_Ԁpart63maybesignificantlydifferent.Untilthoseperformance b specificationsareready,therequirementsinsubpartSSarethebestchoicebecausetheyare t consistentwithotherrulesappliedtosourcecategoriescontainingsimilarcontrolandmonitoring & equipmentasinthissourcecategory.Further,referencestothesestandardstandardsstreamline 8  compliancerequirementsforfacilitieswithoperationsinnumeroussourcecategories.The    proceduresinsubpartSSrequiremonitoringequipmenttobeinstalled,calibrated,maintained,  L  andoperatedaccordingtomanufacturersspecificationsorotherwrittenproceduresthatprovide ^  adequateassurancethattheequipmentwouldreasonablebeexpectedtomonitoraccurately.   Theseprovisionsareconsistentwiththe_commenters_suggestions. "r  11.30  ALTERNATIVECOMPLIANCEMETHODS (#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD100)requestedthatwedevelopanalternative 6 compliancemethodthatcouldbeusedinsteadoftheproposedrequirementsforequipmentleaks H andprocessvesselswhentheemissionsourcesventinsideabuilding.Another_commenter_Ԁ(IV  D99)consideredmanyoftheprescribedcompliancemethodsintheruletobetimeconsuming,  \ extremelycostly,andillsuitedfortheiroperations.This_commenter_Ԁstatedthattheruleneeds n optionsthatprovidemoreflexibilityincomplyingwiththestandards.Forexample,the    _commenter_Ԁsuggestedthatsourcesbeallowedtousecompliancescenariosthatareinuseasa 2" resultoftitleVpermits. $   Response:Wehavemadeanumberofchangestothefinalrulethatmayreducethe F& complianceburdenand/orprovideadditionalflexibilityindemonstratingcompliance.For X ( example,thechangestothewastewaterstandard(seechapter7)simplifythecompliance ! * requirements,butatacostofreducedflexibility.Therevised_MACT_Ԁfloorandstandardfor #l, equipmentleaksbasedonasensory_LDAR_Ԁprogramalsogreatlyreducethecomplianceburden ~$. (seechapter6),andthefinalrulealsoallowscompliancewiththerequirementsin40_CFR_Ԁpart %0!0 63,subpartTTorsubpart_UU_Ԁasalternatives.Asdiscussedinsection11.2,thefinalrule B'"2 specifieslessburdensomeQA/QCproceduresfor_CPMS_.Forprocessvessels,wemadeseveral (#4 changes(seechapter5).Tosummarize,onechangewastospecifya basicstandardthat *V%6 minimizesthecomplianceburdenbyeliminatingtherequirementtocalculateuncontrolledand h+&8 controlledemissionsforeachvesselaslongasthevesselsareclosedandemissionsarevented  throughaclosedventsystemtoacontroldevicethatachievesaspecifiedefficiency.Thefinal b rulealsoprovidesflexibilitybyspecifyinganalternativeemissionsaveragingoptionfor t stationaryprocessvesselsatexistingsourcesthatallowsthevesselstobeuncovered,tohave & coversthatarenottightlyfitting,ortouseanenclosureorhoodtocaptureemissionsforrouting 8  toacontroldevice,buttheoveralluncontrolledemissionsmustbecalculatedandthe    actual/controlledmassemissionratemustbeshowntobelessthanthecontrolledmassemission  L  rateifthevesselshadbeenclosedandincompliancewiththe basicstandard.  ^  11.40  MISCELLANEOUS (#(#   Comment1:Asanalternativetotheprocedurespecifiedin63.8015oftheproposed "r  rule,one_commenter_Ԁ(IVD106)requestedthatsourcesbeallowedtouseprocessknowledgeto   determinewhetheranemissionstreamis_halogenated_. 6   Response:Thedefinitionof _halogenated_Ԁventstreamintheproposedrulereferenced H thedefinitionin63.111oftheHON.Thisdefinitionusesthemassemissionrateofhalogen  atomsasthecriterionfordeterminingifanemissionstreamis_halogenated_.Section63.8015of  \ theproposedrulewasinconsistentwiththedefinitioninthatitrequireddeterminationofthe n halogenatomconcentration.Thefinalruleeliminatesthisinconsistencybyrequiringtheowner    oroperatortodeterminethehalogenatommassemissionrate.Onewaytodothisistofollow 2" theproceduresspecifiedin63.115(d)(5)(v).However,sincethespecificemissionrateisnot $ criticalfordeterminingcompliance(i.e.,thespecificvalueisnotneededforcalculatinga_TRE_Ԁas F& intheHON),thefinalrulealsoallowsanowneroroperatortodeterminethehalogenatommass X ( emissionratebasedonprocessknowledge,ortodesignateanemissionstreamas_halogenated_. ! *   Comment2:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD100)requestedanallowanceforasmallnumberof #l, excusedexcursions,asintheHONandPolymersandResinsIV,thatwilllettheowneror ~$. operatordevelopthenecessaryoperatingproceduresandexperiencewithoutthethreatof %0!0 enforcementforminorinfractions. B'"2   Response:Thefinalruledoesnotincludeexcusedexcursions.Excusedexcursionswere (#4 allowedintheHONtoallowfacilitiestimetobecomefamiliarwiththenewmonitoring *V%6 provisionsintheHON.Theexcursionswerenotmeanttobeprecedentsettingforallfuture h+&8 rules.Webelievethatindustryingeneralhashadsufficienttimetodevelopstrategiesfor  complyingwithmonitoringrequirements,andthatexcusedexcursionsarenolongernecessary. b Otherrecentrulesalsohavebeenissuedwithoutexcusedexcursions. t   Comment3:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)notedthattheterm operatingscenariohasa & specificmeaningunderthetitleVprogramthatisinconsistentwiththemeaningintheproposed 8  subpart_HHHHH_.Accordingtothe_commenter_,theproposedruledoesnotadequatelyexplain    howthistermhelpswithcomplianceandrequeststhatitbedeleted.  L    Response:Ourintentwiththerequirementthatsourcesdevelopoperatingscenariosto ^  describetheircompliancestrategyistoprovideopportunitytodiscussmultipleoperating   scenariosandoperationalpracticesthatcouldoccurwithouttriggeringadditionalapplicable "r  requirementsandresultingpermitmodifications.Webelievethatthisisgenerallytheintentof   thePart70and71language,whichprovidesfortheestablishmentintitleVpermitsoftermsand 6 conditionsforreasonablyanticipatedoperatingscenarios.Asourcecouldreceivepreapprovalof H alternativeoperatingscenariosinitspermitandswitchamongthosescenariosinresponseto  operationaldemands,withoutobtainingapermitrevisiontoaccountforpreviouslyapprovednew  \ operatingscenariosandtheirdifferentapplicablerequirements. n   Wedidnotintendfortherequirementtomaintainoperatingscenariosaspartofthe    compliancestrategyfortheruletobeanadditionalcomplication.Theoperatingscenario 2" basicallydescribeshowafacilityintendstocomplywiththestandardsatanygiventime.For $ processvessels,subpart_HHHHH_Ԁdoesnotprovidemanyalternativesforcontrolrequirements; F& therefore,therequirementtomaintainlogsofoperatingscenarioswillbeunnecessaryinmost X ( cases.Further,thenotificationofcompliancestatus(_NOCS_)reportandtherequirementto ! * recordandreportprocesschangesaspartofthesemiannualreportswillprovideadequate #l, notificationandcomplianceinformationforprocessorswhosecompliancestrategieschangeover ~$. time.Therefore,weremovedtheterm operatingscenarioandassociated_recordkeeping_Ԁand %0!0 reportingrequirementsfromthefinalrule. B'"2   *V%6 ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank  `  65 @ 12.0_RECORDKEEPING_ԀANDREPORTING   12.10  STARTUPANDSHUTDOWN (#(#   Comment1:Accordingtoone_commenter_Ԁ(IVD87),thestartup,shutdown,and B  malfunction(_SSM_)provisionsareunlawfulbecausetheyallowsourcestoavoidenforcement T  actionsmerelybycomplyingwiththeirstartup,shutdown,andmalfunctionplan(_SSMP_),butthe   CAArequirescompliancecontinuouslyexceptforunavoidabledeviationsduring_SSM_. h    Response:WerecentlyadoptedfinalamendmentstotheGeneralProvisionswhich z addresstheconcernsraisedbythe_commenter_Ԁ(68FR32586,May30,2003).Thefinal , amendmentsclarifythat63.6(e)(1)(i)establishesageneraldutytominimizeemissions.During > aperiodof_SSM_,thatgeneraldutyrequiresanowneroroperatortoreduceemissionstothe  greatestextentconsistentwithsafetyandgoodairpollutioncontrolpractices.However, during R an_SSM_Ԁevent,thegeneraldutytominimizeemissionsdoesnotrequireanowneroroperatorto d achievethelevelsrequiredbytheapplicable_MACT_Ԁstandardatothertimes,ortomakefurther  effortstoreduceemissionsifsuchlevelshavebeensuccessfullyachieved.Asdiscussedinthe (x preambletothefinalamendments,wedisagreewiththe_commenter_slegalpositionthatsources  compliancewith_SSMP_Ԁrequirementsinlieuofapplicableemissionstandardsispermissibleonly  <  whereviolationsofemissionlimitationsare unavoidable.Asstatedinthepreambletothe N"" finalamendmentstotheGeneralProvisions, [_w]e_Ԁbelievethatwehavediscretiontomake #$ reasonabledistinctionsconcerningthoseparticularactivitiestowhichtheemissionlimitationsin %b & a_MACT_Ԁstandardapply....However,wenotethatthegeneraldutytominimizeemissionsis t&!( intendedtobealegallyenforceabledutywhichapplieswhentheemissionlimitationsina '&#* _MACT_Ԁstandarddonotapply,therebylimiting_exceedances_Ԁofgenerallyapplicableemission 8)$, limitationstothoseinstanceswheretheycannotbereasonablyavoided.Wefurtherexplained *%. thatthegeneraldutytominimizeemissionsrequiresthatownersoroperatorsreviewtheir_SSMP_ +L'0 onanongoingbasisandmakeappropriateimprovementstoensurethatexcessemissionsare  avoided. b   Comment2:Two_commenters_Ԁ(IVD99andIVD105)recommendedthat startupbe t definedasintheAminoandPhenolicResinsrule.Accordingtothe_commenters_,theproposed & definitionmoreaccuratelydefinesa newprocess(seesection12.4). 8    Response:Wehaveclarifiedthedefinitionof startupforthefinalrule.However,we    didnotusethedefinitionfromtheAminoandPhenolicResinsrulebecausewedonotconsider  L  thelanguageregardingflexibleoperationunitsandcontinuousprocessestobeappropriateforthe ^  _MCM_Ԁsourcecategory.Forthefinalrule,weremovedtheterm familyofcoatings(seesection   5.4),andweremovedthelistofactionsthatarenotstartupsothatthedefinitionfocusesonlyon "r  itemsthatarestartup.Inaddition,sinceitispossiblethatactionstakentobringequipmentback   onlinemayoccasionallydifferfromroutineactions(saybetweenbatchesinacampaign),wealso 6 decidedtospecifythatstartupincludesthesettinginoperationofequipmentanytimethesteps H takendifferfromroutineproceduresforsettingtheequipmentinoperation.Thus,thedefinition  of startupinthefinalrulereadsasfollows:  \ 8  Startupmeansthesettinginoperationofanewaffectedsource.Fornew n equipmentaddedtoanaffectedsource,includingequipmentrequiredorusedto Z complywiththissubpart,startupmeansthefirsttimetheequipmentisputinto F  operation.Startupincludesthesettinginoperationofequipmentanytimethe 2! stepstakendifferfromroutineproceduresforputtingtheequipmentinto n" operation. Z#     Comment3:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)recommendedthatweclearlyapplythe_SSMP_Ԁto F$ theemissioncontrolequipmentratherthantoindividualprocessvesselsonabatchtobatch X & basis.Accordingtothe_commenter_,trackingthestartupandshutdownofindividualprocess ! ( vesselswouldrequirethousandsofrecords,itwouldbenearlyimpossibletoinsurethatall #l* informationiscollectedproperly,andthetrackingaddsnoenvironmentalvalue. ~$,   Response:Startupandshutdowndoapplytocontrolequipmentbecausethedefinitions %0!. specifythattheyapplyto equipmentrequiredorusedtocomplywiththissubpart.Similarly, B'"0 thedefinitionof malfunctionin63.2specifiesthatitappliestocontrolequipment.However, (#2 startup,shutdown,andmalfunctionalsoapplytotheprocessingequipment.Wedisagreewith *V%4 the_commenter_scharacterizationthatapplyingstartup,shutdown,andmalfunctiontoprocess h+&6 vesselswillresultintheneedtogeneratethousandsofrecordsbecausestartuponlyappliesto  newsources,newequipment,andpossiblyothertimesifstepstakenarenotroutine(seeresponse b topreviouscomment);andmalfunctions,bydefinition,areinfrequentfailuresofequipment.In t addition,thedefinitionofshutdownhasbeenchangedtospecifythatshutdownappliestothe & cessationofoperationofprocessvesselsonlyifthestepstakentoceaseoperationdifferfrom 8  routineproceduresforremovingthevesselorequipmentfromservice.Thischangemakesthe    definitionofshutdownconsistentwiththereviseddefinitionofstartupdiscussedabove.  L    Comment4:Several_commenters_Ԁ(IVD56,IVD66,IVD85,IVD99,andIVF1c) ^  recommendedthatperiodsof_SSM_Ԁbeexcludedfromthedefinitionof deviationandthat   reportingofdeviationsbeseparatefromreportingof_SSM_Ԁevents(althoughtheysupportedthe "r  proposedapproachofincludinginformationonbothtypesofeventsinasinglereport).   _Commenter_ԀIVD99notedthatperiodsof_SSM_Ԁareexemptfromcomplianceundertheruleand 6 concludedthattheproposedrequirementsareredundantandprovidenousefulinformation H regardingcompliance._Commenter_ԀIVD99alsonotedthatrequirementsinpreviousrulesand  theGeneralProvisionsdifferentiatebetween_SSM_Ԁeventsanddeviations(or_exceedances_Ԁand  \ excursions,intheterminologyofpreviousrules).Accordingtothe_commenter_,changingthe n terminologyandrequirementsforthisrulewillataminimumbeconfusingforfacilitiesthatalso    mustcomplywithpreviousrules. 2"   Response:Wedisagreewiththe_commenter_scontentionthattheproposedrequirements $ areredundant.Section63.6(e)oftheGeneralProvisionsrequiresoperationatalltimes F& (includingduringperiodsof_SSM_)inamannerconsistentwithsafetyandgoodairpollution X ( controlpracticesforminimizingemissionstothelevelsrequiredbytherelevantstandards(i.e., ! * meetthestandardsorcomplywiththe_SSMP_).NothingintheGeneralProvisionssaysthe #l, standardsdonotapplyduringperiodsof_SSM_,butcompliancewiththe_SSMP_Ԁisallowedinthe ~$. eventthestandardcannototherwisebemet.Furthermore,althoughadeviationmayoccurfora %0!0 dayduringwhichan_SSM_Ԁeventalsooccurs,the_recordkeeping_Ԁandreportingrequirements B'"2 associatedwiththedeviationdifferfromthe_recordkeeping_Ԁandreportingrequirementsforthe (#4  _SSM_Ԁevent;thus,thereisnoredundancy.Informationaboutallperiodsduringwhichanemission *V%6 limit,operatinglimit,orworkpracticestandardisnotmetandthereasonsfornoncomplianceis  important.Thus,wehavenotchangedtheintentoftherequirementsforthefinalrule. b    Asdiscussedinsection13.1,wehavemadeanumberofchangestothestructureofthe t rule.Onechangeisthat,forcontroldevices,thefinalruledirectlyreferencesmostofthe & complianceprovisionsinsubpartSS,whichmanyownersandoperatorsmayalreadybeusingfor 8  compliancewithotherrules,ratherthanpresentinganewsetofslightlydifferentrequirementsin    subpart_HHHHH_.OneprovisioninsubpartSSthatwedidnotreferenceistheprovisionthat  L  excludesdatacollectedduring_SSM_Ԁperiodsfromdailyaverages.Weoverrodethisprovisionfor ^  thepurposesofsubpart_HHHHH_Ԁtobeconsistentwiththerequirementsintheproposedrulethat   webelievearereasonableforthereasonsdiscussedabove.AnotherkeyprovisioninsubpartSS "r  thatwasnotintheproposedsubpart_HHHHH_Ԁisthat_SSM_Ԁ_recordkeeping_Ԁisrequiredonlyif    excessemissionsoccur.Wedecidedtoretainthisprovisionforthepurposesofsubpart 6 _HHHHH_,whichmayreducetheamountof_SSM_Ԁ_recordkeeping_Ԁrelativetowhatwouldbe H requiredundertheproposedrule.Thus,determinationofexcessemissionsiscritical.Whena  CMSisused,excessemissionsoccurwhentheoperatinglimitisnotmet.Sincecompliancewith  \ anoperatinglimitisdeterminedoveraday,notshorttermeventssuchasan_SSM_Ԁperiod,the n datafrom_SSM_Ԁperiodsmustbeincludedinthedailyaveragetodeterminewhetherexcess    emissionsoccur.Finally,subpartSSspecifiesthatdatamaybediscardedifeachvalueduring 2" thedayiswithinthespecifiedlimit.Thus,ifdatafromperiodsof_SSM_Ԁarenotincludedinthe $ dailyaverage,wemightnothavesufficientinformationatalaterdatetoassesswhethera F& deviationoccurredforadaythatcontainsareported_SSM_Ԁeventthatwesubsequentlydetermine X ( isnotproperlyan_SSM_Ԁevent. ! *   Comment5:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)considerstheproposedrequirementfor #l, immediatereportingofactionstakenthatareinconsistentwiththe_SSMP_Ԁtobeoverly ~$. burdensome.The_commenter_Ԁbelievesthatreportingoftheseeventswithother_SSM_Ԁeventsona %0!0 semiannualbasisinthecompliancereportissufficient,andthe_commenter_Ԁnotedthatthis B'"2 approachhasbeenusedin_subparts_Ԁ_JJJ_Ԁ(PolymersandResins)andPPP(_Polyether_Ԁ_Polyols_). (#4   Response:Weagreethatimmediatenotificationsarenotnecessary.Theindustriesin *V%6 thissourcecategorygenerallyhaveextensiveupset/_SSM_Ԁreportingrequirementsunderthe h+&8 ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensation,andLiabilityActandstatereporting  requirementsthatshouldbeadequateinsupplyingtimelynotificationofevents.Further,the b finalrulerequiresinformationregardingactionsinconsistentwiththe_SSMP_Ԁtobesubmittedin t semiannualcompliancereports.Forthesereasons,andtomaintainconsistencywiththeHON & andtheConsolidatedFederalAirRule(CAR),wehaveoverriddentheimmediate_SSM_Ԁreporting 8  requiredby63.6(e)(3)(iv)and63.10(d)(5)(ii)oftheGeneralProvisions.    12.20  INITIALNOTIFICATION L (#(#   Comment:Accordingto_commenter_ԀIVD99,theinitialnotificationrequirementsare ^  unnecessarybecausefacilitiesintheMiscellaneousCoatingSourceCategoryhavealready   submittedaninitialnotificationunderCAAsection112(j)._Commenter_ԀIVD44considersthe "r  notificationtobeunnecessarybecauseitisalreadyrequiredundertitleV.     Response:TherequirementtosubmitaninitialnotificationispartoftheGeneral 6 Provisions,whichapplytoall_NESHAP_.Iftherequiredinformationisalreadyinthesources H titleVpermitapplications,therequirementforsourcestocopythisinformationintotheirone  timeinitialnotificationsshouldnotbeundulyburdensome.Havingthisinformationwillhelpthe  \ regulatoryauthoritiesandthepublicbetterunderstandwhatisbeingregulated,especiallysincea n sourcesinitialnotificationmaybesubmittedbeforeitstitleVpermitisissuedorrenewed.    12.30  NOTIFICATIONOFCOMPLIANCESTATUS2"(#(#   Comment:Three_commenters_Ԁ(IVD44,IVD99,andIVD100)requestedthatthe $ notificationofcompliancestatusreportbeduenoearlierthan150daysor180daysafterthe F& compliancedate,asinotherrulesandtheGeneralProvisions.Accordingtothe_commenters_, X ( facilitieswillneedthefull3years(ifnotlonger)afterthepromulgationdatetorespondto ! * actionstakenbytheircustomersandtoevaluatetheirowncomplianceoptions,particularly #l, determinationofwhethertheycanmakechangessuchthattheyarenolongermajorsources. ~$.   Response:Weaccepttheargumentthatsomefacilitiesmayneedthefull3yearsafterthe %0!0 effectivedatetobringcontrolsonlineortomakeproductformulationchangestomeetnew B'"2 customerrequirementsinresponsetothesurfacecoating_MACT_Ԁrules.Therefore,wehave (#4 decidedtochangetheduedateforthenotificationofcompliancestatusreport.Inthefinalrule, *V%6 thereportisduenolaterthan150daysafterthecompliancedate,asinmanyotherrules. h+&8 12.40  NOTIFICATIONOFPROCESSCHANGES(#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)expressedconcernthattheproposedruledidnot b clearlydefinewhatconstitutesa newprocess.The_commenter_Ԁnotedthatthetermisusedin t 63.8070(f)(1)oftheproposedruleregardingreportingrequirementsforprocesschanges,butthe & termisnotdefined.Accordingtothe_commenter_,itisthesettinginoperationofanewor 8  reconstructedaffectedsource,anditshouldnotinvolvechangesinnormaloperatingprocedures    suchastheadditionofanewrawmaterialoranewtank.  L    Response:Wedidnotadoptthe_commenter_ssuggesteddefinitionfortheterm new ^  processbecauseitwouldberedundantwiththeconceptofanewaffectedsource.However,as   oneofthechangestoclarifythecompliancereportingrequirements,wedeletedthestatementin "r  63.8070(f)(1)oftheproposedrulethatspecifieda processchangemeansthestartupofanew   process.Thefinalruleincludesthenotificationofprocesschangesaspartofthecompliance 6 report,anditclarifiesthatthisnotificationisrequiredanytimeinformationinthenotificationof H compliancestatusreportchanges.Thiscouldincludechangestoaccommodateproductionofa  newcoatingproductorchangesinproductionforexistingproducts.Normalvariationsin  \ operatingproceduressuchastheratioofrawmaterialsaddedtoavessel,thelengthoftimefor n mixingingredients,orswitchingbetweenvariousinertadditiveswouldnothavetobe    documentedinthenotificationofprocesschangesaslongasanyimpactofthevariationson 2" compliancehasbeenaccountedforinthe_NOCS_Ԁreport(e.g.,variationsinoperatingprocedures $ couldaffecttherepresentativeconditionsunderwhichaperformancetestistobeconducted). F& 12.50  REDUCINGBURDENX ((#(#   Comment1:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD44)consideredseveraloftherecordsrequiredtobe ! * submittedinthenotificationofcompliancestatusaccordingto63.8070(e)(3)(ii),(iii),and(v)of #l, theproposedruletobeexcessiveandrecommendeddeletingthem.Specifically,the_commenter_ ~$. recommendedexcludinganumberoftherecordsthatwouldbeusedtodemonstrateinitial %0!0 complianceaccordingtoTables9through14oftheproposedrulesuchasthemaintenance B'"2 wastewaterplan(Table10);thestoragetankdimensionandcapacityrecordsfortanksthatare (#4 equippedwithafloatingroof(Table11);recordsthatan_LDAR_Ԁprogramhasbeenimplemented, *V%6 alistofallequipmentinorganicHAPservicelessthan300hr/yr,theplanforinspectingunsafe h+&8 tomonitoranddifficulttomonitorequipment,andtherecorddocumentingthepresenceofeither  aflowindicatororabypasslinesecuritysystemforclosedventsystemsthatcontainbypasslines b (Table12).Accordingtothe_commenter_,alistingofoperatinglimitsshouldbeincludedinthe t _NOCS_,butrecordsofhowthoselimitswerecalculatedshouldbemaintainedonsiteandmade & availabletoaninspectorforreviewuponrequest.Finally,the_commenter_Ԁrecommended 8  excludingrecordsofemissionprofilesandworstcaseoperatingconditionsbecausethesewould    bepartofthesitespecifictestplan.  L    Response:Oftherecordslistedbythe_commenter_,thefinalrulerequiresonlyrecordsof ^  howtheoperatinglimitswerecalculated.Webelievetheoperatinglimitsalonehavelimited   value;thedataandproceduresusedtodeterminetheselimitsareneededinordertoconfirmthat "r  thelimitsarereasonable,andincludingthisinformationisconsistentwithpreviousrules.The   changestothewastewaterstandard(seeChapter7)eliminatedmaintenancewastewaterasa 6 separateclassofwastewater;thus,thefinalruledoesnotrequireamaintenancewastewaterplan. H Forthefinalrule,wedecidednottorequiresourcestosubmitrecordsdocumentingthe  dimensionsandcapacityofstoragetanksequippedwithafloatingroofbecausethisinformation  \ doesnothelpverifycompliance.Wedeletedtheequipmentleakrecordsfromthe_NOCS_Ԁreport n tobeconsistentwith_LDAR_Ԁreportingrequirementsinotherrules.Sinceongoingrecordsofthe    operationoruseofeachflowindicatororsealmechanismforbypasslinesarerequired,and 2" recordsofperiodswhenthesedevicesindicateflowthroughthebypassmustbereportedinthe $ compliancereports,wedecidedthatitisnotnecessarytoincluderecordsinthe_NOCS_Ԁreport F& documentingthepresenceofsuchequipment.Becauseonlyminorvariationsinprocessing X ( conditionsareexpectedformixingoperations,wehavedecidedthatitisacceptabletotest ! * controldevicesforprocessvesselemissionsunderrepresentativeconditionsasspecifiedin #l, subpartSS.Thus,thefinalruledoesnotrequirethedevelopmentofemissionprofilesortesting ~$. underworstcaseconditions. %0!0   Comment2:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD44)recommendeddeletingseveralrecordsthatthe B'"2 proposedrulewouldrequirefordocumentingdeviationsinthecompliancereports(i.e., (#4 63.8075(d)(5)(iii)(H)through(J)).Specifically,the_commenter_Ԁrecommendeddeletingthe *V%6 requirementstoidentifyeachHAPmonitoredattheaffectedsource,provideabriefdescription h+&8 oftheprocessunits,andprovideabriefdescriptionoftheCMSbecausethisinformationdoes  notchangeduringeachreportingperiod,andwhenitdoes,itmustbedocumentedina b notificationofprocesschange. t   Response:Forthefinalrulewehavemadeseveralchangestoclarifythese_recordkeeping_ & requirements.First,weagreethatdocumentationinthecompliancereportofadeviationdoes 8  notneedtoincludeidentificationofallHAPattheaffectedsource.Whatwemeanttorequire    wasidentificationofeachHAPintheemissionstream(s)thatisassociatedwiththedeviation;  L  thisinformationisstillconsideredimportantbecausetheHAPmayvarydependingonwhich ^  emissionstreamisroutedtothecontroldeviceataparticulartime.Second,wedeletedthe   requirementtodescribeprocessunitsbecausetheproposedandfinalrulesapplyonlytothe "r  miscellaneouscoatingmanufacturingoperations;therearenoregulatoryrequirementsforprocess   unitswithinthemiscellaneouscoatingmanufacturingoperations.Wereplacedthisstatement 6 witharequirementtoidentifyordescribetheproduct(s)beingproducedatthetimeofthe H deviation.Third,wemodifiedthelastprovisiontorequireeitheranidentificationordescription  oftheCMS.AlthoughitistruethataCMSitselfshouldnotchange,weneedawaytoidentify  \ whichCMSisassociatedwiththedeviation;theidentificationordescriptionshouldbe n consistentwiththedocumentationinthe_NOCS_Ԁreport.      Comment3:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD44)recommendedthatsourcesonlyberequiredto 2" listnewoperatingscenariosinthecompliancereportratherthansubmitthecompleteoperating $ scenarios(similartotheapproachtakenfortheinitialoperatingscenariosthatwouldbe F& documentedinthe_NOCS_Ԁundertheproposedrule).Accordingtothe_commenter_,thischangeis X ( reasonablebecausethecompleteoperatingscenarioscouldconstituteasignificantquantityof ! * information,andtheymaycontainasignificantamountofconfidentialbusinessinformation. #l,   Response:Asdiscussedinsection11.4,wehavedecidedtoremovetheconceptof ~$. operatingscenariosfromthefinalrule.Thus,thefinalrulealsodoesnotrequireanyrecordsof %0!0 operatingscenarios. B'"2   Comment4:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD44)foundtheinformationrequiredinthe (#4 compliancereportsfordeviationsunderby63.8075(d)(5)(i)through(iii)oftheproposedruleto *V%6 bethesameinformationthatisrequiredintitleVdeviationreportsandcompliancecertification h+&8 reportsunder40_CFR_Ԁparts70and71.Tominimizethecostsofreportingassociatedwiththis  overlappingrequirement,the_commenter_Ԁsuggestedaddinglanguagelikethat63.4920(a)ofthe b proposedSurfaceCoatingofMetalFurniture_MACT_Ԁthatwouldrequiretheinformationinthe t compliancereportsonlyifthesourceisnotsubjecttotitleVrequirements.Another_commenter_ & (IVD99)supportedtheproposedoptionofcombiningcompliancereportingundersubpart 8  _HHHHH_ԀwithreportingundertitleV.The_commenter_Ԁurgedustoidentifyotherareaswhere    _recordkeeping_Ԁandreportingrequirementscanbecombined.  L    Response:Thelanguagerequestedby_commenter_ԀIVD44andcitedby_commenter_ԀIV ^  D99wasincludedintheproposedrulein63.8075(e).However,wedecidedtodeleteitfrom   thefinalruletoeliminateconfusionoverreportingrequirementsspecifiedin40_CFR_ "r  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A)or71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).Thefinalrulespecifiesreportingrequirementsfor   deviationsfromapplicablerequirementsinsubpart_HHHHH_.Forinformationthatisrequired 6 underbothsubpart_HHHHH_ԀandPart70,ownersandoperatorsmayreferencereportsthatare H submittedunderPart70or71.Wewereunabletoidentifyoverlapping_recordkeeping_Ԁand  reportingrequirementsthatcouldbecombined,butasnotedabove,wehaverevisedthe  \ _recordkeeping_Ԁandreportingrequirementsinwaysdesignedtoreducetheburdenofcompliance. n      ` ` @Thispageintentionallyleftblank. `       76 @!13.0MISCELLANEOUS   13.10  STRUCTUREOFTHERULE (#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)foundthecomplexandmyriadcrossreferencing B  toprovisionsinotherrulesmadeitverydifficulttounderstandthecompliancerequirements.To T  clarifytherule,this_commenter_Ԁrecommendsincludingallapplicableprovisionswithinsubpart   _HHHHH_.Other_commenters_Ԁ(IVD48,IVD56,IVD66,andIVD107)notethatthe h  monitoring,_recordkeeping_,andreportingrequirementsareveryconfusing,andtheyrequestthat z wereviewandrewritetheprovisionstomakethemunderstandable. ,   Response:Wemadenumerouschangestostreamlineandclarifythefinalrule.For > example,thefinalrulereferences_subparts_ԀSSandWWmorecompletelythanintheproposed  rule.Thisallowedustoremovethetablesofinitialandcontinuouscompliancerequirementsand R languagedescribingperformancetestrequirementsandCMSQA/QCrequirements(e.g.,see d section11.2)thatwereintheproposedruleandinsteadrelyonlanguageinthereferenced  _subparts_,whichthe_commenters_Ԁandotherindustryrepresentativesmayfindmorefamiliarthan (x theformatthatwasusedintheproposedrule.Thechangeinthestandardforwastewater(see  chapter7)allowedustoremoveallofthereferencestosubpartGandspecifysimpleand  <  straightforwardcompliancerequirements. N"" 13.20  ONCEIN,ALWAYSINPOLICY#$(#(#   Comment:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)statedthatthe oncein,alwaysinpolicyisonly %b & policyandshouldnotbegiventheweightoflaw.Therefore,the_commenter_Ԁrequeststhatwe t&!( eitherrevisethepolicyorspecificallyexemptcoatingmanufacturingfromthepolicy.The '&#* _commenter_Ԁbelievesthisisnecessarysoastoprovideincentiveforpollutionprevention.The 8)$, _commenter_Ԁalsonotesthatifevenoneofthe_delisting_Ԁpetitionscurrentlyunderreviewis *%. successful,itmaymeansomefacilitieswouldnolongerbemajorsources.However,sincethe +L'0 decision(s)maycomeafterpromulgationofsubpart_HHHHH_,theruleitselfneedstoprovide  reliefforfacilitiesthatotherwise,underthe oncein,alwaysinpolicy,wouldstillberequired b tocomplywithsubpart_HHHHH_. t   Response:Wedisagreewiththecommentsforthefollowingreasons,althoughthefocus & ofthisresponsedocumentisoncommentsspecifictotheproposedsubpart_HHHHH_.We 8  believethatunderthebetter_interpretaion_ԀofthelanguageandstructureoftheCAAandtoeffect    thepurposeofthe_MACT_Ԁprogram,facilitiesthataremajorsourcesofHAPonthe first  L  compliancedateofa_MACT_Ԁstandardarerequiredtocomplypermanentlywiththatstandardto ^  ensurethatthemaximumachievableHAPemissionsreductionareachievedandmaintained.In   manyinstances,theapplicationof_MACT_Ԁwillreduceamajorsourcesemissionstolevels "r  substantiallybelowthemajorthresholds.Withouta oncein,alwaysininterpretation,such   facilitiescould backslidefrom_MACT_Ԁcontrollevelsbyassumingpotentialtoemitlimits, 6 escapingapplicabilityofthe_MACT_Ԁstandard,andincreasingtheiremissionstothemajorsource H thresholds(i.e.,10or25tonsperyear).Withthatresult,Congressmandatesthatmajorsources  ofHAPemissionsobtainthemaximumachievableemissionsreductionswouldnotbecarried  \ out.Bycontrast,a oncein,alwaysininterpretationgiveseffecttothelegislativepurposeof n the_MACT_Ԁprogram.    13.30  IMPACTS2"(#(#   Comment1:Two_commenters_Ԁ(IVD99andIVF1b)determinedthat,aftertakinginto $ accountcommentsthatourcostestimatesareunderstated,proposed_subparts_Ԁ_FFFF_Ԁand_HHHHH_ F& collectivelyareasignificant_rulemaking_,andthussubjecttofullreviewbyOMB. X (   Response:Wedisagreewiththe_commenter_sconclusionthat_subparts_Ԁ_FFFF_Ԁand ! * _HHHHH_Ԁshouldbecombinedforpurposesofdeterminingtheirstatusasasignificant #l, _rulemaking_.However,justasfortheproposedrule,wearesubmittingbothrevisedrulesto ~$. OMBforreview. %0!0   Comment2:Basedonthereportedcostsprovidedincommentsinothersectionsofthis B'"2 report,one_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)estimatedthattheproposedrulewillhaveanadverseimpact (#4 ontheindustry,particularlyonthesmallbusinessesthatmakeup90percentoftheindustry.For *V%6 example,the_commenter_Ԁestimatedthat42percentofsmallbusinesseswillhavecompliance h+&8 costsequaltoorgreaterthan3percentofsalesasopposedtoourestimateofonly2companies,  thatthenumberofclosurescouldbehigherthanthe1or3thatweestimated,thateconomic b impactsputU.S.companiesatadisadvantagerelativetoglobalcompetitors,andcoating t manufacturersareinauniquepositionbecausebothsuppliersandcustomersarealsofacingtheir & own_MACT_Ԁstandards.The_commenter_Ԁalsoexpressedconcernthat60smallbusinessescouldbe 8  affectedbythenewsourcestandardsbecausegrowthwouldoccurthroughmajorfacility    modifications,possiblytriggeringreconstruction.Numerousother_commenters_Ԁ(IVD12,14,  L  15,16,18,20,21,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,34,35,40,42,53,54,61,62,65,76,97,103,116, ^  124,125,126,andIVF1f)agreedwithsomeorallofthesestatements.     Response:Becausethefinalruleislessstringentthantheproposedrule,wearemore "r  confidentintheestimateofminimalimpacttosmallbusinesses.     Comment3:Accordingto_commenters_ԀIVD99andIVF1b,thehigherR&Dcosts, 6 higherrawmaterialcosts,andproductengineeringcoststodevelopandproducereformulated H (compliant)coatingsmustbeconsideredundereitherthesurfacecoatingrulesorintheanalysis  forsubpart_HHHHH_.Other_commenters_Ԁnotedthatthecoststocomplywiththeproposed  \ subpart_HHHHH_ԀwillbedifficulttoabsorbwhilesimultaneouslyperformingR&Dtodevelop n newcompliantcoatingstomeetcustomersneedstocomplywithotherregulations.      Response:Subpart_HHHHH_Ԁdoesnotrequiresourcestoreformulateproducts.Thus,we 2" havenotdevelopedcoststodevelopsuchproducts.Sourcesmayelecttoproduceonly $ reformulatedproductssothattheyarenotsubjecttotherule,butourcostanalysisassumesthat F& theyelecttocomplybycontrollingemissionsfrombaselinecoatingmanufacturingoperations. X ( 13.40  COMPLIANCEDATE! *(#(#   Comment:Accordingtoone_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99),implementingsubpart_HHHHH_Ԁprior #l, tofinalizingthesurfacecoating_MACT_Ԁrulesiscounterproductivebecauseitmightforcesources ~$. toinstallcontrolsundersubpart_HHHHH_Ԁandsoonafterbeforcedtoreformulateproductssothat %0!0 customerscanmeetthesurfacecoatingrules. B'"2   Response:Wearemakingeveryefforttopromulgateallofthesurfacecoatingrulesprior (#4  toorcontemporaneouslywithpromulgationofsubpart_HHHHH_. *V%6 &     13.50  GUIDANCE(#(#   Comment:Duetothecomplexityoftherule,one_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)requestedthat b wedevelopandpublishplainlanguagecompliancetoolsbytheeffectivedateoftherule.The t _'ecommenter_Ԁalsonotedthat_SBREFA_ԀrequiresEPAtoprovidecompliancetoolsforeverynew & regulationthatrequires_RFA_Ԁanalysis(i.e.,thathasasignificantimpactonasubstantialnumber 8  ofsmallentities).      Response:Weintendtodevelopimplementationmaterialsassoonaspracticable.  L  However,wedonotanticipatethattheywillbeavailablebytheeffectivedate. ^  13.60  MISCELLANEOUS (#(#   Comment1:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD99)requestedthatweensuresubpart_HHHHH_Ԁis "r  consistentwiththeApril5,2002amendmentstotheGeneralProvisions,whichwerepublished   onlyonedayaftertheproposedsubpart_HHHHH_. 6   Response:Tothebestofourknowledge,subpart_HHHHH_Ԁisconsistentwiththe H amendedGeneralProvisions.    Comment2:One_commenter_Ԁ(IVD91)supportedthe_rulemaking_Ԁasreasonableand  \ achievable.Inparticular,the_commenter_Ԁnotesthatthegreatestemissionreductionscomefrom n processvessels,whichaccountforthelargestshareofthebaselineemissions.The_commenter_    alsourgesustoquantifyuncontrolledVOCemissionsandtheVOCreductionsthatwouldresult 2" fromimplementingthestandardsbecauseStateswouldfindthisinformationusefulinplanning $ toattainozonehealthbasedstandards. F&   Response:WedonothavedataregardingthetotalVOCemissionsfromthe_MCM_ X ( sourcecategory,nordowehavedatathatwouldallowustodevelopestimatesoftotalVOC ! * emissionreductionsachievedbyimplementingsubpart_HHHHH_.