[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29824]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 6, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5116-1]
RIN 2060-AD98
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Proposed Standards for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed standards would limit emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) from surface coating operations from any new or
existing shipbuilding and ship repair facilities at a major source
(defined in part V, A). The proposed standards implement section 112(d)
of the Clean Air Act (Act), which requires the Administrator to
regulate emissions of those chemicals designated as HAP in section
112(b). The intent of the proposed standards is to protect the public
health by requiring new and existing major sources to limit HAP
emissions to levels attainable by use of maximum achievable control
technology (MACT).
In addition, this document contains draft recommended best
available control measures (BACM) for volatile organic compound (VOC)
and particulate emissions from this category. The draft BACM implements
section 183(b)(4) of the Act.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 6,
1995.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by December 27, 1994, a public hearing will be held on
January 18, 1995, beginning at 10 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate if possible) to Public Docket No. A-92-11 at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The Agency requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact
person listed below.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing, the hearing will be held at the EPA Office of Administration
Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons
interested in attending the hearing or wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Kim Teal, Coatings and Consumer Products
Group (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5580.
Background Information Document. The background information
document (BID) and other documents supporting the proposed standards
may be obtained from the docket or from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35),
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to ``Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding
and Ship Repair Facilities--Background Information for Proposed
Standards,'' EPA-450/-D-94-011a.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-11, containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards, is located at the EPA's Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center at the above address in Room M-
1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The proposed regulatory text and
other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in
the docket. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning regulatory
decisions and the proposed standards, contact Dr. Mohamed Serageldin,
Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2379.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this preamble
is organized as follows:
I. Description of the Source Category
II. Background
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Applicability
B. Standards
C. Compliance Dates
D. Compliance Procedures
E. Test Methods and Procedures
F. Monitoring Requirements
G. Notification Requirements
H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
IV. Summary of Estimated Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
of the Proposed Standards
A. Number and Type of Affected Facilities
B. Air Emission Reductions
C. Secondary Environmental Impacts
D. Energy Impacts
E. Cost Impacts
F. Economic Impacts
V. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
C. Categorization/Subcategorization: Determining MACT ``Floors''
D. Regulatory Approach and Regulatory Alternatives
VI. Process Description and Control Technologies
A. Painting Process
B. Control Technologies for Painting Operations
C. Handling, Transfer, and Storage of Volatile Organic HAP
Containing Materials
VII. Selection Rationale
A. Selection of Emission Points to be Covered
B. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Standards
C. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards
D. Selection of Compliance Dates
E. Selection of Compliance Procedures
F. Selection of Test Methods and Procedures
G. Selection of Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements
H. Operating Permit Program
I. Solicitation of Comments
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Docket
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Clean Air Act Section 117
G. Regulatory Review
IX. Statutory Authority
The proposed regulatory text is not included in this Federal
Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-92-11 or by request
from the EPA contact persons designated earlier in this notice, free of
charge. The proposed regulatory language is also available on the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of the EPA's electronic bulletin
boards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for the
cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400-bps modem.
If more information on TTN is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-
5384.
I. Description of the Source Category
Section 112 of the Act requires the EPA to evaluate and control
emissions of HAP. The control of HAP is to be achieved through
promulgation of emission standards under sections 112(d) and (f) for
major source categories and such minor sources as deemed appropriate
that emit HAP. Pursuant to section 112(c) of the Act, the EPA published
in the Federal Register the initial list of source categories that emit
HAP on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). This list includes both ``major''
and ``area'' sources (as defined by the Act) that the EPA intends to
regulate before November of the year 2000. The initial list of source
categories includes ``Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating),''
the major sources only, as a source category.
For the purpose of the proposed rule, shipbuilding and ship repair
refers to all facilities that build, repair, paint, repaint, convert,
or alter ships. (Hereafter, this industry will be referred to as
``shipbuilding.'') A ship is defined as any marine or fresh-water
vessel used for military or commercial operations, including self-
propelled vessels, those towed by other craft (barges), and
navigational aids (buoys). This definition includes, but is not limited
to, all military vessels, commercial cargo and passenger (cruise)
ships, ferries, barges, tankers, container ships, patrol and pilot
boats, and dredges. It does not include offshore oil and gas drilling
platforms, although it is believed that identical coating systems would
be appropriate for them also.
II. Background
The proposed rule represents the EPA's first extensive regulation
of air pollutants from the shipbuilding and ship repair industry.
Essentially all volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) are a
subset of a category of pollutants referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOC). The VOC is a class of pollutants that are
photochemically reactive precursors of ozone. Emissions of VOC (and
consequently VOHAP as well) from ``marine coating operations'' have
been regulated by some State and local district rules. California and
Louisiana have defined VOC limits for a wide range of marine coating
categories. The California limits being generally more stringent than
those of Louisiana. Other States have limited VOC emissions from the
industry's spray booths as one of many ``miscellaneous metal coating
operations,'' using guidance presented in the EPA's control techniques
guidelines (CTG) document ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Existing Stationary Sources, Volume VI: Surface Coating of
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products'' (June 1978) EPA 450/2-78-015.
Outdoor painting of ships' hulls was specifically exempt from this
guidance, but some States have rules that limit shipyard painting done
inside buildings and on the interior of ships based on the guidance.
Control Techniques Guidelines
Section 183(b)(4) of the Act, as amended in 1990 (1990 Amendments),
requires the Administrator to issue CTG's for VOC and particulate
emissions from coatings (paints) and solvents used in shipbuilding and
ship repair facilities, to such level as the Administrator determines
may be achieved through the adoption of BACM. Volatile organic
compounds react in the atmosphere to form ozone, a criteria air
pollutant for which primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
have been established. The EPA is required to take into account the
applicable requirements of section 112 in developing the guidelines.
The organic HAP emissions described in the remainder of this
document are, with only one exception, a subset of the VOC emissions
from coatings and solvents used in shipbuilding and ship repair
facilities. Thus the control techniques evaluated for the MACT standard
are also applicable to VOC emissions.
The EPA has traditionally issued draft CTG's containing recommended
control levels for public comment. Rather than issue a separate draft
CTG in this case, the EPA is using this document to request public
comment on a draft recommended by BACM. The recommended BACM is
identical to the proposed MACT for coatings and solvents, stated in
terms of VOC units rather than VOHAP units (where a VOHAP means any
compound of carbon, excluding metallic carbides and carbonates, that is
listed in or pursuant to section 112(b) of the Act; this includes both
VOC and exempt compounds that are listed as HAP). For those options
using VOC as a surrogate for VOHAP for the MACT standard, compliance
would be based on the Agency's reference Method 24. For any compliance
option involving measurement of actual VOHAP content, the test method
used by the source must be documented and approved by the
Administrator. Comments received on the proposed MACT rule will also be
considered in formulating a final recommended BACM and vice-versa.
Meanwhile, States are in the process of developing VOC rules for
these sources to meet other Act requirements. The EPA published an
alternative control techniques (ACT) document in February 1994 to
provide guidance to the States for these efforts. The recommended BACM
described here is consistent with information in the ACT. Also, as
explained in the ACT, although control technologies for particulate
emissions at shipyards are in development, none are sufficiently
demonstrated at this time to recommend as BACM. Therefore, the Agency
has no recommendation for BACM for particulate emissions at this time.
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Applicability
1. Description of the Source Category
The proposed rule would apply to each shipbuilding facility whose
total activities emit or have the potential to emit, considering
controls, 9.1 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year [tons/yr])
or more of any HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) or more of any
combination of HAP.
In general, the shipbuilding industry covered by the proposed rule
is represented by SIC Code 3731, ``Shipbuilding and Repairing.'' This
industry consists of establishments that build, repair, repaint,
convert, and alter ships. However, SIC Code 3731 includes the
manufacture of both offshore oil and gas well drilling and production
platforms; marine coatings used on such platforms will not be subject
to this rule, but rather to limitations imposed by the EPA's Federal
rule on Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings.
Based on information obtained through the U. S. Maritime Directory
Listings (June 1992), there are an estimated 437 facilities of varying
capabilities involved in the construction and repair of ships in the
United States. Of the 437 facilities, an estimated 25 qualify as major
sources of HAP emissions and would be subject to the proposed rule. The
total VOHAP emissions from surface coating operations at the 25
facilities that would be subject to the proposed rule are estimated at
1,155 Mg/yr (1,272 tons/yr).
The EPA requests comment on the appropriate timing of the
shipbuilding and ship repair facility's applicability determination,
and on whether all facilities, regardless of their past emissions or
HAP usage, should be eligible to qualify as area sources under the HAP
usage limits. The Agency also seeks comment on whether a facility that
is initially determined to be subject to the rule should be able
subsequently to escape applicability, and if so, under what
circumstances.
2. Affected Sources
For purposes of this rulemaking, the affected source would be
considered the aggregate of all operations at a shipbuilding facility.
A new operation at a shipbuilding facility would not be considered a
new source. Instead, it may qualify as a modification of the existing
source.
The proposed standards would limit VOHAP emissions from indoor and
outdoor coating operations. The VOHAP emissions result largely from
solvent evaporation from the coatings. These emissions occur during
application and drying/curing. Due to the size of ships and their
components, most coatings are applied outdoors.
The proposed standards would also reduce VOHAP emissions from
handling, transfer, use, and storage of VOHAP-containing materials
through work practice measures. These emissions also occur as a result
of solvent evaporation.
B. Standards
The proposed standards would be the same for new and existing
facilities. (See section VII.B. for discussion on the basis for the
standards.) The proposed standards would impose limits on the VOHAP
content of 23 types of coatings used at shipbuilding facilities. (See
section VII.C. for a list of the proposed limits.) The limits would be
stated in terms of mass of VOHAP per volume of coating less water and
less negligibly photochemically reactive (exempt) compounds. Compliance
with the VOHAP limits must be demonstrated on a monthly basis.
The proposed standards would allow for an alternative means of
compliance other than using compliant coatings, if approved by the
Administrator.
The proposed standards would also require that all handling and
transfer of VOHAP containing materials to and from containers, tanks,
vats, vessels, and piping systems be conducted in a manner that
minimizes spills and other factors leading to emissions. In addition,
containers of thinning solvent or waste that hold any VOHAP must be
normally closed (to minimize evaporation) unless materials are being
added to or removed from them.
C. Compliance Dates
The proposed rule would require compliance for existing affected
sources within 1 year after the effective date of the rule. An existing
unaffected area source that increases its HAP emissions (or potential
to emit) such that it becomes a major source would be required to
comply within 1 year after becoming a major source.
Any new or reconstructed sources would be required to adhere to the
compliance schedule in the General Provisions Sec. 63.6(b) of subpart A
without any modification. For new or reconstructed affected sources
whose startup date is before the effective date of the rule, the
compliance date is the effective date of the rule. For new or
reconstructed affected sources whose startup date is after the
effective date of the rule, the compliance date is the startup date. A
new unaffected area source that increases its emissions (or potential
to emit) such that it becomes a major source would be required to
comply immediately upon becoming a major source.
D. Compliance Procedures
The proposed rule would allow affected sources to choose among five
options for demonstrating compliance with the VOHAP standards. Their
choice will be influenced by the perceived need to add ``thinning''
solvent (thinner) to alter the viscosity of the coating in order to
spray effectively. (For the purposes of this proposed regulation,
thinner is defined as any liquid material added to a coating.)
Regardless of the option(s) chosen, affected sources would first be
required to determine the coating category (e.g., general use, air
flask, antenna, etc.), the applicable VOHAP limit, and the VOC content
for each batch of coating received from the manufacturer.
A source may demonstrate compliance either by showing that the VOC
content is less than the VOHAP limit (options 1-4) or by the use of
option 5 (discussed below) which would measure the actual VOHAP
content. If the shipyard is subject to regulatory limits on the VOC
content of its coatings, the primary compliance method for this rule
would be to certify the VOC content of each container of coating, as
applied. (That information would then be used to determine compliance
with the applicable VOHAP limit using any of the options 1-4.)
Certification of VOC content is done by: (1) using Method 24 of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A; (2) using forms similar to those included in the
certification procedure published in EPA-450/3-84-019 (revised 6/86),
``Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds
Emitted by Paint, Ink, and Other Coatings''; or (3) an alternative
method approved by the Administrator. Option 5 may be used for
demonstrating compliance when a shipyard is not subject to VOC limits.
Affected sources would be allowed to use the following methods to
demonstrate compliance to avoid testing every container of coating;
however, any analysis of an individual container of coating using the
Agency's Method 24 would take precedence to determine or to verify a
violation. Paragraphs (i) through (iii) are summaries of options 1, 2,
and 3.
(i) Shipyards can demonstrate compliance of the as-supplied VOC
content as certified by the manufacturer. If the as-supplied coating is
used without adding thinning solvent, shipyards can certify that the
as-applied VOC content of the batch of coating is identical to the as-
supplied VOC content, if it were certified by the manufacturer. If the
certified VOC content is less than the VOHAP limit, compliance is
demonstrated. (``As applied'' means after any thinning by the user or
just prior to application to the substrate. ``As supplied'' means as
supplied by the coating manufacturer.)
(ii) Shipyards can demonstrate compliance if the actual volume of
thinner used is less than the maximum allowable volume of thinner on a
coating-by-coating basis.
(iii) Shipyards can demonstrate compliance by comparing the actual
volume of thinner used to the maximum allowable volume on a ``group''
basis. A group of coatings would be defined as those which use the same
thinner. (See section VII.E. for more explanation.)
Compliance with options 1 through 4 is based on the VOC content of
each container of coating, as applied. If the as-applied VOC content is
less than or equal to the VOHAP limit, then compliance would be
demonstrated (See part III.E. for how ``exempt'' compounds which are
HAP are considered in compliance determinations and other details).
Shipyards can also demonstrate compliance by measuring the actual
VOHAP content of a coating. If the as-applied VOHAP content is less
than or equal to the alternate VOHAP limit, then compliance would be
demonstrated. (See II.E., Option 5, for how alternate VOHAP limits are
determined). (Concurrently with this rule, the Agency is preparing
requirements for sample preparation and the performance specifications
required of an acceptable analytical procedure.)
An affected source may choose to use only one of the options for
all coatings at the facility or a combination of options. Each option
is discussed in more detail below.
E. Test Methods and Procedures
The proposed rule would require Method 24 be used as the reference
method to determine compliance if the VOC content is used as a
surrogate for VOHAP. Manufacturers whose coatings do not release
reaction by-products may request an alternative or equivalent method to
be approved by the Administrator. If it is demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that a specific coating does not
release VOC by-products from the cure reaction (all VOC emissions are
evaporated solvent), then she may approve use of batch solvent
formulation data to certify the as-supplied VOC content of that paint.
In the event of any inconsistency between the VOC content as measured
by Method 24 and formulation data, however, the Method 24 test shall
govern.
A few coatings may contain HAP which are (or through subsequent
formal action may become) excluded from EPA's definition of VOC because
these HAP have negligible photochemical reactivity and do not
contribute to tropospheric ozone formation. These non-VOC HAP are
nonetheless of regulatory concern as toxic chemicals. Therefore, for
the purposes of this rule the mass of VOHAP determined by Method 24
would be the mass of VOC plus exempt compounds; hence, unlike for a VOC
determination, the total mass loss of these organic volatiles must be
used in subsequent calculations. However, the volume of exempt
compounds should be subtracted (from the total coating volume) just as
water, as indicated by the units for VOHAP presented in Method 24.
Manufacturers and affected sources would be required to certify the
VOHAP of paints using a form similar to that published in the EPA's
``Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds
Emitted by Paint, Ink, and Other Coatings'' (Revised June 1986) EPA-
450/3-84-019 [Docket A-92-11, II-B-27]. If the shipyard chooses to
demonstrate compliance using the VOHAP content of the coating(s), the
manufacturer or affected source would need to provide details on how
the VOHAP values were determined.
F. Monitoring Requirements
Section 114(a)(3) of the amended CAA requires enhanced monitoring
and compliance certifications of all major stationary sources. The
annual compliance certifications certify whether compliance has been
continuous or intermittent. Enhanced monitoring shall be capable of
detecting deviations from each applicable emission limitation or
standard with sufficient representativeness, accuracy, precision,
reliability, frequency and timeliness to determine if compliance is
continuous during a reporting period. The monitoring in this regulation
satisfies the requirements of enhanced monitoring.
The test methods and procedures described in the previous section
will be used to determine compliance. Failure to meet the emission
limits as measured by these procedures would be an enforceable
violation of the emission limits of the standard. When add-on controls
are used, monitoring shall be capable of detecting deviations from each
applicable emission limitation or other standard with sufficient
reliability and timeliness to determine continuous compliance over the
applicable reporting period.
Although the term ``continuous'' generally means at all times, the
Agency has determined that less frequent measurements or determinations
of compliance can ensure continuous compliance. The potential
variability of the emissions or parameters is a primary factor in
establishing the frequency of measurements.
G. Notification Requirements
The proposed rule would require affected sources to follow the
notification requirements in Secs. 63.9(a)-(d) and (h)-(j) of subpart A
of the general provisions. In addition to the initial notification
requirements in Secs. 63.9(b)(2) and (3) of subpart A, sources would be
required to include in the initial notification: (1) the compliance
procedure(s) that they intend to use; (2) procedures for ensuring
compliance with the handling, transfer, and storage standard; and (3)
procedures for maintaining records. These are subject to the approval
of the Administrator. In addition, they would be required to submit a
notification of compliance status on a quarterly basis, with any
exceedances reported on a quarterly basis. Following the first year,
the owner or operator of a source that has had no exceedances for a
full year (can be any year after the first year), may request
Administrator approval to reduce the frequency of notification to
semiannual.
H. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The proposed rule would require affected sources to follow the
general recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Secs. 63.10(a)-(b)
and (f) of subpart A of the general provisions. Sections 63.10(c)-(e)
of subpart A do not apply unless a source uses a control device to
comply with the standards except for the excess emission report
required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3) which applies regardless of how emissions
are controlled.
In addition, each owner or operator of an affected source would be
required to certify annually that all personnel involved with coatings,
thinning of coatings, keeping coating records, or handling/transferring
VOHAP-containing materials have received the training required by the
regulation. A record of the certification is required, but no report is
required. The purpose of the certification is to ensure that the
training does occur at least once per year, and that documentation does
exit for an enforcement official to review.
Affected sources would be required to keep all records needed to
demonstrate compliance with the standards, including calculations and
records of any Method 24 or alternate VOHAP tests. All records would be
compiled each calendar month and compliance status determined every
month. In addition, a source is required to report on a quarterly basis
any exceedances to the EPA and to provide in the excess emissions
report the data needed to confirm and quantify the reported exceedance.
All records must be maintained for a minimum of 5 years.
The quarterly report should include:
1. A summary of the number and duration of deviations during the
reporting period classified by reason, including known causes for which
a Federally-approved or promulgated exemption from an emission
limitation or standard may apply;
2. Identification of the data availability achieved during the
reporting period, including a summary of the number and total duration
of incidents during which the monitoring protocol failed to operate in
accordance with design or produced data that did not meet minimum data
accuracy and precision requirements (classified by reason);
3. Identification of the compliance status as of the last day of
the reporting period and whether compliance was continuous or
intermittent during the reporting period;
4. If, pursuant to (2) of this section, the owner or operator
identifies any deviation as resulting from a known cause for which no
Federally-approved or promulgated exemption from an emission limitation
or standard applies, the monitoring report shall also include all
records that the source is required to maintain that pertain to the
periods during which such deviation occurred and:
a. The magnitude of each deviation;
b. The reason for each deviation;
c. A description of the corrective action taken for each deviation,
including action taken to both minimize it and prevent recurrence; and
d. All quality assurance activities performed on any element of the
monitoring protocol.
IV. Summary of Estimated Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
the Proposed Standards
The nationwide impacts presented below are the impacts the proposed
standards would have on existing facilities. Because of downsizing of
military forces, no new major sources are expected to be built in the
next five years. Therefore, impacts on new sources are expected to be
zero.
A. Number and Type of Affected Facilities
Approximately 437 facilities (shipyards) are involved in the
construction and repair of ships nationwide. Based on industry
information and data reported in the U.S. Department of Commerce's
``U.S. Industrial Outlook '92--Shipbuilding and Repair'' (January 1992)
and the U.S. Maritime Directory Listings (June 1992). It is estimated
that only 25 qualify as major sources of HAP emissions and would be
affected by the proposed rule.
B. Air Emission Reductions
The nationwide baseline VOHAP emissions for the approximately 25
major shipbuilding facilities from surface coating operations are
estimated to be 1,155 Mg/yr (1,272 tons/yr). Implementation of the
proposed standards would reduce these emissions by approximately 24
percent to 883 Mg/yr (972 tons/yr).
C. Secondary Environmental Impacts
No environmental impacts to water, solid waste, noise, or secondary
air impacts are associated with implementation of the proposed
standards, as explained below.
1. Water
There are no negative water pollution impacts resulting from
transition to compliant coatings.
2. Solid Waste
There are no negative solid waste impacts associated with the
proposed standards. No additional or new types of solid or hazardous
waste will be generated. Because the compliant (higher solid) coatings
are more concentrated, fewer containers will require disposal when the
same volume of solids is applied.
3. Noise
There is no additional noise associated with the proposed
standards. Pumps and compressors, the source of the majority of the
noise in paint operations, is not expected to change.
4. Secondary Air Impacts
There are no significant secondary air pollution impacts. Use of
compliant coatings avoids use of any type of control device or
equipment that would consume large amounts of energy. Furthermore, any
reduction in VOC emissions that result from compliance with the HAP
rule will reduce both ozone formation and CO2, a greenhouse gas
(VOC that remain airborne react to form ozone and are ultimately
oxidized to CO2).
D. Energy Impacts
Paint heaters are now used in some shipyards. Some sources may use
paint heaters in lieu of solvent to reduce paint viscosity. Although
some secondary air impacts would result from the power requirements of
the electrical heaters, the amount of electricity that they draw is
insignificant.
E. Cost Impacts
The incremental nationwide annual costs associated with the
proposed standards (MACT cost minus baseline cost) is approximately
$1.7 million per year. The use of compliant coatings will not require
different equipment. Because lower-VOC (and presumably lower-VOHAP)
coatings are more concentrated, less coating volume is required to
cover the same surface area to the same dry film thickness. Some of
these compliant coatings, however, may be more expensive both on a
dollar-per-gallon basis, but also in cost-per- volume solids
(nonvolatiles). Therefore, the annual costs associated with the
proposed standards reflect the difference between the costs of higher-
priced coatings and the savings associated with the decreased volume of
coatings (because of the higher solids content) and labor to apply
them.
Minor costs would be incurred by any source that purchases paint
heaters or other minor equipment necessary to comply with the handling,
transfer, and storage standard. These costs are expected to be
insignificant.
F. Economic Impacts
Economic impacts were calculated on a facility-specific basis as
well as on a market segment basis (i.e., military construction,
commercial repair, etc.). Economic impact indicators examined included
price, output, and employment impacts. The economic impact analysis
calculated economic impacts for six market segments within the
shipbuilding and repair industry. Two methods were used to calculate
the potential price impacts; therefore, these impacts will be provided
in terms of ranges.
Twenty major-source yards were identified as first-tier shipyards
(facilities that have the capability to construct, drydock, and/or
topside repair vessels with a minimum overall length of 400 feet). Two
market segments in the first tier, facilities engaging in construction
of military ships and privately owned facilities engaging in repair of
military ships, are each estimated to increase their prices 0.1 percent
or less to recover increased costs of the rule. The cost for the third
market segment, government-owned shipyards engaging in repairing
military ships, will be negligible.
The remaining five major-source shipyards are categorized into the
``second tier'' (facilities building and repairing ships less than 400
feet in length). Within this tier, the market segment consisting of
facilities constructing ships for the military is estimated to require
a price increase between 0.1 and 0.2 percent. The market segment
consisting of facilities engaging in construction of ships for the
commercial sector is estimated to require a price increase of 0.3
percent or less. Lastly, the market segment consisting of facilities
performing repair on ships in the commercial sector is expected to
require little or no price increase.
The facility-specific impact calculations estimate the maximum
price increase necessary for a regulated facility to fully recoup its
annualized control costs. For the purposes of the analysis, a
facility's price increase was considered significant if greater than 1
percent and deviated considerably from its corresponding market segment
price increase.
The facility-specific price increase calculations indicated that 23
of the 25 major-source shipyards are expected to experience price
increases of 0.1 percent or less. Of the two remaining, one is expected
to experience a 0.2 percent price increase and the other, 0.3 percent.
The above data indicate that none of the regulated facilities are
expected to experience price increases greater than 1 percent. In
addition, a comparison of each facility's price increase to its
corresponding market segment price increase reveals that the results of
each analysis are not significantly different. Therefore,
implementation of the NESHAP is not expected to have a significant
impact on the 25 major-source facilities in the shipbuilding and repair
industry.
The economic analysis also examined the impact of the NESHAP on
industry output and employment. The industry is expected to experience
a negligible reduction in output as a result of implementing the
regulation. Assuming a one-to-one relationship between output and
employment, the same conclusion can be applied to the NESHAP impact on
the industry's employment level.
V. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Decision Process
A. Source of Authority for NESHAP Development
Section 112 of the Act gives the EPA the authority to establish
national standards to reduce HAP emissions from sources that emit one
or more HAP. Section 112(b) contains a list of the specific HAP to be
regulated by NESHAP. Section 112(c) directs the EPA to use this
pollutant list to develop and publish a list of source categories for
which NESHAP will be developed. The Act defines major sources as those
that emit or have the potential to emit considering controls, in the
aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) or greater of individual HAP or 22.7
Mg/yr (25 tons/yr) or greater of any combination of HAP. The initial
list of source categories was published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576).
Shipyards (major sources only) appear on this list.
Area sources are those sources that are not major sources. Area
source categories selected by the EPA for NESHAP development will be
based on the Administrator's judgment that the sources in a category,
individually or in the aggregate, pose a ``threat of adverse effects to
health and the environment.'' The EPA will continue to evaluate whether
area source shipyards should be added to the list of area source
categories.
B. Criteria for Development of NESHAP
The NESHAP are to be developed to control HAP emissions from both
new and existing sources according section 112(d) of the Act. The
standards are to reflect the maximum degree of reduction that is
achievable for new or existing sources. The NESHAP must reflect
consideration of the cost of achieving the emission reduction, nonair
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements for
control levels more stringent than the MACT floor (described below).
The Act specifies that emission reduction may be accomplished through
application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques,
including, but not limited to, measures which:
1. Reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, such pollutants
through process changes, substitution of materials, or other
modifications;
2. Enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
3. Collect, capture, or treat such pollutants when released from a
process, stack, storage, or fugitive emission point;
4. Are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards
including requirements for operator training or certification as
provided in section 112(h); or
5. Any combination of the above [section 112(d)(2)].
To develop NESHAP, the EPA collects information about the industry,
including information on emission source characteristics, control
technologies, data from HAP emission tests at well-controlled
facilities, and information on the cost, energy, and other
environmental impacts of emission control techniques. The EPA uses this
information to analyze possible regulatory approaches.
Although NESHAP are normally structured in terms of numerical
emission limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary. In
some cases, physically measuring emissions from a source may be
impossible or at least impracticable due to technological and economic
limitations. Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate
a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard or
combination thereof, in those cases where it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emissions standard.
If any sources in the source category are considered major (based
on their emissions), then a MACT standard is required. To establish a
MACT standard, the level of control corresponding to the MACT floor
needs to be determined as a starting point for developing the
regulatory alternatives.
C. Categorization/Subcategorization: Determining MACT ``Floors''
Section 112 of the Act provides certain very specific directives to
guide the EPA in the process for establishing MACT standards. It states
that the EPA shall establish standards that require ``the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants ***
that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving
such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable
***'' [section 112(d)(2)]. In addition, a minimum baseline or ``floor''
for a standard is specified. For new sources, the standard for a source
category or subcategory ``shall not be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar
source, as determined by the Administrator'' [section 112(d)(3)].
Further, standards for existing sources shall be no less stringent
than: (1) the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing sources in the category or
subcategory for categories and subcategories with 30 or more sources;
or (2) the best performing five sources for categories or subcategories
with fewer than 30 sources [section 112(d)(3)].
Once the floor has been determined for new or existing sources for
a category or subcategory, the Administrator must set MACT standards no
less stringent. Such standards must then be met by all sources within
the category or subcategory. However, in establishing standards, the
Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of
sources within a category or subcategory and establish a different
emission standard for each class, provided all standards are at least
as stringent as the MACT floor.
The EPA has determined that there are less than 30 major
shipbuilding sources. Consequently, the MACT floor for existing
categories or subcategories was calculated to be the arithmetic average
(the mean) of the emission limitation achieved by the best performing
five sources.
D. Regulatory Approach and Regulatory Alternatives
The next step in establishing standards is the investigation of
regulatory alternatives. With MACT standards, only alternatives at
least as stringent as the floor may be considered. Information about
the industry is analyzed to develop model plant populations for
projecting national impacts, including HAP emission reduction levels,
costs, energy, and secondary impacts. Several regulatory alternative
levels (which may be different levels of emissions control or different
levels of applicability or both) are then evaluated to determine the
most appropriate regulatory alternative to serve as the basis for the
standard.
The regulatory alternatives for new versus existing sources may be
different, and separate regulatory decisions must be made for new and
existing sources. For both source types, the selected alternative may
be more stringent than the MACT floor. However, the control level
selected as the name maximum achievable control technology indicates,
must be available, i.e., technically achievable. In selecting a
regulatory alternative, the Agency considers the achievable reduction
in emissions of HAP (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), the cost and economic impacts, the energy requirements,
and other environmental impacts.
The selected regulatory alternative is then translated into a
proposed regulation. The regulation implementing the decision typically
includes the following sections: applicability, standards, test
methods, compliance demonstration, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping. The preamble to the proposed regulation provides an
explanation of the rationale for the decisions embodied in the rule.
The public is invited to comment on the proposed regulation. Based on
an evaluation of these comments, the EPA promulgates the final
standard.
VI. Process Description and Control Technologies
This section describes the painting process and technologies that
can be used to control organic HAP emissions from painting operations
at shipyards. For more detailed description of the process and control
technologies, consult the BID for the proposed standards (see ADDRESSES
at the beginning of this Preamble).
Over 99 percent of HAP emissions at shipyards are organic solvents
associated with paints and cleaning. Other activities that collectively
contribute the remaining 1 percent include welding, metal forming/
cutting, and abrasive blasting. The proposed standards will affect
operations involving the use of paint and organic solvents.
A. Painting Process
Marine coatings are applied to the surface of ship components to
form a protective, functional or decorative films. The basic components
of a coating are the vehicle (resin or binder), solvent, pigment
(except in clear coatings), and a variety of additives. Different
coatings are used for different purposes; depending on where it is
applied, the intended use of the ship, ship activity, travel routes,
desired time between coatings (service life), aesthetic desires of the
ship owner or commanding officer, and fuel costs.
Marine coatings are vital for protecting the ship from corrosive
and biotic attacks from the water environment. Many marine coatings
serve specific functions, such as corrosion protection, heat/fire
resistance, or antifouling (to prevent the settlement and growth of
marine organisms on the ship's underwater hull).
The most popular techniques for applying coatings to marine vessels
are brushing, rolling, air-atomizing, and airless spraying. Brushing
and rolling are primarily used for touchup and recessed surfaces where
spraying is not practical. Spraying is used for all other surfaces
because of its high application speed.
Thinning solvent is sometimes added to coatings before application
even though paint manufacturers state that it is unnecessary.
Temperature, reportedly can play a big part in the decision to thin;
cold increases paint viscosity. For such cases, the appropriate solvent
to use for each coating is specified by the manufacturer. Typically
these paints and thinning solvents contain one or more of the following
HAP: xylene, toluene, and/or methyl ethyl ketone.
B. Control Technologies for Painting Operations
Emissions of VOHAP result primarily from solvent evaporation--both
solvent in the paint ``as supplied'' by the manufacturer and any
solvent used by the shipyard to thin the paint. Reaction by-products
released during the cure of some coatings may also contain HAP.
Essentially, all organic solvents, including those which are HAP, are
emitted either as the paint is applied or when it dries/cures. The
shipyard may limit emissions of HAP from, ``as supplied'' or ``as
applied,'' coatings as discussed below.
1. Paints As-Supplied by the Manufacturer
Since the Agency began its program to reduce emissions of volatile
organics in the late 1970's, the coating industry has made significant
progress in research of new products with increased solids: organic
solvent ratios. These liquid paints are of two primary types:
waterborne and higher solids. Although many new waterborne products
have been developed, manufacturers of marine coatings have reduced
solvent primarily by increasing the solids (nonvolatile) content of
their products. Use of these concentrated or ``higher solids'' coatings
reduce solvent emissions per surface area painted (at same film
thickness). Because most hazardous air pollutants are also volatile
organics, the VOC program has tended to also reduce HAP.
In addition, some coating manufacturers have reportedly been able
to reduce the HAP content of certain paints by merely substituting a
solvent not on the HAP list yielding paints that contain little or no
HAP solvents. A coating reformulated in this manner may have the same
or even higher VOC content than the one it replaces. In some cases, the
HAP to VOC ratio may even increase when a company develops a new
reformulation with lower VOC. (Note, the absolute HAP emissions are
likely to go down.)
2. Paints As-Applied by the Shipyard
There are several alternatives a shipyard may follow to minimize
HAP emissions from as-applied paints. One is to avoid diluting the
paint and apply it as-supplied. Another is to only use thinners that
contain little or no HAP. A third is to reduce paint viscosity by
heating the paint to avoid or minimize the need for thinning. (Paint
heaters are heating elements placed in the paint delivery line upstream
of the spray gun. Depending on the length of the delivery line, the
coating characteristics, and ambient temperature, multiple paint
heaters may be required at intervals along the line. These decrease the
ease of portability and flexibility of the application system.)
``Add-on'' pollution control systems are often used to control
emissions from spray booths when coatings are applied in factory
operations. Such systems are not now a practical alternative for many
shipyard operations because the size of ship components is too large to
enable capturing of the emissions with an enclosure. (There is
currently under development a mobile enclosure that, if successful,
will offer shipyards a method of capturing both particulate and
volatile organics. Metro Machine shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia has
developed a prototype portable enclosure that mounts adjacent to the
ship and supports an omni-directional elevator platform used by the
operator to abrasive blast and paint ship's hulls. The method shows
promise of containing particulate and volatile organics of
concentrations great enough to make recovery available at reasonable
cost. It also provides weather protection thereby allowing work to
continued in inclement weather. Final evaluation will likely be
completed in 1996.)
C. Handling, Transfer, and Storage of Volatile Organic HAP Containing
Materials
Volatile organic emissions (including HAP) result from storage,
handling, and transfer of solvents and paint wastes that contain VOHAP.
These solvents, typically stored in 55-gallon drums, are frequently
transferred by pump or spigot into small buckets or 1 gallon containers
for transport to the painting site. Waste solvent and HAP also
evaporate from solvent-laden rags and spent solvent used in cleaning
activities and coating operations.
These HAP emissions may be minimized with appropriate work
practices including managed chemical (paint and solvent) distribution
systems designed to curb the volume of material exposed to the
atmosphere and the length of the exposure. For example, solvent-soaked
cleaning rags should be kept in impervious bags or containers that are
normally closed when not in use.
VII. Selection Rationale
A. Selection of Emission Points to be Covered
The proposed standards would limit VOHAP emissions from surface
coating operations at shipbuilding facilities that are major sources in
accordance with the EPA's list of source categories published in the
Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Standards are being
proposed to limit the VOHAP content of 23 categories of coatings used
in shipyards. In addition, the proposed standards would require work
practice measures for handling, transfer, and storage of solvent and
paint wastes.
Welding, gas freeing (tank degassing), metal fabrication, fuel
combustion, flame cutting, cooling towers, asbestos removal, and
cleaning would not be regulated under the proposed rule, although their
emissions must be included in determining if a facility qualifies as a
major source. Asbestos removal is covered in 40 CFR part 61, subpart M;
cooling towers are treated in the industrial process cooling tower rule
proposed on August 12, 1993; and chromium emissions by the rule for
hard and decorative electroplating and anodizing operations proposed on
November 30, 1993. Methodology for determining and managing emissions
from cleaning solvents is detailed in the ACT document--Industrial
Cleaning Solvents, EPA-453/R-94-015.
B. Selection of the Basis for the Proposed Standards
The general methodology for selecting the basis for MACT standards
was discussed in section V. A more detailed discussion specific to this
industry is presented below.
1. Coating Operations
No emission control measures are known to have previously been
implemented specifically to reduce HAP emissions from this industry.
Regulations that reduce VOC emissions will limit HAP emissions since
almost all organic HAP are VOC.
At shipyards, the only VOC control measure that has been fully
demonstrated for outdoor coating operations is the use of coatings with
inherently lower emissions. Such coatings have and are being developed
by an enlightened industry to reduce its environmental impact. The new
products are used for compliance with VOC regulations in Louisiana and
some California jurisdictions. There are as yet no known cases where
add-on pollution control systems have been used to control VOC
emissions from outdoor coating operations at shipyards.
The California and Louisiana regulations limit the allowable
quantity of VOC in each of several categories of coatings, as applied.
Because VOHAP are VOC (with the exception noted above), such
regulations also reduce, or at a minimum, put a ceiling on the
allowable HAP content of these coatings.
The California regulations (VOC limits) are more stringent than
those in Louisiana. Thus, the major sources subject to those California
rules represent the ``best controlled sources.'' Because three major
source facilities are located in California, the single best controlled
facility and the median facility of the best performing five sources
are both subject to the stringent California regulations. Therefore,
the Agency has determined that the MACT floor for both new and existing
sources is identical to the current California VOC limits on marine
coatings, except for one additional paint category [weld-through (shop)
primer].
A variety of more stringent alternatives were considered, including
more restrictive limits based on HAP content (rather than VOC content),
more stringent VOC limits, and requiring use of pollution control
equipment. These alternatives are discussed below.
To evaluate other potential limits, the EPA gathered existing data
on HAP content from marine coating manufacturers and shipyards.
Information compiled from a material safety data sheet (MSDS) was used
to determine (estimate) the HAP content of each paint. Most of the data
came from MSDSs and product data sheets. Based on these data, the
percentage of VOC in marine coatings that are HAP varies from zero to
100 percent and averaged 30 percent by weight for all paints in the
project data base. (The HAP content could exceed the VOC content in
coatings containing non-VOC HAP.)
Industry subsequently informed EPA that the quality of HAP-specific
data on MSDSs is poor. The MSDSs are prepared primarily to meet
Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) requirements.
Although one section addresses hazardous constituents, the industry
indicated that information and format required for OSHA purposes are
not as detailed or accurate as would be desired for development of a
regulation. Further, the list of hazardous materials that OSHA
regulations require must be addressed in MSDSs is different from the
HAP list in section 112(b) of the Act. In addition, it is acceptable to
give a concentration range on the MSDS, rather than a specific value.
Finally, many entries on the MSDS are generic petroleum solvents, such
as mineral spirits, which are mixtures of many organics (some of which
may be HAP) and vary in composition from lot to lot.
Because of these drawbacks in MSDS data, the EPA considered it not
accurate enough to be used in setting limits for VOHAP. The Agency
believes, however, that the resulting data base is sufficiently
accurate for use in estimating broad parameters, such as the potential
reduction associated with limitations on VOC content.
Enforcement of a limit on HAP content would require an EPA
reference test method. Although one is under development by the Agency,
it has not yet been published. Based on the quality of the HAP content
data on the MSDSs and the lack of an approved test method for
speciating and quantifying HAP, the EPA has determined that VOC will be
used as a surrogate to limit HAP emissions. Consequently, the proposed
rule would establish the VOHAP limit at the VOC limit of the California
rules using VOC as a surrogate for HAP and the Agency's VOC test
method, Method 24, for determining compliance.
The EPA considered requiring limits more stringent than the
existing California limits. The data base indicates that within each
category of coatings there are coatings with VOC contents below the
California limit. (Some may have been developed in response to the
technology-forcing provisions of the California regulations that
provide for more stringent limits to come into effect in September 1994
for some coating categories.)
Although coatings with lower VOC contents than the rule requires
are marketed in each category, they reportedly would not perform for
the full range of potential applications within a coating category.
An important consideration in examining control requirements for
this industry is U.S. Navy military specifications or ``milspecs.''
Because of the need for coatings for specialized applications and the
demand for predictable performance, the Navy oversees exhaustive
performance testing procedures. Naval personnel indicate an ongoing
program to qualify lower VOC coatings. The California rules were
developed with considerable input from the Navy, and according to a
Naval representative, reflect the ``state of the art'' for lower-VOC
shipbuilding coatings. Volatile organic compound limits more stringent
than proposed would require that the Navy use paints for which they
have not yet completed long term testing, hence are not milspec
approved. Given these considerations, the EPA is proposing MACT
emission levels based on the 1992 California regulations that limit the
total VOC as-applied paint.
The EPA also evaluated the potential of add-on VOC control devices
(i.e., carbon adsorbers and incinerators). Although no cases are known
where add-on controls are used for outdoor painting at shipyards, they
have been used to reduce spraybooth emissions by many other industries.
Most coating operations at shipyards take place outdoors, primarily
because of the size of parts painted. This makes capture of emissions
difficult and expensive. Use of add-on controls for outdoor painting
was not selected as the basis for MACT for these reasons. It should be
noted, however, that a portable enclosure that will contain particulate
and VOC during abrasive blasting and coating of ships' hulls is under
commercial development. Should these enclosures prove technically and
economically feasible, their performance should be considered by any
State or the Federal Government in developing future rules for this
industry.
Two types of coating operations at shipyards where emissions are
more available to capture were examined more closely for the
feasibility of add-on controls: indoor coating operations and painting
inside of ship's tanks or other internal enclosed spaces. Based on a
brief screening analyses, using the limited available data that assumes
all spray areas are continually drafted to the control device (whether
painting operations are underway in all areas or not), add-on control
was estimated to be on the order of $150,000/Mg of VOHAP removed. The
EPA believes that this cost is not reasonable for this source category.
As a result, add-on controls were not investigated further nor selected
as the basis for MACT.
In reality, the amount of VOC and HAP controlled at a site is
dependent on the rate of paint application, the concentration of these
compounds in the exhaust air stream during the painting operation, the
flow rate of the air stream flowing into the add-on control unit and a
host of other factors. The suitability of add-on controls can only be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
After review of alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor,
the EPA is proposing to set the MACT standard at the floor based on the
California marine coatings rule which is for both new and existing
sources. The costs of the control option for new and existing sources
is expected to be the same. The Agency solicits comments on this
determination.
``Models'' of shipyards were developed to help determine the need
to differentiate among classes of shipyards in identifying the MACT.''
Models were developed for classes of yards based on market segment
(yards that construct ships versus those that only repair) and size
(large versus medium). The EPA concluded there is no basis for
differentiating among classes of major source shipyards, but
specifically solicits comments on whether this category should be
subcategorized; and if so, how.
2. Handling, Transfer, and Storage of VOHAP Containing Material
Based on information received from industry, a variety of ``work
practice'' measures are used to reduce evaporative losses of VOC from
transfer, handling, and storage of solvent and paint wastes. These
include spill minimization techniques (use of spouts, funnels, or catch
basins during transfer of liquids from one container to another), the
use of normally closed containers or piping to transport liquids, and
the use of close-fitting or tight covers on containers for solvent, wet
rags, and waste.
Many more than five facilities employ some type of work practice
measures. Facilities in California are subject to regulations to
minimize evaporative emissions; other facilities employ such measures
to decrease solvent usage or to minimize exposure of workers. However,
data to quantify accurately the emission reductions achievable by
different work practice measures is unavailable. The beneficial effect
of a specific change is largely a function of the previous plant
practice being remedied. As a result, even though such activities
obviously reduce emissions, there is no way to distinguish between the
``best controlled source'' and the ``best performing five existing
sources.'' Therefore, the EPA has designated the same select work
practice measures as the MACT floor for control of emissions from
handling and transfer of VOHAP containing material at both new and
existing facilities. For emissions from storage containers, the MACT
floor is use of tight-fitting covers that must be normally closed; that
is, in place except when materials are being added to or withdrawn. The
Agency believes that this is a reasonable approach. Because work
practice measures typically entail negligible cost, any emission
reduction that is achieved is believed to be worthwhile. The EPA
specifically solicits comments on this determination.
No other more effective control options for these VOHAP emissions
from cleaning activities were found. Use of lower-HAP or lower-vapor-
pressure substitutes to minimize evaporative losses may be feasible,
although this option depends on the availability of a suitable
replacement cleaning material.
Capture and control of fugitive emissions from the many transfer,
handling, and storage of solvents (and operation wastes) although
conceivable, is impractical, making it difficult to invoke any
quantifiable standard other than work practice requirements. Associated
monitoring and recordkeeping are included for determining compliance.
In an attempt to ensure that employees understand and comply with the
requirements, the proposed standards also require each source to
implement a training program for all involved personnel.
C. Selection of the Format of the Proposed Standards
1. Coating Operations
Most HAP emissions from coating operations in this industry occur
outdoors where the technology for their capture has not been
demonstrated. As a result the only available technology for reducing
emissions is to require use of coatings with lower volatile content.
Virtually all of the HAP and VOC contained in marine coatings are
emitted to the atmosphere during the course of application and drying.
Thus, an emission standard based on limiting both HAP and VOC content
of the coatings, as applied, is appropriate for these operations,
particularly because any additional HAP and VOC that may be formed and
emitted during the curing process are detected and measured by the
reference measurement methodology.
As a result, the types of coatings used by the industry were
identified and maximum, never-to-be-exceeded HAP limits were selected
for each of the several coating categories. To allow additional
flexibility, the ability to average limits across categories was also
considered. Under an averaging approach, any coating regardless of
volatile organic content, can be used as long as the volume weighted
average as applied VOHAP content, i.e., as measured by the reference
method, of all coatings does not exceed the average calculated from
their individual limits. In developing the limits, the Agency
considered two types of averages: (1) Separate averages for coating
within each of the coating categories and (2) a single average for all
coatings used by a facility. The option of establishing limits based on
weighted averages of various coatings of different pollution content
was abandoned when the industry indicated that time and effort to plan,
track, and demonstrate compliance would be too burdensome. As a result,
the limits are based on never-to-be-exceeded VOHAP contents for 23
categories of coatings and permits ``averaging'' for purposes of
compliance under certain conditions. The proposed coating categories
and associated HAP limits are presented in Table 1.
2. Handling, Transfer, and Storage of VOHAP Containing Material
The proposed work practice standards require that these operations
be carried out in such a manner that minimizes spills. For storage and
transport, the proposed standards require use of containers that are
normally closed.
To provide a measure of enforceability to these standards, each
source will be required to indicate how it intends to comply with the
standards as part of the initial notification that is required of all
sources under the part 63 general provisions. After the Administrator
or her designee negotiates and approves these compliance measures as
part of the operating permit program, each source will have a specific
set of requirements for which compliance can be determined by
monitoring, observation and/or inspection.
D. Selection of Compliance Dates
The proposed rule would require that existing sources comply within
1 year after the effective date of the rule. This provides time for
shipyards and coating manufacturers to deplete most existing
inventories of contemporary coatings. An existing unaffected area
source that increases its emissions (or potential to emit) such that it
becomes a major source would be required to comply within 1 year after
becoming a major source.
Table 1.--Proposed Volatile Organic HAP (VOHAP) Content Limits for
Marine Coatings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOHAP limitsa,d VOHAPalt limitsc,d
-------------------------------------------
Pounds Pounds
Coating category Grams per per Grams per per
liter (g/ gallon liter (g/ gallon
L) (lb/gal)b L) (lb/gal)b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General use................. 340 2.83 571 4.76
Specialty:
Air flask................. 340 2.83 571 4.76
Antenna................... 530 4.42 1,439 12.00
Antifoulant............... 400 3.33 765 6.38
Heat resistant............ 420 3.50 841 7.00
High gloss................ 420 3.50 841 7.00
High temperature.......... 500 4.17 1,237 10.31
Inorganic zinc high-build
primer................... 340 2.83 571 4.76
Military exterior......... 340 2.83 571 4.76
Mist...................... 610 5.08 2,235 18.63
Navigational aids......... 550 4.58 1,597 13.31
Nonskid................... 340 2.83 571 4.76
Nuclear................... 420 3.50 841 7.00
Organic zinc.............. 360 3.00 630 5.25
Pre-treatment wash primer. 780 6.50 11,095 92.46
Repair and maintenance of
thermoplastic coating of
commercial vessels....... 550 4.58 1,597 13.31
Rubber camouflage......... 340 2.83 571 4.76
Sealant coat for thermal
spray aluminum........... 610 5.08 2,235 18.63
Special marking........... 490 4.08 1,178 9.82
Specialty interior........ 340 2.83 571 4.76
Tack coat................. 610 5.08 2,235 18.63
Undersea weapons systems.. 340 2.83 571 4.76
Weld-through (shop) primer 650 5.42 2,885 24.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aVolatile organic HAP limits (for compliance options 1 through 4) are
expressed in units of mass of VOHAP per volume of coating less water
and non-HAP ``exempt'' solvents, as applied. Volatile compounds
classified by EPA as having negligible photochemical reactivity are
listed as ``exempt'' in 40 CFR 51.100(s) (except those on the HAP
list).
bTo convert from g/L to lb/gal, multiply by: [(3.785 L/gal)(lb/453.6 g)]
or (lb-L/120 g-gal).
cAlternate volatile organic HAP (VOHAPalt) limits (for compliance option
5) are expressed in units of mass of VOHAP per volume of solids, a
value that assumes the volumes of all components within a coating are
additive.
dFor compliance purposes, the metric limits are the standard.
Any new or reconstructed sources would be required to adhere to the
compliance schedule in Sec. 63.6(b) of subpart A of the general
provisions. For new or reconstructed sources whose startup date is
before the effective date of the rule, the compliance date would be the
effective date of the rule. For new or reconstructed sources whose
startup date is after the effective date of the rule, the compliance
date would be the startup date. A new unaffected area source that
increases its emissions (or potential to emit) such that it becomes a
major source would be required to comply immediately upon becoming a
major source.
Many shipyards in California have been complying with VOC limits
equal to those in the proposed BACM since September 1991. Hence,
coatings that meet the limits should be readily available.
E. Selection of Compliance Procedures
The proposed rule would allow affected sources to choose from five
options for demonstrating compliance with the VOHAP standards.
Regardless of the option(s) chosen, for each coating, affected sources
would be required to first determine: (1) its coating category in Table
1 (e.g., general use, air flask, antenna, etc.), (2) the applicable
VOHAP limit, and (3) the VOC (or VOHAP) content for each manufactured
batch of coating. The VOC (or VOHAP) content of the batch would be
determined through certification as explained in part III.D. (It is in
the best interest of affected sources to use manufacturers that certify
their coatings.)
For options 1 through 4 involving VOC content determinations, the
compliance method is the Agency's Method 24. Affected sources would be
allowed any of the methods described below to avoid testing every
container. The ultimate referee method, however, is Method 24. Option 5
involves VOHAP content determinations; the compliance method has to be
approved by the Administrator and comply with EPA requirements for
sample preparation.
The proposed rule does not specify compliance procedures for the
handling, transfer, and storage standard. Each affected source would be
required to develop and include specific compliance procedures for
their facility in the initial notification to the Administrator.
An affected source would be allowed to select any of the following
methods for compliance and may choose to use only one of the options
for all coatings at the facility or use a combination of options.
Option 1. Certification of Each Container or Coating, As-Applied
Procedures for certifying the quantity of VOC emitted by paints,
ink, and other coatings are combined in the EPA publication 450/3-84-
019 (revised 6/86). Compliance with the VOHAP content limits would be
achieved by sampling, testing, and certifying the VOC content of each
container of coating, as applied. If the as-applied VOC content is less
than or equal to the VOHAP limit in Table 1, the coating complies.
Option 2. Coatings To Which Thinning Solvent Will Not Be Added
If thinning solvents will not be added to the coating under any
circumstances, the affected source may demonstrate compliance with the
VOHAP content limit by certifying the as-applied VOC content by
manufacturer's batch. The as- applied certification may be based on a
coating that has been certified by the manufacturer as to the as-
supplied content and simply requires documentation that no thinning
solvent was added to the coating. No additional testing would be
necessary.
All painters would have to be notified that no thinning solvent may
be added to the coating before application. This notification may be
accomplished through a label affixed to each container in the batch or
through another means of notification specified in the source's initial
notification that is required in Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A of the
general provisions. Other means of notifying painters may include use
of a bar coding system or posting of a list of coatings that should not
have thinning solvents added.
This option is the least burdensome to affected sources, but it may
only be used for coatings that will not be thinned. However, any Method
24 tests on individual containers of coating, as applied, that show
noncompliance with the standards would take precedence and indicate a
violation.
Option 3. Coatings to Which Thinning Solvent Is Added--Coating-by-
Coating Compliance
If thinning solvents are added to the coating, the affected source
could determine the allowed level of dilution for purpose of
demonstrating compliance on a coating-by-coating basis. The source
would determine the as-supplied VOC content of each type of thinning
solvent. Then, using the as-supplied certification for the coating and
the maximum allowable limit from Table 1, the source would calculate
the maximum allowable thinning ratio that would not violate the VOHAP
content limit.
The persons responsible for applying each coating shall be notified
of the designated thinner and maximum allowable dilution ratio for that
coating by affixing a label to each container of coating in the batch
or through another means as discussed in the rule.
(A) For coatings and thinning solvents that do not contain water or
exempt compounds, use Equation 1 as follows:
TP06DE94.013
where:
Rd=Maximum allowable thinning ratio (L thinner/L coating
as supplied);
VOCs=As-supplied VOC content of the coating (g VOC/L coating as
supplied, less water and exempt solvents);
HAPa=Allowable as-applied VOHAP content of the coating (g VOHAP/L
coating as applied, less water and exempt solvents);
Rd=Density of the thinners (g thinner/L thinner);
(B) For coatings or thinners that contain water or exempt
compound(s), use Equation 2 as follows:
TP06DE94.014
where:
(Vw)s=Volume fraction of water and exempt solvents in the
coating as supplied (L water and exempt solvents/L coating as
supplied);
(Vw)d=Volume fraction of water and exempt solvents in the
thinner (L water and exempt solvents/L thinner); and
(Ww)d=Weight fraction of water and exempt solvents in the
thinner (g water and exempt solvents/g thinner).
(C) The procedures specified under test methods and procedures may
be used to determine the values of variables defined in this paragraph,
as necessary.
A source is to determine the total allowable volume of thinner for
each coating for the month using the following equation.
TP06DE94.015
where:
Vd=Total allowable volume of thinner for the coating for the
previous month (L thinner);
Vc=Volume of each batch of the coating, as supplied, used during
the month (L coating as supplied);
i=Each batch of coating; and
n=Total number of batches of the coating.
If the actual thinner volume used for a coating is less than or
equal to the total allowable thinner volume for that coating then
compliance is presumed for that coating for the month, unless a
violation is revealed using Method 24. (If it is greater, the facility
must report a violation.) Any Method 24 test on individual containers
of coating, as applied, that shows noncompliance with the standards
would take precedence and indicate a violation.
Option 4. A Group of Coatings To Which the Same Thinning Solvent Is
Added--Group Compliance
Inasmuch as shipyards may use the same solvent to reduce more than
one category of coating, this option was created to minimize
recordkeeping in such cases. The group compliance option is similar to
the coating-by-coating compliance option, except the source does not
need to maintain thinner usage by individual paint category; it would
be allowed to calculate the total allowable volume of thinner used for
a group of coatings. A group would be constituted based on use of
common thinner. A group could consist of two or more different batches
of the same coating or different coatings. For example, a group may
consist of a certain batch of antenna coating combined with all batches
of general use coatings. However, a group may not contain any coating
to which thinning solvent will not be added.
Affected sources would calculate the maximum allowable dilution
ratio for each coating using equation 1 or 2. All painters would have
to be notified of the maximum allowable dilution ratio for each
coating. Beginning with the recorded amount of coating used during the
previous month, the facility would calculate the net allowable volume
of thinner that could have been used by each coating in the group. If
the actual usage was less than or equal to the net allowable volume for
the group, the source is in compliance. However, any Method 24 test on
individual containers of coating, as applied, that shows noncompliance
with the standards would take precedence and indicate a violation.
Equations 1 through 3 were derived from the EPA's ``Procedures for
Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint,
Ink, and Other Coatings'' (Revised June 1986), EPA--450/3-84-019.
Option 5. Coatings with Noncompliant VOC Contents Used in Areas Without
VOC Limits
In those facilities located in areas without required VOC limits
for marine coatings (i.e., ozone attainment areas; all 25 of the
existing major source facilities are located in current ozone
nonattainment areas), the affected source may measure the HAP content
using the following techniques and using alternate limits derived from
the limits in the regulation to demonstrate compliance on a coating-by-
coating basis. The VOHAPalt limits were calculated using the
maximum allowable VOHAP limits (see Table 1) and an assumed average
density for all solvents. To demonstrate compliance, the source would
determine (using formulation data from the coating manufacturer) the
as-supplied VOC content and volume solids (Vs) of each coating.
Then, using the measured (via any approved test method) VOHAP
content divided by the volume solids, compliance can then be determined
with the calculated VOHAPalt limit. The following equations were
used to calculate the alternate VOHAP limits (for coatings that do not
contain any exempt solvents or water):*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Equation 5 only applies to those coatings containing only VOC's
and (volume) solids.
TP06DE94.016
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
where:
Vs**=Volume fraction of solids in the coating as supplied (L
solids/L coating as applied);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\*For purposes of this general discussion and example
calculation, volume solids (Vs) has been used interchangeably
with the term ``nonvolatiles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC=Applicable as-supplied VOC content of the coating (g VOC/L coating
as supplied, less water and exempt solvents; and
Davg=Average density of solvents in the coating (to demonstrate
compliance of a marine coating, use the solvent mixture in the coating
to calculate Davg.)
In order to calculate VOHAPalt limits, the VOC content was
assumed to be equal to the VOHAP limit for each coating category in
Table 1, therefore:
TP06DE94.017
where:
VOHAPlimit=Applicable as-applied VOHAP limit of the coating
category (g VOHAP/L coating as applied, less water and non-HAP exempt
solvents);
Davg=840 g/L (for conversion purposes, the average density of
solvents used in all marine coatings).
The VOHAPalt limits were then calculated using the following
equation:
TP06DE94.018
where:
VOHAPalt=Allowable as-applied alternate VOHAP content of the
coating (g VOHAP/L solids as applied)
Vs=Volume fraction of solids in the as applied coating (L solids/L
coating)
If the measured VOHAP contents for a coating divided by the volume
solids (Vs) is less than or equal to the calculated VOHAPalt
limit in Table 1, then compliance is demonstrated.
An example calculation for determining the VOHAPalt limit for
a ``general use'' coating follows:
First, the VOHAP limit=340 g/L and based on the assumption that the
coating is only comprised of VOC and (volume) solids,
TP06DE94.019
Then,
TP06DE94.020
When the as-applied coating contains thinner and/or exempt
compounds, special allowances (calculations) must be
TP06DE94.021
used to determine VOHAPalt limits. These special allowances and
procedures for compliance testing are covered in a June 30, 1994, memo
to the project file [Docket A-92-11, II-B-26] from Dr. Mohamed
Serageldin.
To further illustrate the VOHAPalt limit calculations, the
following example is provided: A shipyard wants to use (demonstrate
compliance using option 5) a general use coating with a VOC content of
392 g/L less water and exempt solvents, a measured VOHAP content of 288
g/L less water, and an average solvent density of 880 g/L. Since the
VOHAP limit for general use coatings is 340 g/L less water, the
VOHAPalt limits were calculated to be 571 g VOHAP/L solids (see
Table 1).
TP06DE94.022
Compliance for the coating is therefore demonstrated because the
VOHAP content of 519 g/L solids is less than the VOHAPalt limit of
571 g/L solids.
F. Selection of Test Methods and Procedures
Since the EPA does not yet have a published reference method for
analyzing for the amount of VOHAP in a coating, the measure of total
VOC is to be used as a surrogate. Method 24 is the Agency's reference
method for determining the total volatile organic content (the total
amount of VOHAP and other volatile organics). The proposed rule would
use the VOC content of as-applied coatings to determine compliance with
the VOHAP content limits (see section VII.B.1).
Most, if not all, major shipbuilding facilities are believed to be
located in ozone nonattainment areas. These facilities are likely to be
required to meet State VOC regulations requiring BACM. As explained
earlier in this notice, the EPA's draft recommended BACM for the draft
CTG contains VOC limits equivalent to the VOHAP limits being proposed.
Thus, using Method 24 to measure compliance with both the VOC and HAP
rules (i.e., one test to satisfy two concerns) should be the least
burdensome route of any source having to meet VOC rules in addition to
HAP rules. However, in case there are any sources which are not
required to meet VOC rules and have a desire to determine compliance
through measuring VOHAP instead of VOC, an approach as outlined in
option 5 is being proposed. (Comments are requested.)
The proposed rule would require that affected sources use forms and
procedures comparable to those in the EPA's ``Procedures for Certifying
Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink and Other
Coatings,'' (Revised June 1986) EPA-450/3-84-019 for all certifications
needed for compliance demonstrations. Consistent use of these forms and
procedures will provide uniform and complete records that will allow
determination of ``continuous'' compliance with the standards.
Procedures other than test methods would be required to demonstrate
compliance with the handling, transfer, and storage standard. Each
source is required to submit an implementation plan that will include
specific procedures to ensure compliance.
G. Selection of Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
1. Notification Requirements
The proposed rule would require affected sources to submit an
initial notification and subsequent quarterly notifications of
compliance status. Exceedances (violations) should be reported on a
quarterly basis. The notification requirements in Secs. 63.9 (a)-(d)
and (h)-(j) of subpart A would apply to all affected sources in
addition to the source category-specific requirements in the proposed
rule. Sections 63.9 (e)-(g) of subpart A would not apply unless an
affected source installs an add-on control device.
Section 63.9(b) of subpart A contains the initial notification
requirements. The initial notification would alert the Administrator
of: (1) The applicability for existing facilities or of construction
for new facilities, (2) how the source plans to comply with the
proposed standards, and (3) if any delays in compliance are expected.
This notification would be due no later than 120 calendar days after
the effective date of the rule for existing sources; for new or
reconstructed sources, the due date would be within 120 days after
initial startup if approval of construction or reconstruction is not
required under Sec. 63.5(d) of subpart A. In addition to the items
listed in Sec. 63.9(b) of subpart A, sources would be required to
include in the initial notification: (1) The compliance procedure(s)
that they intend to use for the coating operation standards; (2)
procedures for ensuring compliance with the handling, transfer, and
storage standard; and (3) procedures for maintaining records.
Section 63.9(h) of subpart A contains the requirements for
notification of compliance status. These would notify the Administrator
of whether compliance has been achieved over the past 3 months. These
notifications would be due before the 60th day following completion of
each 3-month period. If there are no violations within the first year,
compliant sources may request permission from the Administrator to go
to 6-month notifications. Because records would be compiled on a
monthly basis, 60 days should provide sufficient time to prepare these
notifications. In addition to the items listed in Sec. 63.9(h) of
subpart A, affected sources would be required to include in these
notifications all other records that the source is required to maintain
and compile on a monthly basis according to the proposed rule.
2. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The proposed rule would require affected sources to maintain
adequate records to verify the compliance status of the source on a
monthly basis. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the
general provisions in Secs. 63.10 (a)-(b) and (f) of subpart A would
apply to all affected sources. The source category-specific
requirements in the proposed rule also apply. Sections 63.10 (c)-(e) of
subpart A would not apply unless an affected source installs an add-on
control.
Affected sources would be required to keep records for 5 years of
all VOC content certifications, VOHAP content certifications, maximum
allowable dilution ratios, quantities of coatings and thinner consumed,
and compliance calculations needed to determine compliance with the
standards. These records would vary slightly depending on the method(s)
of determining compliance under Sec. 63.784 that the source chooses to
use. Records of any Method 24 tests (or VOHAP tests) conducted on
individual coatings, as applied, would also be maintained. These
records are required in case the results of any such test conflicts
with the results of any compliance determination conducted in
accordance with the other allowable methods.
The Administrator believes that the records required under the
proposed rule are necessary for a regulatory agency to determine the
compliance status of an affected source efficiently and effectively.
All records would be compiled each calendar month and maintained for a
minimum of 5 years.
H. Operating Permit Program
Under the operating permit regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70,
any source that is considered major under the Act or any nonmajor
source subject to a standard under sections 111 or 112 of the Act must
obtain an operating permit [see Sec. 70.3(a)(1)]. Often, emission
limits, monitoring, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements are
scattered among numerous provisions of State implementation plans or
Federal regulations. As discussed in the promulgated regulation for the
operating permit program published on July 21, 1992 (57 FR 32250), this
new permit program includes all of the air pollution control
requirements that pertain to a single major stationary source in a
single document. Sources subject to the program are required to submit
complete permit applications within a year after a State operating
permit program is approved by the EPA; if a State program is not
approved, sources will submit applications to the EPA within a year
after the Federal program is promulgated.
I. Solicitation of Comments
The Administrator solicits comments on all aspects of this
proposal. However, the Administrator is specifically requesting comment
on the topics discussed in this section. Commenters should provide
available data and rationale to support their comments on each topic.
The Administrator specifically requests comments on the MACT floor
determination, subcategorization, and claims by some shipyards on the
need for thinning solvents beyond levels indicated by the manufacturer
because of viscosity problems attributable to extremely cold weather.
Specifically, comments are requested on: (1) Are such needs compulsory
or more convenience, (2) why in-line heaters would not provide
sufficient viscosity control, (3) what extreme climatic conditions
(e.g., temperature, humidity, etc.) would justify excess thinning, (4)
how such additional solvent could be linked in quantity (e.g., dilution
to a preapproved viscosity setpoint), and (5) any other information
that would help the Agency in this matter.
The Administrator also requests comments on the timeframe for
submitting items in the initial notification that are not required
under the General Provisions Secs. 63.9(b) (2) and (3) of subpart A.
These items are the compliance procedure(s) that the source intends to
use to demonstrate compliance; procedures for ensuring compliance with
the handling, storage, and transfer standards; and procedures for
maintaining records. Specifically, comments are requested on whether
120 days is sufficient time to prepare and submit these items.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act.
Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed standards for
coating operations at shipbuilding facilities should contact the EPA at
the address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the
public may file a written statement before, during, or within 30 days
after the hearing. Written statements should be addressed to the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center address given in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble, and should refer to Docket No. A-
92-11.
A transcript of the hearing and written statements will be
available for public inspection and copying during normal working hours
at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in
Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
B. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by the EPA in the development of
this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1)
To allow interested parties to readily identify and locate documents so
that they can intelligently and effectively participate in the
rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial
review [except for interagency review materials (section
307(d)(7)(A))].
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
3. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order. The proposed rule for coating operations at
shipbuilding facilities does not meet any of the criteria in the
Executive Order and is therefore not subject to the requirement for a
regulatory impact analysis.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of the E.O. 12866 and is therefore
not subject to OMB review.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request document has
been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1712.01), and a copy may be obtained
from Ms. Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW. (Mail Code 2136), Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 845 hours per source for the first year after the
date of promulgation of the rule, including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. The cost for this additional burden per
source is estimated to be $27,158 during the first year.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing his
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
EPA to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small
business ``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a
proposed regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20
percent or more of small entities, then a regulatory flexibility
analysis must be prepared.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Using the Small Business Administration's definition of small
business for SIC Code 3731 of less than 1,000 employees, and examining
the result of the economic impact analysis it has been determined that
no small entities will be affected by the proposed rule. Therefore, a
preliminary assessment of the impact of today's proposed rule on small
entities indicated that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
F. Clean Air Act Section 117
In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
The Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed
rule, including health, economic, technological, or other aspects.
G. Regulatory Review
In accordance with sections 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) of the Act,
this regulation will be reviewed within 8 years from the date of
promulgation. This review may include an assessment of such factors as
evaluation of the residual health risk, any overlap with other
programs, the existence of alternative methods, enforceability,
improvements in emission control technology and health data, and
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard for
shipbuilding and ship repair facilities.
X. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42
U.S.C., 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601.
Dated: November 22, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-29824 Filed 12-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-40-P