[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 136 (Friday, July 14, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43842-43872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15505]
[[Page 43841]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat
Manufacturing; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 136 / Friday, July 14, 2000 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 43842]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6719-3]
RIN 2060-AG27
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Boat
Manufacturing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing boat manufacturing
facilities. The processes regulated include fiberglass resin and gel
coat operations, carpet and fabric adhesive operations, and aluminum
boat painting operations. The EPA has identified boat manufacturing as
a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), such as styrene,
methyl methacrylate (MMA), methylene chloride (dichloromethane),
toluene, xylenes, n-hexanes, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methyl isobutyl
ketone (MIBK), and methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane). These
proposed standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards
reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control technology
(MACT). We estimate the proposed NESHAP would reduce nationwide
emissions of HAP from these facilities by approximately 36 percent from
the 1997 level of emissions.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before September 12, 2000.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by August 3, 2000, a public hearing will be held on
August 14, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate
if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(6102), Attention Docket Number A-95-44, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
Docket. Docket No. A-95-44 contains supporting information used in
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Morris, Organic Chemicals Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5416, [email protected]. For
public hearing information contact Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5607.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by the EPA in the development of this
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the
CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Maria
Noell, Organic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5607
at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in
attending the public hearing must also call Maria Noell to verify the
time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will
provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or
arguments concerning these proposed emission standards.
Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-
mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted
as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and encryption
problems and will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect'' version
5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All comments and data submitted in
electronic form must note the docket number: A-95-44. No confidential
business information (CBI) should be submitted by e-mail. Electronic
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mark Morris, c/o OAQPS
Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. EPA, 411 W. Chapel Hill
Street, Durham, NC 27701. The EPA will disclose information identified
as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it
is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the
public without further notice to the commenter.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the proposed NESHAP will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature,
a copy of the proposed NESHAP will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
[[Page 43843]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS code SIC code Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial.......................... 336612 3732 Boat manufacturing facilities that perform
fiberglass production operations or aluminum
coating operations.
3731 Shipbuilding and repair facilities that perform
fiberglass production operations or aluminum
coating operations.
Federal Government.................. 336612 3731 Federally owned facilities (e.g., Navy
3732 shipyards) that perform fiberglass production
operations or aluminum coating operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in section II.A. of this
preamble. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Introduction
A. What is the purpose of the proposed NESHAP?
B. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP?
C. What are the potential health effects of the HAP emitted by
the boat manufacturing industry?
D. How were the proposed NESHAP developed?
E. What processes and operations constitute boat manufacturing?
II. Summary of the Proposed NESHAP
A. What sources and operations are subject to the proposed
NESHAP?
B. What pollutants are regulated by the proposed NESHAP?
C. What do the proposed NESHAP require?
D. What is the MACT model point value and how is it used in the
proposed NESHAP?
E. When must I comply with the proposed NESHAP?
F. How do I demonstrate compliance with the proposed NESHAP?
G. How do I demonstrate compliance if I use an enclosure and an
add-on control device?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What facilities are affected by the proposed NESHAP?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the water quality impacts?
D. What are the solid and hazardous waste impacts?
E. What are the energy impacts?
F. What are the cost impacts?
G. What are the economic impacts?
IV. Rationale for the Proposed NESHAP
A. How did EPA determine the source category to regulate?
B. What pollutants are regulated under the proposed NESHAP?
C. What is the ``affected source'' and how did EPA select the
operations to be regulated by the proposed NESHAP?
D. What is a new affected source?
E. How did EPA determine the MACT floor for existing sources?
F. How did EPA determine the MACT floor for new sources?
G. Did EPA consider control options more stringent than the MACT
floor?
H. Why are some boat manufacturing operations not being covered
by the proposed NESHAP?
I. How did EPA select the format of the proposed NESHAP?
J. How did EPA select the test methods for determining
compliance with the proposed NESHAP?
K. How did EPA determine the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements?
L. How did EPA select the notification and reporting
requirements?
V. Relationship to Other Standards and Programs under the CAA
A. National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control
Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a
Process (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS)
B. Shipbuilding and Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR Part
63, Subpart II)
C. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part
63 Subpart JJ)
D. Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating) NESHAP
E. Relationship Between Operating Permit Program and the
Proposed Standards
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Introduction
A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed NESHAP?
The purpose of the proposed NESHAP is to protect the public health
by reducing emissions of HAP from boat manufacturing facilities.
B. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Proposed NESHAP?
The CAA was created, in part, ``* * * to protect and enhance the
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population * *
*'' (see section 101(b) of the CAA). The proposed NESHAP are consistent
with the requirements of the CAA.
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we promulgate regulations for
the control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the regulations to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable taking into consideration the cost
of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air-quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. This level of control
is commonly referred to as the maximum achievable control technology.
We based the proposed NESHAP for boat manufacturing for new and
existing sources on the MACT floor control level. The MACT floor is the
minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under section
112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that all major
HAP emission sources achieve the level of control already achieved by
the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each category. For
new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar
source. The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than
standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the
average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent
of existing sources (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
We estimate that major sources in the boat manufacturing source
category collectively emit 9,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (9,920 tons
per year (tons/yr)) of HAP. A major source of HAP is defined as any
stationary source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous
area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit,
considering controls, in the aggregate, 9.1 Mg/yr (10 tons/yr) or more
of any single HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr or more (25 tons/yr) of multiple HAP.
[[Page 43844]]
In developing MACT, we also must consider control options that are
more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of cost, non-air-
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Are the Potential Health Effects of the HAP Emitted by the Boat
Manufacturing Industry?
The following is a summary of the potential health and
environmental effects associated with exposure, at some level, to
emitted pollutants that the proposed NESHAP would reduce.
Styrene. Humans exposed to styrene for short periods through
inhalation may exhibit irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes, and
gastrointestinal effects. Styrene inhalation over longer periods may
cause central nervous system effects including headache, fatigue,
weakness, and depression. Exposure may also damage peripheral nerves
and cause changes to the kidney and blood. Chronic inhalation studies
with animals have indicated that styrene affects the central nervous
system, liver, and kidney, and irritates eye and nasal membranes. The
EPA has developed a reference concentration of 1 milligram per cubic
meter (mg/m \3\) for styrene based on central nervous system effects in
exposed workers. Inhalation of this concentration or less over a
lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects.
Epidemiological studies have suggested an association between styrene
exposure and increased incidence of leukemia and lymphoma. The EPA
considers this evidence to be inconclusive because of multiple chemical
exposures and inadequate information on the levels and duration of
exposure. Animal cancer studies have produced variable results but
provide limited evidence for carcinogenicity. The EPA has not
classified styrene with respect to carcinogenicity. The EPA is
currently reviewing its assessment of styrene.
Methyl methacrylate. Humans exposed to MMA for short periods
through inhalation may experience depression of the central nervous
system and irritation of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Dermal
exposure may cause a severe allergic response. Short-term animal
studies have indicated that MMA inhalation damages the liver and lung.
Kidney and liver lesions have been observed in humans who ingested MMA
over longer periods and in animals exposed either orally or by
inhalation. Workers exposed through inhalation have indicated
headaches, fatigue, sleeping disturbances, and irritability. Exposed
workers have also suffered reproductive effects, including pregnancy
complications in women and sexual disorders in both men and women.
Fetal abnormalities have been reported in animals exposed to MMA by
injection and inhalation. The EPA has developed a reference
concentration of 0.7 mg/m \3\ for MMA. Inhalation of this concentration
or less over a lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse
noncancer effects. Several animal studies observed no carcinogenic
effects. The EPA has classified MMA in Group E, not likely to be
carcinogenic in humans.
Methylene chloride. Short-term exposure of humans to high-levels of
methylene chloride affects the central nervous system, causing
impairment of vision and hearing. These effects are reversible once
exposure ceases. Long-term exposure also affects the central nervous
system, causing headaches, dizziness, nausea, and memory loss. Studies
of methylene chloride exposure to animals have indicated effects to the
liver, kidney, and cardiovascular system. Animal studies have indicated
that methylene chloride inhalation causes tumors of the lung, liver,
and mammary glands. Based on this evidence, EPA has classified
methylene chloride in Group B2, a probable human carcinogen, with an
inhalation unit risk of 4.7 x 10-7 per microgram per cubic
meter (g/m3).
Toluene. Humans exposed to toluene for short periods may experience
irregular heartbeat and effects to the central nervous system such as
fatigue, sleepiness, headache, and nausea. Repeated exposure to high
concentrations may induce loss of coordination, tremors, decreased
brain size, and involuntary eye movements, and may impair speech,
hearing, and vision. Chronic exposure to toluene in humans has also
been indicated to irritate the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract, and
to cause dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep. Children
exposed to toluene before birth may suffer central nervous system
dysfunction, attention deficits, and minor face and limb defects.
Inhalation of toluene by pregnant women may increase the risk of
spontaneous abortion. The EPA has developed a reference concentration
of 0.4 mg/m3 for toluene. Inhalation of this concentration
or less over a lifetime would be unlikely to result in adverse
noncancer effects. No data exist that suggest toluene is carcinogenic.
The EPA has classified toluene in Group D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity.
Xylenes. Short-term inhalation of mixed xylenes (a mixture of three
closely related compounds) in humans may cause irritation of the nose
and throat, nausea, vomiting, gastric irritation, mild transient eye
irritation, and neurological effects. Long-term inhalation of xylenes
in humans may result in central nervous system effects such as
headache, dizziness, fatigue, tremors, and incoordination. Other
reported effects include labored breathing, heart palpitation, severe
chest pain, abnormal electrocardiograms, and possible effects on the
blood and kidneys. Developmental effects have been indicated from
xylene exposure via inhalation in animals. Not enough information
exists to determine the carcinogenic potential of mixed xylenes. The
EPA has classified xylenes in Group D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity.
n-Hexane. Short-term inhalation exposure of humans to high levels
of n-hexane causes mild central nervous system depression. Dermal
exposure may cause irritation of the skin and mucous membrane. The
nervous system effects include dizziness, giddiness, slight nausea, and
headache in humans, with numbness in the extremities, muscular
weakness, blurred vision, headache, and fatigue observed. Neurotoxic
effects have also been exhibited in rats. Mild inflammatory and
degenerative lesions in the nasal cavity have been observed in rodents
chronically exposed through inhalation. The reference concentration for
hexane is 0.2 mg/m3. The EPA estimates that inhalation of
this concentration or less over a lifetime would not likely result in
the occurrence of chronic noncancer effects. No information is
available on the carcinogenic effects of hexane in humans or animals.
The EPA has classified hexane as a Group D, not classifiable as to
human carcinogenicity.
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Short-term inhalation exposure to MEK in
humans may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat, and cause central
nervous system depression. Limited information is available on long-
term effects of MEK exposure to humans, but chronic inhalation studies
in animals have indicated effects on the central nervous system, liver,
and respiratory system. The EPA's reference concentration for MEK is 1
mg/m3, based on decreased fetal birth weight in mice.
Inhalation of this concentration or less over a lifetime would be
unlikely to result in adverse noncancer effects. Limited data exist on
carcinogenic effects of MEK. The EPA has classified MEK in Group D, not
classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.
[[Page 43845]]
Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK). Short-term exposure to MIBK may
irritate the eyes and mucous membranes, and cause weakness, headache,
and nausea. Long-term exposure by workers has been observed to cause
nausea, headache, burning eyes, insomnia, intestinal pain, and slight
enlargement of the liver. No information is available on reproductive
or developmental effects of MIBK in humans, but studies with rats and
mice have indicated neurological effects and increased liver and kidney
weights. The EPA has not established a reference concentration or
classified MIBK with respect to carcinogenicity.
1,1,1-trichloroethane. Short-term inhalation exposure of humans to
1,1,1-trichloroethane causes mild hepatic effects, central nervous
system depression, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of
consciousness, and decreased blood pressure. Cardiac arrhythmia and
respiratory arrest may result from the depression of the central
nervous system. After long-term inhalation exposure to 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, some liver damage was observed in mice and ventricular
arrhythmias in humans. The reference concentration for 1,1,1-
trichloroethane is under review by EPA. The EPA has classified 1,1,1-
trichloroethane as a Group D, not classifiable as to human
carcinogenicity, based on no reported human data and inadequate animal
data.
D. How Were the Proposed NESHAP Developed?
We consulted many representatives of the boat manufacturing
industry, State and Federal representatives, and material and equipment
vendors in developing the proposed NESHAP. We held a series of
approximately 50 stakeholder meetings over a period of nearly 4 years.
These meetings were held to keep stakeholders informed and to solicit
data and information on issues relevant to the NESHAP development.
Stakeholders helped in data gathering, arranged site visits, and
reviewed questionnaires. Stakeholders also shared data, identified
issues and provided information to help resolve issues in the
rulemaking process.
We identified the MACT floor control level with information
obtained through questionnaire responses, site visits, telephone
contacts, and operating permits.
E. What Processes and Operations Constitute Boat Manufacturing?
The proposed NESHAP regulate fiberglass and aluminum boat
manufacturing operations. The emissions from these boat manufacturing
operations and processes are fugitive emissions. Fugitive emissions
result from HAP evaporating from the resins, gel coats, solvents,
adhesives, and surface coatings used in manufacturing processes.
The following is a brief description of these processes and
operations found at boat manufacturing facilities: fiberglass boat
manufacturing operations; fabric and carpet adhesive operations; and
aluminum boat surface coating operations.
Fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. Fiberglass boats are
built from glass fiber reinforcements laid in a mold and saturated with
a polyester or vinylester plastic resin. The resin hardens to form a
rigid plastic part reinforced with the fiberglass. The resin is mixed
with a catalyst as it is applied that causes a cross-linking reaction
between the resin molecules. The cross-linking reaction causes the
resin to harden from a liquid to a solid.
Fiberglass manufacturing processes are generally considered either
``open molding'' or ``closed molding.'' In open molding, fiberglass
boat parts are built ``from the outside in'' according to three basic
process steps:
(1) The mold is sprayed with a layer of gel coat, which is a
pigmented polyester resin that hardens and becomes the smooth outside
surface of the part.
(2) The inside of the hardened gel coat layer is coated with a
``skin coat'' of chopped glass fibers and polyester or vinylester
resin.
(3) Additional layers of fiberglass cloth or chopped glass fibers
saturated with resin are added until the part is the final thickness.
The same basic process is used to build or repair molds with
tooling gel coat and tooling resin.
In closed molding, the resin is applied to fabric placed between
the halves of a two-piece mold. Three basic types of closed molding
used in boat manufacturing are resin infusion molding, resin transfer
molding (RTM), and compression molding with sheet molding compound
(SMC).
The polyester and vinylester resins that are used in fiberglass
boat manufacturing contain styrene as a solvent and a cross-linking
agent. Gel coats also contain MMA as a solvent, and styrene. Styrene
and MMA are HAP, and a fraction evaporates during resin and gel coat
application and curing. Resins and gel coats containing styrene and MMA
are also used to make the molds used in producing fiberglass parts.
Mixing is done to stir the resin or gel coat and promoters,
fillers, or other additives before being applied to the parts. Some HAP
from the resin and gel coat are emitted during the mixing process.
Resin and gel coat application equipment requires solvent cleaning
to remove uncured resin or gel coat when not in use. The resin or gel
coat will catalyze in the hoses or gun if not flushed with a solvent
after each use.
Fabric and carpet adhesive operations. The interiors of many types
of fiberglass boats and aluminum boats are covered with carpeting or
fabric to improve the appearance, provide traction, or deaden sound.
The material is bonded to the interior with contact adhesives. The HAP-
containing solvents, such as methylene chloride, toluene, xylenes, and
methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), are used in these adhesives.
The solvents evaporate as the adhesives dry.
Aluminum boat surface coatings. Aluminum boat hull topsides and
decks are painted with coatings applied with spray guns. These coatings
may be high-gloss polyurethane coatings or low-gloss single-part
coatings. These surface coatings often contain HAP solvents, such as
toluene, xylenes, and isocyanates.
The HAP-containing solvents are also used to clean surfaces before
finishing (wipe-down solvents) and for cleaning paint and coating spray
guns.
II. Summary of Proposed NESHAP
This preamble section discusses the proposed NESHAP as they apply
to ``you,'' the owner or operator of a new or existing boat
manufacturing facility.
A. What Sources and Operations Are Subject to the Proposed NESHAP?
The proposed NESHAP would regulate HAP from major sources that
manufacture fiberglass boats or noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum
boats. Coating operations on aluminum commercial and military vessels
are covered by the shipbuilding and repair NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart II).
The proposed NESHAP apply to fiberglass boat manufacturers making
all sizes and types of fiberglass boats using the operations listed
below:
All open molding operations, including pigmented gel coat,
clear gel coat, production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat.
All closed molding resin operations.
All resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning.
All resin and gel coat mixing operations.
All carpet and fabric adhesive operations.
[[Page 43846]]
The proposed NESHAP apply to aluminum boat manufacturing facilities
performing the operations listed below:
All aluminum boat surface coatings and associated spray
gun cleaning and wipe-down solvent operations.
All carpet and fabric adhesive operations.
B. What Pollutants are Regulated by the Proposed NESHAP?
The proposed NESHAP regulate the total HAP content in the materials
used in each regulated operation. The proposed NESHAP do not set limits
for individual species of HAP. The HAP emitted by boat manufacturing
facilities typically include styrene, MMA, toluene, xylenes, methyl
chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), MEK, n-hexane, and MIBK. However,
the total HAP content limit includes all HAP listed in section 112(b)
of the CAA.
C. What Do the Proposed NESHAP Require?
The proposed NESHAP have various formats for the different
operations being regulated. For open molding resin and gel coat
operations, you must comply with a HAP emission limit that is
calculated for your facility using MACT model point value equations,
which are described in section II.D., for each open molding operation.
You can demonstrate compliance with the HAP emissions limit for
your facility either by (1) averaging emissions with the MACT model
point value equations, (2) complying with equivalent material HAP
content requirements for each type of open molding operation, or (3)
using an add-on control device. The HAP emissions limit and equivalent
HAP content requirements are the same for new and existing sources. You
may use averaging for all of your open molding operations or only for
some of them. For those operations not included in the emissions
average, you must comply with one of the alternative provisions.
For resin operations, different HAP content requirements apply to
atomized and nonatomized resin application methods. The HAP content
requirements for open molding are presented in table 2 of the proposed
NESHAP. If you use an add-on control device to meet the emissions
limit, the emissions limit is calculated using the MACT model point
value operations and is in units of kilograms (kg) of HAP per megagram
(1000 kg) of resin or gel coat consumed.
As stated above, you may use a combination of compliance options
for the different resin and gel coat operations within your facility.
For example, a hull production line may use several resins and gel
coats. The skin coat resin may comply with the HAP content
requirements, while you may decide to use the averaging approach to
comply by averaging between the laminating resin and production gel
coats. In another example, you could include in the average all
production resins and pigmented gel coats at your facility, but decide
not to include clear gel coat, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat. You
could also use averaging to use a mix of atomized and nonatomized resin
application methods but at different HAP contents from those in table 2
of the proposed NESHAP.
Other operations regulated by the proposed NESHAP would be subject
to work practice requirements or HAP content limits. Resin and gel coat
mixing containers with a capacity of 208 liters (55 gallons) or more
must be covered. Routine resin and gel coat application equipment
cleaning operations must use zero-HAP solvents, but solvents used to
remove cured resin or gel coat from equipment would be exempt. The
containers used to hold the exempt solvent and to soak the equipment
with cured resin and gel coat must be covered. Carpet and fabric
adhesive operations must use zero-HAP adhesives. Aluminum boat wipedown
solvents and surface coatings would be subject to HAP content limits.
Aluminum boat spray gun cleaning operations would be subject to a work
practice requirement. The NESHAP for these operations are the same for
new and existing sources. The proposed NESHAP have no averaging
compliance options for these operations. Today's proposed NESHAP
contain the specific requirements for each operation regulated by this
proposal.
Compliance with all of the emissions limits in the proposed NESHAP
are based on a 3-month rolling average except when an add-on control
device is used. At the end of every month, you determine compliance for
each operation based on the HAP content and material consumption data
collected over the past 3 months. When an add-on control device is
used, compliance is determined through a one-time test and subsequent
monitoring.
D. What Is the MACT Model Point Value and How Is It Used In the
Proposed NESHAP?
The MACT model point value is a number calculated for each open
molding operation and is a surrogate for emissions. The MACT model
point value is a way to rank the relative performance of different
resin and gel coat emissions reduction techniques. This approach allows
you to create control strategies using different resin and gel coat
emissions reduction techniques. The proposed NESHAP provide equations
to calculate MACT model point values based on HAP content and
application method for each material that you use. These MACT model
point values are then averaged and compared to limits in the proposed
NESHAP to determine if your open molding operations are in compliance.
The MACT model point values have units of kilograms of HAP per
megagram of resin or gel coat applied. It is important to note that the
MACT model point values are surrogates for emissions, and the MACT
model point value equations are used only for determining compliance
with the emissions limit for open molding operations. The MACT model
point value equations should not be used in other environmental
programs for estimating emissions in place of true emission factor
equations.
The MACT model point value equations account only for HAP content
and application method. Other factors (including curing time, part
thickness, and operator technique) can have significant effects on
emissions, and these factors are not accounted for in the MACT model
point value equations. Determining the HAP content of materials and the
method of application is relatively easy, but it is difficult to
determine the other factors. Therefore, these factors are not included
in the MACT model point value equations.
E. When Must I Comply With the Proposed NESHAP?
Existing boat manufacturing facilities must comply within 3 years
of the date the promulgated NESHAP are published in the Federal
Register. New sources that commence construction after today's date
must comply immediately upon startup or by the promulgation date,
whichever is later.
F. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance With the Proposed NESHAP?
Unless you are using an add-on control device, you must measure and
record the HAP contents of all the materials regulated by the proposed
NESHAP. You may determine HAP content using EPA Method 311, but you may
also use documentation provided by the material manufacturer, such as a
material safety data sheet (MSDS) or HAP data sheet to show compliance.
Although you may use either EPA Method 311 or the manufacturer's
documentation to show compliance, EPA will use EPA Method 311 results
to
[[Page 43847]]
determine compliance if they differ from the manufacturer's
documentation.
Compliance with the HAP content limits is based on the weighted-
average HAP content for each material on a 3-month rolling-average
basis. Compliance is determined at the end of every month (12 times per
year) based on the past 3 months of data. To determine weighted-average
HAP content, you will also need to monitor and record the amount of
each regulated material used per month, as well as HAP content.
If all of the material in a particular operation meets the
applicable HAP content limit, then you would not need to record the
amount of material used. Likewise, you would not need to perform and
record any calculations to determine weighted-average HAP content.
For open molding resin and gel coat operations, how you show
compliance will depend on which compliance option you choose. For
example, if you choose to average among several open molding resin and
gel coat operations, you will have greater operating flexibility, but
you will also need to do more recordkeeping and calculations to show
compliance than if you comply with the HAP content limits. Also, you
must complete an implementation plan for the open molding operations at
your facility that are included in an averaging option. The
implementation plan must describe the resin and gel coat materials you
plan to use, their HAP contents, and how you will apply those materials
so that you are in compliance. The plan must also include calculations
showing that your choice of materials and application methods will
achieve compliance.
You must keep records of the HAP content of all materials that are
subject to HAP content limits. You must also keep records of the amount
of material used and any calculations you perform to determine
compliance using weighted-average HAP contents or the averaging option
for open molding operations. Every month, you must inspect the covers
required by the work practice standards for resin and gel coat mixing
containers and aluminum boat coating spray gun cleaners. You must also
keep records of the results of these inspections and any repairs made
to the covers. All records must be kept for 5 years (at least the last
2 years of records must be kept onsite).
Today's proposed NESHAP contain the specific monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for each operation regulated
by this proposal.
G. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance If I Use an Enclosure and an Add-On
Control Device?
If you use an enclosure (such as a spray booth) and add-on control,
you must use EPA Method 204 to prove that the enclosure is a total
enclosure. If the enclosure is not a total enclosure, you must use a
temporary enclosure to measure the fugitive emissions from the
enclosure and the control device. Stack testing is used to determine
compliance with the emissions limit. You must use either EPA Method 25A
to measure emissions as total hydrocarbons (as a surrogate for total
HAP) or EPA Method 18 for specific HAP.
During and after the initial performance test, you must monitor and
record certain control device parameters to ensure that the control
device continues to be operated as it was during the test. For example,
for thermal oxidizers, you must monitor and record combustion
temperature and maintain the temperature above an allowable minimum
value. The monitoring requirements for several add-on control devices
(including absorbers, adsorbers, and condensers) are contained in 40
CFR part 63, subpart SS, and are referenced in the proposed NESHAP. For
other control devices not listed in subpart SS, you must identify
parameters that demonstrate proper control device operation and have
these parameters approved by the EPA. Monitored operating parameters
must be kept within the allowable ranges to demonstrate compliance with
the control device operating requirements.
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts
A. What Facilities Are Affected by the Proposed NESHAP?
There are approximately 119 existing facilities manufacturing
fiberglass boats or aluminum boats that are major sources and would be
subject to the proposed NESHAP. The rate of growth for the boat
manufacturing industry is estimated to be five new facilities per year
for the next 5 years.
B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
The 1997 baseline emissions from the boat manufacturing industry
are approximately 9,000 Mg/yr (9,920 tons/yr). The proposed NESHAP
would reduce HAP from existing sources by 3,220 Mg/yr (3,550 tons/yr)
from the baseline level, a reduction of 36 percent. Table 2 shows the
amount of HAP reduced by each type of operation.
Table 2.--National Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Each Type of Operation (1997 Data)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline emissions Potential emissions
-------------------------- reductions
Operation Percent of -------------------------
Mg/yr total Mg/yr Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production resin............................................ 5,320 59.2 2,020 38
Tooling resin............................................... 80 0.9 30 43
Pigmented gel coat.......................................... 2,440 27.0 330 14
Clear gel coat.............................................. 190 2.1 5 2
Tooling gel coat............................................ 40 0.4 7 19
Closed molding resin........................................ NE NE NE NE
Resin and gel coat mixing................................... NE NE NE NE
Fiberglass application equipment cleaning solvents.......... 130 1.5 130 100
Carpet and fabric adhesives................................. 543 6.0 540 100
Aluminum Wipedown Solvents.................................. 60 0.7 40 65
Aluminum Boat Surface Coatings.............................. 190 2.1 100 54
---------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................ 9,000 ........... 3,223 36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE means ``not estimated.''
The proposed NESHAP will not result in any increase in other air
pollution emissions. While combustion devices can result in increased
sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen emissions, we do not expect
anyone to comply by
[[Page 43848]]
installing new combustion devices during the next 5 years.
C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?
We estimate that the proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP will have
no adverse water quality impacts. We do not expect anyone to comply by
using add-on control devices or process modifications that would
generate wastewater.
D. What Are the Solid and Hazardous Waste Impacts?
We estimate that the proposed NESHAP will decrease the amount of
solid waste generated by the boat manufacturing industry by
approximately 360 Mg/yr (400 tons/yr). The decrease in solid waste is
directly related to switching to nonatomized resin application
equipment (i.e., flowcoaters and resin rollers). Switching to
flowcoaters results in a decrease in overspray because of a greater
transfer efficiency of resin from flowcoaters to the part being
manufactured. A decrease in resin overspray consequently reduces the
amount of waste from disposable floor coverings, cured resin waste, and
personal protective equipment (PPE) for workers. Disposable floor
coverings are replaced on a periodic basis to prevent resin buildup on
the floor. We estimate that solid waste generation of floor coverings
will decrease by approximately 320 Mg/yr (350 tons/yr), and that cured
resin solid waste will decrease by approximately 45 Mg/yr (50 tons/yr).
Decreased overspray from flowcoaters will result in a decreased
usage of PPE, which also consequently reduces the amount of solid
waste. Workers who use flowcoaters typically wear less PPE than when
using spray guns because of the reduced presence of resin aerosols and
lower styrene levels in the workplace. Because we did not have
information on the many different types of PPE currently used, we did
not estimate this decrease in solid waste.
Some facilities that switch from spray guns to flowcoaters may have
a small increase of hazardous waste from the used flowcoater cleaning
solvents. However, most facilities will not see an increase, and the
overall impact on the industry will be small relative to the solid
waste reductions. Nearly all flowcoaters require resin and catalyst to
be mixed inside the gun (internal-mix) and must be flushed when work is
stopped for more than a few minutes. External-mix spray guns do not
need to be flushed because resin is mixed with catalyst outside the
gun. Facilities that switch from external-mix spray guns to flowcoaters
will use more solvent. Solvent usage should not change at facilities
switching from internal-mix spray guns to flowcoaters.
The most common flushing solvents are acetone and water-based
emulsifiers. Only a couple of ounces of solvent are typically needed to
flush the mixing chamber and nozzle of flowcoaters and internal-mix
spray guns. We have observed during site visits that this small
quantity of solvent is usually sprayed into the air or onto the floor
coverings and allowed to evaporate.
The EPA does not have adequate data to predict the potential
solvent waste impact from switching to flowcoaters. The magnitude of
the impact depends on the type of gun currently used (internal- or
external-mix), the frequency of flushing, and the type of solvent used.
However, because of the small amount of solvent used, and since most is
allowed to evaporate, we believe the overall solvent waste increase
will be small compared to the solid waste reductions.
E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
We estimate that energy consumption for new and existing facilities
will not increase. No new or existing facilities are expected to
install add-on control devices to comply with the proposed NESHAP in
the first 5 years after promulgation. One facility currently uses a
thermal oxidizer to control some of their styrene and MMA emissions
from fiberglass boat manufacturing operations. No increase in energy
use is anticipated to comply with the proposed NESHAP.
F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
We estimate that nationwide annual compliance costs for the
existing facilities will be $14 million. This estimate includes
annualized capital costs and increased material costs for purchasing
more expensive, lower-HAP materials. Annual costs also include
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs. The estimated annual
cost of reduced HAP is $4,350/Mg ($3,950/ton).
Table 3 shows the estimated costs to reduce emissions from the
operations at the 119 major source boat manufacturing facilities
regulated by the proposed NESHAP.
Table 3.--Cost Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide
annual costs
Type of operation (millions) in
1998 dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production resin (including nonspray equipment)......... 4.9
Pigmented gel coat...................................... 2.1
Clear gel coat.......................................... 0.05
Tooling resin........................................... 0.9
Tooling gel coat........................................ 0.1
Resin and gel coat new product testing cost............. 0.5
Fiberglass application equipment cleaning............... 0.3
Resin and gel coat mixing............................... 0.04
Closed molding resin.................................... 0
Aluminum and fiberglass boat carpet and fabric adhesives 2.5
and application equipment..............................
Aluminum wipedown solvent............................... 0.03
Aluminum boat surface coating........................... 1.0
Monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting costs........... 1.6
---------------
Total............................................. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The capital costs would be for purchase of new resin application
equipment, resin mixer covers, and adhesive application equipment. The
estimated cost of new resin application equipment (flowcoaters) is
$6,000 per unit (includes flowcoater, hoses, and resin and catalyst
pumps). The estimated cost of new adhesive
[[Page 43849]]
application equipment is also approximately $6,000 per unit. The resin
and gel coat mixer covers will be approximately $180 per year per
container.
No capital costs are predicted for mold construction or aluminum
boat surface coating operations.
G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
The EPA prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the
primary and secondary impacts of the proposed NESHAP on the boat
manufacturing market, consumers, and society. Because the
characteristics of boats vary greatly throughout the industry, we
evaluated the market by assessing the impacts on six separate market
segments of the industry, including: outboard boats, inboard runabouts/
sterndrive, inboard cruisers/yachts, jet boats/personal watercraft,
sailboats, and canoes. The total annualized social cost (in 1994
dollars) of the proposed NESHAP on the industry is $13.0 million, which
is 0.2 percent of total baseline revenue. Generally, the analysis
indicates a minimal change in market prices and quantity of boats sold.
Imports will increase negligibly, with a corresponding decrease in
exports. The analysis also suggests a loss (at the maximum) of 48
employees out of the 51,500 employees in the industry. The impacts on
specific market segments are summarized in the table below.
Table 4.--Economic Impact of Proposed NESHAP on Boat Market Segments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in
Change in market
Boat market segment price output
(percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outboard Boats................................ 0.1 -0.3
Inboard Runabouts/Sterndrive.................. 0.1 -0.1
Inboard Cruisers/Yachts....................... 0.0 -0.0
Jet Boats/Personal Watercraft................. 0.0 -0.0
Sailboats..................................... 0.1 -0.2
Canoes........................................ 0.1 -0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis also predicts the number of facilities that would
close as a result of the cost of complying with the proposed NESHAP.
The EPA used market level information on total predicted change in
quantity to infer how many plants would close if the quantity decrease
was borne entirely by one (or more) facility. For example, if the
market analysis predicts that 1,000 fewer boats are produced and the
average facility produces 500 boats, then the impact is equivalent to
two facility closures. Using this approach, the predicted reduction in
quantity did not equal even one facility closure in any of the six
market segments. While this does not mean that no facilities will close
as a result of the proposed NESHAP, it does indicate that the proposed
NESHAP have minimal total impacts, and that any facility closure will
likely be the result of poor baseline cost conditions rather than a
direct result of the compliance burden.
IV. Rationale for Proposed NESHAP
A. How Did EPA Determine the Source Category To Regulate?
The proposed NESHAP applies to fiberglass boat and aluminum boat
manufacturing facilities that are located at major sources of HAP.
Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to list each category of major
source emitting any HAP listed in section 112(b). Boat manufacturing
(major sources only) was included on the initial list of source
categories published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The initial notice
of the source category list stated that we would refine category
descriptions during the rulemaking process, based on additional
information available.
We redefined the category to include aluminum boat manufacturing
facilities (64 FR 63025, November 18, 1999). The initial source
category definition included only fiberglass boat manufacturing
operations. We added aluminum boat manufacturing facilities to the
source category because many of these facilities are major sources of
HAP. Aluminum boats are defined as noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum
boats. Aluminum commercial and military boats are not included in the
source category because the HAP-emitting process in the construction of
these boats (surface coatings) is regulated by the shipbuilding and
repair NESHAP (40 CFR 63, subpart II).
B. What Pollutants Are Regulated Under the Proposed NESHAP?
The proposed NESHAP regulate total HAP, rather than individual HAP
compounds. A standard for total HAP simplifies compliance and
enforcement, compared with standards for individual HAP compounds.
Moreover, the proposed NESHAP will affect the formulation of chemical
products used by the industry. It is not reasonable to regulate the
content of individual constituents in these complex mixtures. Styrene
is the HAP emitted in the largest magnitude (about 87 percent of
emissions). Other HAP emitted from boat manufacturing facilities
include MMA, methylene chloride (dichloromethane), toluene, xylenes,
methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), n-hexane, and MIBK.
C. What Is the ``Affected Source'' and How Did EPA Select the
Operations To Be Regulated by the Proposed NESHAP?
The affected source is the combination of all regulated operations
at a single boat manufacturing facility. The following regulated
operations are typically performed at fiberglass boat manufacturing
facilities and are part of the affected source:
Open molding operations, including pigmented gel coat,
clear gel coat, production resin, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat;
Closed molding resin operations;
Resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning
operations; and
Resin and gel coat mixing operations.
Carpet and fabric adhesive operations are performed at both
fiberglass boat and aluminum boat manufacturing facilities and are part
of the affected source at those facilities.
The following regulated operations are typically performed at
aluminum boat manufacturing facilities and are part of the affected
source:
Aluminum wipedown solvent operations;
Aluminum boat surface coating operations; and
Aluminum coating spray gun cleaning operations.
These are the typical operations found at fiberglass boat and
aluminum boat manufacturing facilities, and we were able to determine
MACT for these operations. If a single facility
[[Page 43850]]
manufactures both aluminum boat and fiberglass boats, the facility is a
single affected source.
Mold sealing and release agents, mold stripping and cleaning
solvents, solvents used to clean cured resin and gel coat from
application equipment, wood coatings, fiberglass hull and deck
coatings, and antifoulant coatings are not covered by the proposed
NESHAP. See section IV.H. for the rationale for why these operations
are not regulated by the proposed NESHAP.
We defined the affected source as the combination of all of these
operations at a site to provide compliance flexibility. This broad
source definition allows a manufacturer to determine compliance by
averaging the HAP content of different products used throughout the
facility within certain defined operations, and to use different
application techniques as needed to meet product quality
specifications. This approach is consistent with the way that the HAP
content and application data were analyzed to determine the MACT floor.
D. What Is a New Affected Source?
A new affected source is any fiberglass boat or aluminum boat
manufacturing facility that meets both of these criteria:
It began construction after today's date, and
It is a new fiberglass or aluminum boat manufacturing
operation at a site that does not presently contain any boat
manufacturing operations.
We selected this broad definition of new source for two reasons.
First, the MACT for new and existing sources is the same, so there is
no difference in emission control requirements for new and existing
sources. Second, we concluded that it would be unreasonably costly to
demonstrate compliance separately for both new and existing source
operations that are located at the same site. Because the equipment is
easily portable, it can be difficult to define exactly what would
constitute a new line or operation. Also, it would be burdensome to
monitor and record equipment and material usage for separate operations
that were considered new and existing because the equipment is
portable, and material is often dispensed from centralized bulk storage
containers.
Although some sources might be required to achieve compliance
earlier under a narrower new source definition, the small emissions
reductions do not justify the additional long-term compliance burden.
E. How Did EPA Determine the MACT Floor for Existing Sources?
We determined separate MACT floors for each type of boat
manufacturing operation based on data collected from about one-half of
the major source boat manufacturers. We received data through
questionnaire responses from 54 fiberglass and 13 aluminum boat
manufacturers, site visits to 10 boat manufacturers (9 fiberglass and 1
aluminum), and through telephone contacts and operating permits for
several more boat manufacturers. The data collected from the fiberglass
boat manufacturers represent both large and small companies, as well as
power and sailboat manufacturers who build vessels ranging in size from
small runabouts to large, luxury yachts. Therefore, we believe the data
are representative of the fiberglass boat industry segment. Our
database also includes all the major source aluminum boat manufacturers
known to us; therefore, the database also accurately represents this
industry segment.
Using the data collected from boat manufacturers, we determined
separate existing source MACT floors for each type of boat
manufacturing operation (e.g., open molding operations, carpet and
fabric adhesives operations). For each operation, the facilities were
ranked from lowest to highest emitting. Emissions were computed as a
facilitywide average for each operation to account for the variety of
materials within each operation that are required to construct a boat.
For open molding resin operations (production and tooling), we
estimated the HAP using the MACT model point value equations. This
approach takes into account the combined effect of application method
and the HAP content of the resins used, but is not an estimate of
actual HAP to the atmosphere.
To determine MACT floors for the production resin operations, we
evaluated open molding and closed molding as separate types of emission
sources. Closed molding is a lower-emitting operation than open
molding, but at this time has not been demonstrated to be generally
applicable for all types of boats. Boat manufacturers typically use
closed molding to achieve specific product qualities, such as two
finished sides, higher fiber-to-resin ratios, or higher production
levels that cannot be achieved with open molding. Therefore, closed
molding operations were not used in setting the MACT floor for open
molding.
Also, we determined MACT floors separately for fiberglass and
aluminum boat manufacturers because the regulated operations at these
facilities differ. The one exception was for carpet and fabric adhesive
operations, where the MACT floor analysis was based on a combined data
set. Fiberglass and aluminum boat manufacturers both have carpet and
fabric adhesive operations and use the same adhesives.
We determined MACT floors based on the median facility of the
lowest-emitting 12 percent for production resin, pigmented gel coat,
tooling resin, tooling gel coat, resin and gel coat application
equipment cleaning and carpet and fabric adhesives. For clear gel coat,
closed molding resin, aluminum boat surface coatings, aluminum coating
spray gun cleaning operations, and aluminum wipe-down solvents, we used
the median of the five lowest-emitting facilities because we had data
on fewer than 30 sources. We selected the median facility rather than
the arithmetic average of the lowest-emitting facilities in order to
represent the performance of an actual facility.
A more detailed summary of the results of the MACT floor analysis,
the data and the considerations used to determine the MACT floors for
the boat manufacturing source category can be found in Docket No. A-95-
44.
F. How Did EPA Determine the MACT Floor for New Sources?
We believe that the existing source MACT floor also represents the
new source floor. The existing source MACT floor represents the
greatest degree of emissions reductions that is achievable under all
circumstances within each particular operation regulated by the
proposed NESHAP.
For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floor to be based on the
degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. A variety of chemical materials and
application methods are available for each operation within the boat
manufacturing source category. The suitability of these materials and
methods depends on several product and manufacturing requirements.
These requirements typically include part size and shape, strength,
durability, production volume and schedule, product mix, color, and
worker safety.
Therefore, an emission control option (e.g., HAP content and
application method) that is applicable at one facility with a
particular mix of these requirements may not be applicable at another
facility with different requirements. While some facilities are using
lower-HAP materials and techniques than represented by the existing
source MACT floor, we do not
[[Page 43851]]
believe that the lowest-emitting options are universally applicable to
all new boat manufacturers. Sometimes, the lower-HAP materials are used
to produce particular colors and geometric shapes that do not represent
the range of boats that are manufactured. Accordingly, the lowest-HAP-
emitting facilities may not be using materials or techniques that can
be used by new sources in all circumstances.
Some facilities do use the lower-HAP materials or techniques for
particular products. However, we have no data to precisely define the
particular combination of requirements where these lower-emitting
options can be used and still maintain the minimum required strength
and durability requirements of these products. These facilities,
consequently, do not represent the new source MACT floor, and we are
unable to establish subcategories for purposes of determining a more
stringent MACT floor for new sources. The existing source MACT floor
level of control is universally applicable to all boat manufacturers
because it has been demonstrated at several different facilities that
produce a range of products that represent the industry, and that use
different combinations of materials and methods to achieve the
emissions reductions. Therefore, the existing source MACT floor is
achievable by all new sources and also represents the new source floor.
G. Did EPA Consider Control Options More Stringent Than the MACT Floor?
Because no control options more stringent than the MACT floor are
feasible for new and existing sources, we have determined that MACT for
new and existing sources is the MACT floor level of control. We
considered three potential options for MACT that might be more
stringent than the MACT floors, but found that these options were not
achievable. The options we considered were lower-HAP materials, zero-
HAP materials and add-on control devices. The following analysis
applies equally to new and existing source MACT.
As noted in the discussion of the new source MACT floor in the
previous section, some facilities use materials with HAP contents lower
than the new and existing source MACT floor. However, as also noted in
that discussion, EPA does not have the data to define subcategories in
which these lower-HAP materials can be used. Therefore, these lower-HAP
materials are not a viable option more stringent than the MACT floor
for new or existing sources.
For carpet and fabric adhesives, as well as resin and gel coat
application equipment cleaning solvents, the new and existing source
MACT floor is zero-HAP materials. In these two cases, zero-HAP
materials are also MACT for new and existing sources because no more
stringent level of control is achievable.
For the other operations regulated by the proposed NESHAP, no zero-
HAP substitutes are currently available. No zero-HAP substitutes for
polyester and vinylester resins or gel coats have been demonstrated for
large-scale production boat manufacturing. The zero-HAP alternatives
for aluminum wipe-down solvents, such as acetone, are too volatile and
flammable for this operation. No waterborne coatings or powder coatings
have been demonstrated as substitutes for the solvent-borne coatings
currently used in aluminum boat surface coating operations.
We also evaluated add-on control devices. We are aware of one
facility using a thermal oxidizer to control HAP from resin and gel
coat operations in the manufacture of small jet boats. Thermal
oxidizers are generally effective controls for HAP emission sources.
The experience of the jet boat facility with thermal oxidation
suggests that thermal oxidation has not been effectively demonstrated
as a control option for boat manufacturing. During the MACT analysis,
no emission test data were available to us or to the State permitting
authority to confirm the performance of this control device. Also,
after several years of operation, the facility had not received an
operating permit with an enforceable emission limit and was still
operating under an extension of their construction permit.
Moreover, the facility with the thermal oxidizer uses restricted
airflow to capture concentrated HAP near the surface of the molds. The
restricted airflow management is feasible at this facility because the
facility is dedicated to the construction of only two models of small
jet boats, 4.4 and 5.5 meters (14.5 and 18 feet, respectively) long.
The restricted airflow management was implemented with the intention to
use robotics to apply some of the resin and gel coat.
The restricted airflow management as practiced at this facility
would not be suitable for other facilities in the industry. All other
facilities produce a variety of products and parts and must have the
operational flexibility to change product mix over time. Restricted
airflow management would not be feasible in operations where workers
apply the resin and gel coat, and a range of different types of boats
are produced.
Accordingly, we have concluded that thermal oxidizers have not been
demonstrated for this industry. While theoretically feasible, we have
no data to demonstrate the cost or the effectiveness of the thermal
oxidizer at the air flow rates and HAP concentrations that exist at
typical boat manufacturing plants.
H. Why Are Some Boat Manufacturing Operations Not Being Covered by the
Proposed NESHAP?
The proposed NESHAP would not regulate the following operations:
Mold sealing and release agents;
Mold stripping and cleaning solvents;
Solvents used to clean cured resin and gel coat from
application equipment;
Wood coatings;
Fiberglass hull and deck coatings; and
Antifoulant coatings.
We excluded wood finishing operations, fiberglass hull and deck
coating operations, and antifoulant coating (bottom coating) operations
because they are performed only by a relatively small percentage of
boat manufacturers and are not typical of the majority of major source
boat manufacturers. These three operations collectively account for
about only 0.5 percent of HAP from major source boat manufacturers.
The proposed NESHAP would not regulate mold sealing and release
agents and mold stripping and cleaning solvents because we were unable
to set MACT floors or determine MACT for these operations. In both
cases, the information and data available to us suggest that mold
maintenance practices, part shape and size, and production schedules
determine emissions more than the HAP content of these materials. The
EPA does not have sufficient data to identify and prescribe work
practices to reduce emissions from these operations. Therefore, the
proposed NESHAP do not regulate these materials. A more detailed
explanation of why we could not determine the MACT is in Docket No. A-
95-44. These two operations collectively emit less than 1 percent of
HAP from boat manufacturing.
Most boat manufacturers in our database use mold sealing and
release agents that contain only a small percentage of HAP (less than
10 percent HAP) sold by two suppliers. Boat manufacturers use the same
group of products but in different amounts leading to differences in
facilitywide average HAP. Differences among facilities are probably due
to differences
[[Page 43852]]
in facility-specific work practices that are dictated by production
requirements, such as mold cycle time and frequency, the size and shape
of parts, and mold maintenance. We do not have sufficient data to
identify the MACT floor or MACT based on differences in work practices
among facilities.
Mold stripping and cleaning solvents are not regulated by the
proposed NESHAP because we do not have sufficient data to determine a
MACT floor. The amount of HAP used per unit of mold surface area
applied depends on facility-specific mold maintenance practices and
production requirements. These may include mold cycle time, how often
the mold is used, and even whether the mold is stored indoors or
outdoors. The size of the part may also influence mold maintenance. We
do not have sufficient data to identify those differences in production
requirements or work practices that determine mold cleaning solvent
usage. Therefore, we cannot identify a MACT floor or MACT.
We are not regulating solvents used for cleaning cured resin or gel
coat from application equipment because we know of no emission
controls. Cured resin or gel coat inside a gun is usually the result of
operator error or an equipment failure. To clean cured resin and gel
coat, an aggressive solvent is needed and no low-HAP alternatives are
available. The equipment is usually soaked in a covered bucket
resulting in little evaporation of the solvent. The amount of solvent
needed per year is determined by the size of the facility, degree of
operator error, and equipment failure rates. Because operator error and
equipment failure are hard to predict, we could determine no basis for
an annual limit of solvent usage that would be achievable by all
facilities. The proposed NESHAP, therefore, allow HAP-containing
solvents only for cleaning cured resin and gel coat from the
application equipment. The use of HAP-containing solvents for routine
gun flushing is prohibited.
I. How Did EPA Select the Format of the Proposed NESHAP?
We decided to offer several formats for complying with the proposed
NESHAP. The purpose of multiple formats is to provide the flexibility
to comply in the most cost effective and efficient manner. We
considered the following factors in selecting the format of the
proposed NESHAP:
The format must allow for multiple compliance techniques
for the various types of facilities in the industry.
The format must simplify compliance and ensure that the
cost of compliance is not excessive.
The format must be enforceable.
The format of the proposed NESHAP is based on a combination of HAP
content limits, equipment standards, and work practice standards.
Section 112(h) of the CAA states that ``* * * if it is not feasible in
the judgement of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission
standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants, the
Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof * * *.''
Section 112(h)(2) further defines the phrase ``not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' as any situation in which
``* * * a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted
through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such
pollutant, * * * or the application of measurement methodology to a
particular class of sources is not practicable * * *.''
In general, numerical emission limits are not feasible to prescribe
or enforce. Most boat manufacturing operations occur in large buildings
where emissions are released to the atmosphere through general building
ventilation, windows, and doors. These emission points have high air
volumes and low HAP concentrations that would pose unreasonably high
costs to capture the emissions. Some coating operations are carried out
in spray booths that are vented through a single stack, but these
emissions also have high air volumes and low HAP concentrations.
Therefore, the most reasonable format for these situations is to
specify HAP content limits for materials, application equipment
requirements, and work practices to minimize emissions.
The formats of the proposed NESHAP include both numerical emission
limits and work practice/equipment standards (HAP content limits and
application equipment requirements). We included both types of formats
so boat manufacturers could choose to comply using either averaging
provisions, low-HAP materials and alternative application equipment, or
add-on controls. However, very few boat manufacturers will probably
choose to comply with emission limit controls because it is not
practical to capture the emissions for use with add-on controls.
The following subsections describe the selection of the formats for
each type of limit included in the proposed NESHAP.
HAP Content Limits for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Operations.
The proposed NESHAP for open molding operations, resin and gel coat
equipment cleaning solvents, and carpet and fabric adhesives include
weight-percent HAP content limits for these materials. The HAP content
is an accurate measure of the relative emission potential of materials.
The HAP content is already reported on the material safety data sheet
for each material. Therefore, HAP content can simplify compliance by
allowing you to purchase compliant materials. If you add HAP to your
materials before use, you must include the additional HAP in your HAP
content calculations; do not include HAP catalysts used for resins and
gel coats in the HAP content calculation.
Emission Averaging Using Kilogram of HAP per Megagram of Material
Applied. The proposed NESHAP for open molding operations include a HAP
emissions limit that is kilogram of HAP per megagram of material
applied. This format is used in the emissions averaging compliance
option. This format was selected to provide compliance flexibility by
allowing you to use varying HAP content materials and different
application techniques in the open molding operations and average the
emissions using the MACT model point value equations described in
section II.D. The averaging approach will allow you to use higher-HAP
materials and spray application techniques for some open molding
operations while using lower-HAP materials and lower-emitting
application methods for others.
The proposed NESHAP do not allow you to average between open and
closed molding resin operations. However, the EPA is soliciting
comments on allowing averaging between open and closed molding
operations under certain circumstances. Industry representatives have
requested this option and have argued that it will encourage pollution
prevention and long-term emissions reductions by encouraging the
development of more widely applicable closed molding technologies.
The EPA developed separate MACT floors and standards for open and
closed molding processes because open molding is currently considered a
separate manufacturing process from closed molding. The NESHAP for open
molding require you to use low-emitting resins and application methods
to reduce emissions. On the other hand, closed molding is an inherently
low-emitting process, so the proposed NESHAP impose no additional
requirements to reduce emissions from closed molding. Because today's
proposed NESHAP have no numerical emission limit for closed molding,
you cannot ``over control'' closed molding
[[Page 43853]]
for greater emissions reductions to offset excess emissions from open
molding. Therefore, the proposed NESHAP do not include closed molding
in the averaging approach that is based on a source-wide emission limit
for resin and gel coat operations.
The EPA is, however, considering the feasibility of allowing closed
molding as a control technology in a source-wide limit in cases where
the closed molding is used as a substitute or replacement for an
existing open molding operation. Here, any reduction from switching to
closed molding could be applied to excess emissions from other open
molding operations. Consider, for example, a boat manufacturing
facility that makes 16-foot and 20-foot boats on two separate lines
using open molding. If the facility adopts closed molding on the 20-
foot line and ceases open molding, then this is an operational change
that reduces emissions from the 20-foot boat line. The excess emissions
reductions (above the level that would be required by the open molding
standard) would allow the operator to use higher-HAP materials on the
16-foot boat line.
Under this proposal, EPA would allow averaging only when the closed
molding resin application is a replacement for existing open molding
resin application. This proposal includes this restriction because MACT
for open molding resin application is nonatomized application of resin
with 35 percent HAP content. If this restriction were not included, a
facility spray applying a higher-HAP resin and using closed molding
could comply without any emissions reductions simply by averaging the
open and closed molding. Moreover, a facility that adds new closed
molding capacity to increase production would be allowed to switch to
higher HAP materials in their existing open molding operations. In
these cases, the facility would not be reducing emissions from the open
molding operations and would not be achieving an open molding control
level equal to MACT (i.e., 35 percent HAP content and nonatomized
application).
Therefore, EPA is soliciting comments on allowing averaging between
open and closed molding by including closed molding in a source-wide
emission limit. Under this proposal, you could average open and closed
molding if you meet all of the following three conditions: (1) Your
facility must be an existing source that is operating prior to today's
proposal date, (2) you must begin the closed molding operation after
today's proposal date, and (3) the closed molding operation must
replace an equivalent amount of open molding production capacity that
existed before today's proposal date. The EPA welcomes comments on the
feasibility of this approach, and whether it would provide any
additional operating flexibility to existing boat manufacturing
facilities or encourage more closed molding.
HAP Content Limits for Aluminum Boat Surface Coatings. The proposed
standard for aluminum boat surface coatings is expressed as mass of HAP
per volume of coating solids. For coating operations, weight-percent
HAP is not an accurate predictor of relative HAP. For this operation,
the amount of coating needed to cover a surface is determined by the
solids content of the coating. Coatings with similar weight-percent HAP
contents, but different solids contents, will have different HAP
because different amounts of coating will be needed for the same job.
In addition, coatings often have low-HAP solvents added to control
viscosity and achieve other coating liquid properties. Such low-HAP
solvents reduce HAP content as weight-percent, but increase the volume
needed to achieve the same dry-film thickness. The proposed format of
mass of HAP per volume of coating solids assures that coatings are
being compared on an equal basis.
HAP Content Limit for Aluminum Wipe-Down Solvents. The proposed
standard for aluminum wipe-down solvents is expressed as mass of HAP
per volume of solids from aluminum primers or clear coats applied to
bare aluminum. This format allows you to use a greater range of
solvents and compares HAP on an equal basis.
The data available to us indicate that weight-percent HAP content
for the wipe-down solvents is not an accurate predictor of emissions.
Some facilities using higher-HAP solvents have lower HAP per unit of
coating applied than those using lower-HAP solvents. These data
indicate it is possible to use some higher-HAP solvents more
efficiently than lower-HAP solvents and, therefore, a limit on solvent
HAP content could be counterproductive.
Ideally, we would use HAP mass per unit surface area, but this is
not practicable. It is not practical to measure or monitor the surface
area to be cleaned prior to coating because of the complicated three-
dimensional shape of aluminum boats and the variety of boats produced.
Therefore, the volume of solids of aluminum clear coat primer applied
to bare aluminum was selected as a surrogate for the amount of surface
area to be cleaned prior to coating.
Selection of Averaging Time for Demonstrating Compliance. As a boat
manufacturer, you must show compliance with the emissions limits in the
proposed NESHAP on a 3-month, rolling-average basis. You must determine
compliance at the end of each month from the data collected over the
past 3 months. A 3-month averaging time provides a balance between
operating flexibility and enforceability of the proposed standard. The
3-month period is sufficiently long so that you can identify potential
compliance problems and change your operations in time to maintain
compliance. The rolling-average aspect provides an enforceable emission
limit 12 times per year.
Many boat manufacturers already track material usage monthly to
comply with State regulations and permit requirements, so monthly
tracking is consistent with current practice. Tracking on a more
frequent basis would be unnecessarily burdensome. Boat manufacturers
need a 3-month rolling-average period to respond to both short-term
variations in HAP content that is inherent in all chemical products and
short-term needs for higher-HAP materials.
J. How Did EPA Select the Test Methods for Determining Compliance With
the Proposed NESHAP?
The proposed NESHAP give you the option of complying by either
meeting HAP content limits (among other requirements) or using an
enclosure and add-on control device to meet numerical emission limits.
The reference method for measuring the HAP content of resin, gel coat,
adhesives, aluminum boat surface coatings, and wipe-down solvents
subject to the proposed NESHAP is EPA Method 311 (Analysis of Hazardous
Air Pollutant Compounds in Paints and Coatings by Direct Injection Into
a Gas Chromatograph). This is an established method that is appropriate
for measuring the types of HAP used in these materials. You may use
alternative methods for measuring HAP content if approved by EPA.
The proposed NESHAP do not require a compliance test for HAP
content, nor do they require you to test every shipment of materials
that you receive. You are responsible, however, for ensuring, by any
means that you choose (e.g., periodic testing, manufacturers'
certification), that the HAP content of your materials complies with
the requirements of the proposed NESHAP. We may require you to conduct
a test at any time using EPA Method 311 (or any approved alternative
method) to confirm the HAP content in the compliance reports that you
submit. If there is any inconsistency between the results of the
[[Page 43854]]
EPA Method 311 test and any other means of determining HAP content, the
Method 311 results will govern.
If you choose to use an enclosure and add-on control device, you
must determine the capture efficiency of the enclosure and measure the
HAP from the control device. To determine the capture efficiency of the
enclosure, you must use EPA Method 204 (Criteria for and Verification
of Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure). If the enclosure meets the
criteria in EPA Method 204 for a permanent total enclosure, then you
may assume that its capture efficiency is 100 percent. If the enclosure
is not a total enclosure, then you must build a total temporary
enclosure (TTE) around it that meets the definition of a TTE in EPA
Method 204. You must then measure emissions from both the control
device and the TTE and use the combined emissions to determine
compliance.
To measure HAP, you may use either EPA Method 18 (Measurement of
Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography) to measure
the sum of individual species of HAP or EPA Method 25A (Determination
of Total Gaseous Organic Matter Concentration Using a Flame Ionization
Analyzer) for total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for total HAP.
The EPA Method 25A allows you the flexibility to use a simpler method
than EPA Method 18 that does not speciate HAP in cases where measuring
THC is sufficient to demonstrate compliance. You can measure THC as a
surrogate for total HAP if most of the THC emitted from an enclosure
are HAP, such as styrene and MMA from resin and gel coat operations.
For compliance determinations, the EPA will assume that all THC
measured with EPA Method 25A are HAP.
K. How Did EPA Determine the Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements?
The monitoring and recordkeeping requirements you must meet will
depend on how you choose to comply with the proposed NESHAP. For each
compliance option, the proposed monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements are the minimum necessary to determine initial and ongoing
compliance and are consistent with the general provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A).
Compliance with HAP Content Limits. For all operations subject to
HAP content limits, you must perform three tasks: monitor and record
the HAP content of the material used, monitor and record the monthly
consumption of the material, and record the computations to show that
the weighted average HAP content over the past 3 months meets the
standard. If all the materials used in an operation meet the HAP
content limit, then you only need to record HAP content, and you do not
need to track monthly consumption or record the computations.
Compliance with Averaging Provisions. To comply with the averaging
provisions for open molding operations, you must monitor and record HAP
content, amount of material applied by spray, and the amount applied by
nonspray; and you must record the computations needed to show
compliance. You must use these data as well as the MACT model point
value equations in the proposed NESHAP to calculate the HAP emitted for
the materials used in that operation for the past 3 months. Compliance
is then determined relative to the allowable HAP limit calculated for
those operations for the past 3 months.
Compliance with Equipment and Work Practice Standards. The proposed
NESHAP require resin and gel coat mixing containers to be fitted with
covers that have no visible gaps. The proposed NESHAP also require that
aluminum coating spray guns be cleaned in enclosed gun cleaners or
sprayed into containers that can be closed when not in use. You will be
required to inspect container covers and enclosed gun cleaners each
month to ensure the covers are in place and properly maintained. You
must record the results of the inspections. The inspections should be
sufficient to ensure that the covers are in place and properly
maintained. We believe that monthly inspections are a reasonable
interval because the nature of failure in these pieces of equipment is
likely due to wear and tear and not a sudden failure. Longer time
periods between inspections, however, would allow a failure to go too
long before being repaired.
The proposed NESHAP for production resin and tooling resin will
require most manufacturers to use nonatomized resin application methods
to comply. These methods include flowcoaters and pressure-fed resin
rollers, among others. We could identify no parameters to monitor
whether these methods were being used. Rather, compliance would be
determined during enforcement inspections as to whether these methods
were being used. As long as flowcoaters, pressure-fed resin rollers, or
other similar devices are installed and operated according to
manufacturer's specifications, they will comply with the requirements
to use nonatomized resin application methods.
Compliance for Sources Using Enclosures and Add-on Control Devices.
You have the option of using an enclosure and add-on control instead of
complying with HAP content or application equipment standards. The
requirements in the proposed NESHAP are consistent with other air
quality regulations that require capture and control of emissions. They
are the minimum needed to demonstrate that the capture and control
system is operated properly.
You must initially demonstrate compliance with the emission limit
by demonstrating that the enclosure is a total enclosure or by also
measuring the fugitive emissions that escape the enclosure. You must
also measure the efficiency of the add-on control using EPA Method 25A
for THC (as a surrogate for HAP) or EPA Method 18 for HAP. The EPA
Method 18 measures individual HAP that you sum to calculate total HAP.
After the initial compliance test, you must monitor control device
parameters to demonstrate that the control device continues to be
operated as it was during the initial test. In the case of thermal
oxidizers, you must monitor and record combustion temperature every 15
minutes both during and after the performance test. You must calculate
the average temperature achieved during the test. After the test, you
must maintain the average temperature at or above the temperature
achieved during the performance test. Temperature monitors and
recorders are standard features on thermal oxidizers. For other
devices, you must determine appropriate parameters to monitor and
receive our approval to use these parameters.
L. How Did EPA Select the Notification and Reporting Requirements?
The required notices and reports are the minimum needed to
determine if you are subject to the proposed NESHAP and whether you are
in compliance. You must submit an initial notification stating that you
are subject to the proposed NESHAP. After the compliance date for your
facility, you must submit a notification of your compliance status. You
must also submit semiannual reports of your compliance status. If you
have an add-on control device and you identify deviations, you must
submit quarterly reports of your compliance status until we approve a
request to return to semiannual reporting.
If your facility is a new source, you will have additional
preconstruction notification requirements. You will also have
additional notification and
[[Page 43855]]
reporting requirements if you use an add-on control device, including
notifications and reports for the control device performance test.
These notification and reporting requirements are consistent with those
specified in the general provisions (subpart A) for part 63 and are the
minimum needed for us to determine compliance for sources with add-on
control devices.
The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan specified by the
general provisions will be required only for sources using an add-on
control device and will apply only to the add-on control device. For
operations not using a control device, the nature of the materials and
equipment used to comply with the proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP is
such that malfunctions will not lead to excess emissions.
V. Relationship to Other Standards and Programs Under the CAA
A. National Emission Standards for Closed Vent Systems, Control
Devices, Recovery Devices, and Routing to a Fuel Gas System or a
Process (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SS)
If you use an add-on control device other than a thermal oxidizer
to control emissions from resin and gel coat operations, you will need
to comply with certain provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, for
add-on controls. The standards in subpart SS cited by the proposed
NESHAP are applicable to most sources using an add-on control device.
The proposed NESHAP cite these sections in subpart SS rather than
repeating them in the proposed regulatory text.
B. Shipbuilding and Repair (Surface Coating) NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart II)
Coating operations on commercial or military aluminum boats and
ships are subject to the Shipbuilding and Repair NESHAP. Today's
proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP cover coating operations only on
nonmilitary and noncommercial aluminum boats. Some boat manufacturers
may be potentially subject to both NESHAP because they manufacturer
both noncommercial, nonmilitary aluminum boats and either commercial or
military vessels. However, there is no conflict between the two NESHAP
because the coating operations on any single vessel would be subject to
only one NESHAP depending on the intended function of that vessel.
C. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart JJ)
Boat manufacturers, particularly builders of large yachts, build
wood furniture (such as beds, cabinets, and partitions) into the boat
interiors and finish this furniture with stains, sealers, and varnishes
that are similar to finishing materials used for household furniture.
However, wood furniture finishing operations on boats are not subject
to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ, because the EPA has
determined that wood furniture on a boat is integral to the boat cabin
and is not comparable to the furniture regulated by 40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJ (see Docket No. A-95-44). Wood surface coating operations
are not covered by the proposed boat manufacturing NESHAP.
D. Plastic Parts and Products (Surface Coating) NESHAP
The NESHAP for plastic parts are still being developed and could
potentially cover antifoulant and hull and deck surface coating
operations at fiberglass boat facilities.
E. Relationship Between Operating Permit Program and the Proposed
Standards
Under the operating permit program codified at 40 CFR parts 70 and
71, all major sources subject to standards under section 111 or 112 of
the CAA must obtain an operating permit (See Sec. 70.3(a)(1) and
Sec. 71.3(a)(1)). Therefore, all major sources subject to the proposed
NESHAP must obtain an operating permit. Area sources in this source
category are not regulated by the proposed NESHAP, and, therefore,
would not be required to obtain an operating permit unless a State with
an approved operating permit program chooses to permit all nonmajor
sources.
Some boat manufacturers may be major sources based solely on their
potential to emit even though their actual emissions are below the
major source level. These boat manufacturers may choose to obtain a
federally enforceable limit on their potential to emit so that they are
no longer considered major sources and not subject to the proposed
NESHAP. Sources that opt to limit their potential to emit (e.g., limits
on operating hours or amount of material used) are referred to by the
EPA as ``synthetic area'' sources. To become a synthetic area source,
you must contact your local permitting authority to obtain an operating
permit with the appropriate operating limits. These operating limits
will then be federally enforceable under Sec. 70.6(b).
The EPA believes that the boat manufacturing category could benefit
from the development of a general permit. Under part 70, State
permitting authorities are allowed to develop general permits for
categories of sources containing numerous similar sources. In deciding
which source should be covered by general permits, State regulators
must consider three primary criteria: (1) Source categories covered by
general permits should contain similar operations and emit pollutants
with similar characteristics; (2) sources should not be subject to
case-by-case standards; and (3) sources should be subject to the same
or substantially similar requirements governing operation, emissions,
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.
There are several benefits to a general permit. If a general permit
developed by a permitting authority has been approved after public
participation and EPA and affected State review, the permitting
authority may then grant or deny a general permit to a source without
further public participation or EPA and affected State review. The
action of granting or denying a general permit is also not subject to
judicial review. Another benefit of a general permit that would be
particularly advantageous for the boat manufacturing industry is that
sources may use general permits strictly for the purposes of becoming
synthetic area sources (i.e., limiting their potential to emit).
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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,
[[Page 43856]]
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.
It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1966.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail
at the Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at
``[email protected],'' or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also
be downloaded from the internet at ``http://www.epa.gov/icr.''
The proposed NESHAP contain monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements. The required notices and reports are the
minimum needed by us to determine who is subject to the NESHAP and
whether you are in compliance. The proposed recordkeeping requirements
are the minimum necessary to determine initial and ongoing compliance.
Based on reported information, we would decide which boat manufacturers
and what records or processes should be inspected. The recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are consistent with the general provisions
of 40 CFR part 63.
These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically
authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
submitted to us for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be
safeguarded according to our policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B,
``Confidentiality of Business Information.''
The EPA expects the proposed NESHAP to affect a total of 134 boat
manufacturing facilities over the first 3 years. The EPA assumes that
five new boat manufacturing facilities will become subject to the
proposed NESHAP during each of the first 3 years. The EPA expects 119
existing facilities to be affected by the proposed NESHAP, and these
existing facilities will begin complying in the third year.
The estimated average annual burden for the first 3 years after
promulgation of the proposed NESHAP for industry and the implementing
agency is outlined below. You can find the details of this information
collection in the ``Standard Form 83 Supporting Statement for ICR No.
1966.01,'' in Docket No. A-95-44.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Total Labor Capital and Total
Affected entity hours costs costs maintenance costs
costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................................... 10,343 635,526 0 895 636,421
Implementing agency............................ 2,456 141,073 0 0 141,073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA estimates that there are no capital or startup costs for
these new facilities because they are expected to comply by limiting
the HAP content of materials. The implementing agency would not incur
any capital or startup costs.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. Control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after July 14, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by August 14, 2000. The final rule
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed rule. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local
[[Page 43857]]
officials early in the process of developing the proposed rule.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely
manner.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. No
boat manufacturing facilities subject to the proposed NESHAP are owned
by State or local governments. Therefore, State and local governments
will not have any direct compliance costs resulting from this proposed
rule. Furthermore, EPA is directed to develop the proposed NESHAP by
section 112 of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
D. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, we may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or we consult with those
governments. If we comply by consulting, we are required by Executive
Order 13084 to provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of our prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires us to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments are
believed to be affected by this proposed rule. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this proposed rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
must generally prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
We have determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is
approximately $14 million per year. This proposed rule contains no
mandates affecting State, local, or Tribal governments. Thus, today's
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
We have determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such
governments or impose obligations upon them.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires us to give special consideration to the
effect of Federal regulations on small entities and to consider
regulatory options that might mitigate any such impacts. We must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless we certify that the
rule will not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.'' Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule
on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
whose parent company has fewer than 500 employees; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is ``any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.''
We have determined that 66 out of the 2,307 small firms in the
industry (2.9 percent) may be affected by this proposed rule. In a
screening of impacts on these small firms, we found that 47 firms have
costs that comprise less than 1 percent of firm revenues, and 19 firms
have estimated compliance costs that exceed 1 percent of their
revenues. Based on available data of industry profit margins, the
average return on sales for the industry is 3.4 percent. Of the 19
firms with costs greater than one percent of revenues, only one firm is
estimated to experience costs exceeding 3 percent of revenues. Thus,
reviewing the range of costs to be borne by small businesses in light
of the 3.4 percent profit margins typical of this industry, the Agency
has determined the costs are
[[Page 43858]]
typically small and, overall, do not constitute a significant impact on
a substantial number. In addition, this proposed rule is likely to also
increase profits at the 2,241 small firms that are not affected by the
proposed rule due to the very slight increase in market prices. The
economic impacts are summarized in section III.G. of this document and
in the economic impact analysis contained in Docket No. A-95-44.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has tried to
reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. We have met
with ten of these small firms and their trade association. They have
been fully involved in this rulemaking, and their concerns have been
considered in the development of this proposed rule. In developing
these proposed standards, we have provided the maximum degree of
flexibility to minimize impacts on small businesses by providing
several different compliance options, several of which require a
minimum amount of recordkeeping and reporting. Also, these proposed
standards, which are based on MACT floor level control technology,
reflect the minimum level of control allowed under the CAA. Small
businesses that are subject to the proposed rule will not be
systematically impacted more than larger operations. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we hereby certify
that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Publication L. No. 104-113), all
Federal agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards in
their regulatory and procurement activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual
reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify
voluntary consensus standards for use in emissions testing. The search
for emissions testing procedures identified 16 voluntary consensus
standards that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA standard
reference methods. However, after reviewing the available standards,
EPA determined that six of the candidate consensus standards identified
for measuring emissions of HAP or surrogates subject to emission
standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation and validation data. Nine of the remaining
candidate consensus standards are under development or under EPA
review. The EPA plans to follow, review and consider adopting these
standards after their development and further review by EPA is
completed.
The ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 1991) is an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 311 for only dichloromethane (methylene chloride) and 1,1,1-
trichlorethane (methyl chloroform). The EPA is requesting comment on
the incorporation by reference of ASTM D4457 for the purposes of the
proposed NESHAP. Five consensus standards (ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-
89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94) are already
incorporated by reference in EPA Method 311.
The ASTM D6420-99 is currently under EPA review as an approved
alternative to EPA Method 18. The EPA will compare this final ASTM
standard to methods previously approved as alternatives to EPA Method
18 with specific applicability limitations. These methods, designated
as ALT-017 and CTM-028, are available through EPA's Emission
Measurement Center Internet site at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/tmethods.html.
The final ASTM D6420-99 standard is very similar to these approved
alternative methods, which may be equally suitable for specific
applications. The EPA plans to continue their review of the final
standard and will consider adopting the ASTM standard at a later date.
The EPA requests comment on compliance demonstration requirements
proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the public to
identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. Comments
should explain why this regulation should adopt these voluntary
consensus standards in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods
and performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be
accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method
validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method
(if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A was used).
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and
not on health or safety risks. Additionally, this proposed rule is not
economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous air
pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: June 12, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart VVVV to read as follows:
Subpart VVVV--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Boat Manufacturing
Sec.
What the Subpart Covers
63.5680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
[[Page 43859]]
63.5683 Does this subpart apply to me?
63.5686 How do I demonstrate that my facility is not a major
source?
63.5689 What parts of my facility are covered by this subpart?
63.5692 How do I know if my boat manufacturing facility is a new
affected source or an existing affected source?
63.5695 When must I comply with this subpart?
Standards for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations
63.5698 What emission standard must I meet for open molding resin
and gel coat operations?
63.5701 What are my options for complying with the open molding
emission standard?
63.5704 What are the general requirements for complying with the
open molding emission standard?
63.5707 What is an implementation plan for open molding operations
and when do I need to prepare one?
63.5710 How do I demonstrate compliance using MACT model point
value averaging?
63.5713 How do I demonstrate compliance using compliant materials?
Demonstrating Compliance for Open Molding Operations Controlled by Add-
On Control Devices
63.5716 When must I conduct a performance test?
63.5719 How do I conduct a performance test?
63.5722 How do I use the performance test data to demonstrate
initial compliance?
63.5725 What are the requirements for monitoring and demonstrating
continuous compliance?
Standards for Closed Molding Resin Operations
63.5728 What standards must I meet for closed molding resin
operations?
Standards for Resin and Gel Coat Mixing Operations
63.5731 What standards must I meet for resin and gel coat mixing
operations?
Standards for Resin and Gel Coat Application Equipment Cleaning
Operations
63.5734 What standards must I meet for resin and gel coat
application equipment cleaning operations?
63.5737 How do I demonstrate compliance with the resin and gel
coat application equipment cleaning standards?
Standards for Carpet and Fabric Adhesive Operations
63.5740 What standards must I meet for carpet and fabric adhesive
operations?
Standards for Aluminum Boat Surface Coating Operations
63.5743 What standards must I meet for aluminum boat surface
coating operations?
63.5746 How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards for
aluminum wipe-down solvents and aluminum coatings?
63.5749 How do I calculate the HAP content of aluminum wipe-down
solvents?
63.5752 How do I calculate the HAP content of aluminum boat
surface coatings?
63.5755 How do I demonstrate compliance with the aluminum boat
surface coating spray gun cleaning standards?
Methods for Determining Hazardous Air Pollutant Content
63.5758 How do I determine the HAP content of materials?
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.5761 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.5764 What reports must I submit and when?
63.5767 What records must I keep?
63.5770 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
Other Information You Need To Know
63.5773 What parts of the general provisions (40 CFR part 63,
subpart A) apply to me?
63.5776 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
Definitions
63.5779 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart VVVV
Table 1 to Subpart VVVV--Compliance Dates for New and Existing Boat
Manufacturing Facilities
Table 2 to Subpart VVVV--Alternative HAP Content Requirements for
Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations
Table 3 to Subpart VVVV--MACT Model Point Value Equations for Open
Molding Operations
Table 4 to Subpart VVVV--Applicability and Timing of Notifications
Table 5 to Subpart VVVV--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR
Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart VVVV
What the Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.5680 What is the purpose of this subpart?
(a) This subpart establishes national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for new and existing boat manufacturing
facilities with resin and gel coat operations, carpet and fabric
adhesive operations, or aluminum boat surface coating operations. This
subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and
continuous compliance with the emission standards.
Sec. 63.5683 Does this subpart apply to me?
(a) This subpart applies to you if you meet both of the criteria
listed in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You are the owner or operator of a boat manufacturing facility
that builds fiberglass boats or aluminum boats.
(2) Your boat manufacturing facility is a major source of HAP
either in and of itself, or because it is collocated with other sources
of HAP, such that all sources combined constitute a major source.
(b) A boat manufacturing facility is a facility that manufactures
hulls or decks of boats from fiberglass or aluminum, or assembles boats
from premanufactured hulls and decks, or builds molds to make
fiberglass hulls or decks. A facility that manufactures only parts of
boats (such as hatches, seats, or lockers) or boat trailers is not
considered a boat manufacturing facility for the purpose of this
subpart.
(c) A major source is any stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that
emits or can potentially emit, considering controls, in the aggregate,
9.1 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of a single HAP or 22.7
megagrams (25 tons) or more per year of a combination of HAP.
(d) This subpart does not apply to aluminum coating operations on
aluminum boats intended for commercial or military use, antifoulant
coatings, fiberglass assembly adhesives, fiberglass hull and deck
coatings, mold sealing and release agents, mold stripping and cleaning
solvents, and wood coatings as defined in Sec. 63.5779. This subpart
does not apply to materials contained in handheld aerosol cans.
Sec. 63.5686 How do I demonstrate that my facility is not a major
source?
(a) To demonstrate that your facility is not a major source based
on emissions, you must demonstrate that your facility does not emit,
and does not have the potential to emit, considering federally
enforceable permit limits, 9.1 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of
a single HAP or 22.7 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year of a
combination of HAP. To calculate your facility's potential to emit, you
must include emissions from the boat manufacturing facility and all
other sources that are collocated and under common ownership or control
with the boat manufacturing facility.
(b) To demonstrate that you are not a major source based on
material consumption, you must: manufacture either fiberglass or
aluminum boats at your facility, but not both; demonstrate that you are
not collocated with another source of HAP; and meet the requirement in
paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If your facility is a fiberglass boat manufacturing facility,
you must demonstrate that it consumes less than 45.4 megagrams (50
tons) per year of all polyester- and vinylester-based resins and gel
coats, including tooling and
[[Page 43860]]
production resins and gel coats, and clear gel coats.
(2) If your facility is an aluminum boat manufacturing facility,
you must demonstrate that it consumes less than 18.2 megagrams (20
tons) per year of all carpet and fabric adhesives, surface wipe-down
and application gun cleaning solvents, and paints and coatings.
Sec. 63.5689 What parts of my facility are covered by this subpart?
The affected source (the portion of your boat manufacturing
facility covered by this subpart) is the combination of all of the boat
manufacturing operations listed in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this
section.
(a) Open molding resin and gel coat operations (including pigmented
gel coat, clear gel coat, production resin, tooling gel coat, and
tooling resin).
(b) Closed molding resin operations.
(c) Resin and gel coat mixing operations.
(d) Resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning operations.
(e) Carpet and fabric adhesive operations.
(f) Aluminum hull and deck coating operations, including solvent
wipe-down operations and paint spray gun cleaning operations, on
aluminum boats.
Sec. 63.5692 How do I know if my boat manufacturing facility is a new
affected source or an existing affected source?
(a) A boat manufacturing facility is a new affected source if it
meets the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) You commence construction of the affected source after July 14,
2000.
(2) It is a major source.
(3) It is a completely new boat manufacturing affected source where
no other boat manufacturing affected source existed prior to the
construction of the new affected source.
(b) For the purposes of this subpart, an existing affected source
is any affected source that is not a new affected source.
Sec. 63.5695 When must I comply with this subpart?
You must comply with the standards in this subpart by the dates
specified in table 1 to this subpart.
Standards for Open Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations
Sec. 63.5698 What emission standard must I meet for open molding resin
and gel coat operations?
(a) You must control HAP emissions from the five open molding
operations listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section to
the emission standard specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) Production resin.
(2) Pigmented gel coat.
(3) Clear gel coat.
(4) Tooling resin.
(5) Tooling gel coat.
(b) You must limit HAP emissions from open molding operations to
the standard specified by equation 1, based on a 3-month rolling
average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.000
Where:
HAP Limit= total allowable HAP that can be emitted from the open
molding operations, kilograms.
MR = mass of production resin used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
MPG = mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
MCG = mass of clear gel coat used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
MTR = mass of tooling resin used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
MTG = mass of tooling gel coat used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
(c) The open molding emission standard is the same for both new and
existing sources.
Sec. 63.5701 What are my options for complying with the open molding
emission standard?
You must use one or more of the options listed in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of this section to meet the emission standard in
Sec. 63.5698 for the resins and gel coats used in open molding
operations at your facility.
(a) Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) model point value
averaging option. (1) Demonstrate that emissions from the open molding
resin and gel coat operations that you average meet the emission
standard in Sec. 63.5698 based on weighted-average MACT model point
values as described in Sec. 63.5710. Compliance with this option is
based on a 3-month rolling average.
(2) Those operations and materials not included in the average must
comply with either paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
(b) Compliant materials option. Demonstrate compliance with the
emission standard in Sec. 63.5698 by using open molding resins and gel
coats that meet the HAP content requirements in table 2 to this
subpart. Compliance with this option is based on a 3-month rolling
average.
(c) Add-on control option. Use an enclosure and add-on control
device and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission
standard in Sec. 63.5698. Compliance with this option is based on a
control device performance test and control device monitoring.
Sec. 63.5704 What are the general requirements for complying with the
open molding emission standard?
(a) Maximum achievable control technology model point value
averaging option. For those open molding operations and materials
complying using the MACT model point value averaging option, you must
demonstrate compliance by performing the steps in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (5) of this section.
(1) Use the methods specified in Sec. 63.5758 to determine the HAP
content of resins and gel coats.
(2) Complete the calculations described in Sec. 63.5710 to show
that the HAP emissions do not exceed the standard specified in
Sec. 63.5698.
(3) Keep records as specified in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iv)
of this section for each resin and gel coat.
(i) Hazardous air pollutant content.
(ii) Amount of material used per month.
(iii) Application method used for production resin and tooling
resin. This record is not required if all production resins and tooling
resins are applied with nonatomized technology.
(iv) Calculations performed to demonstrate compliance based on MACT
model point values, as described in Sec. 63.5710.
(4) Prepare and submit the implementation plan described in
Sec. 63.5707 to the Administrator and keep it up to date.
(5) Submit semiannual compliance reports to the Administrator as
specified in Sec. 63.5764.
(b) Compliant materials option. For each open molding operation
complying using the compliant materials option, you must demonstrate
compliance by performing the steps in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of
this section.
[[Page 43861]]
(1) Use the methods specified in Sec. 63.5758 to determine the HAP
content of resins and gel coats.
(2) Complete the calculations described in Sec. 63.5713 to show
that the weighted-average HAP content does not exceed the requirement
specified in table 2 to this subpart.
(3) Keep records as specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iv)
of this section for each resin and gel coat.
(i) Hazardous air pollutant content.
(ii) Application method for production resin and tooling resin.
This record is not needed if all production resins and tooling resins
are applied with nonatomized technology.
(iii) Amount of material used per month. This record is not needed
for an operation if all materials used for that operation comply with
the HAP content requirements.
(iv) Calculations performed, if needed, to demonstrate compliance
based on weighted-average HAP content as described in Sec. 63.5713.
(4) Submit semiannual compliance reports to the Administrator as
specified in Sec. 63.5764.
(c) Add-on control option. If you are using an add-on control
device, you must demonstrate compliance by performing the steps in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Conduct a performance test of the control device as specified
in Secs. 63.5719 and 63.5722 to demonstrate initial compliance.
(2) Use the performance test results to determine control device
parameters to monitor after the performance test as specified in
Sec. 63.5725.
(3) Comply with the control device monitoring and operating
requirements specified in Sec. 63.5725 to demonstrate continuous
compliance.
(4) Keep the records specified in Sec. 63.5767.
(5) Submit to the Administrator the notifications and reports
specified in Secs. 63.5761 and 63.5764.
Sec. 63.5707 What is an implementation plan for open molding
operations and when do I need to prepare one?
(a) You must prepare an implementation plan for all open molding
operations for which you comply by using the MACT model point value
averaging option described in Sec. 63.5704(a).
(b) The implementation plan must describe the steps you will take
to bring the open molding operations covered by this subpart into
compliance. For each operation included in the MACT model point value
average, your implementation plan must include, at a minimum, the
elements listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3).
(1) A description of each operation included in the average.
(2) The maximum HAP content of the materials used, the application
method used (if any atomized resin application methods are used in the
average), and any other methods used to control emissions.
(3) Calculations showing that the operations covered by the plan
will comply with the open molding emission standard specified in
Sec. 63.5698.
(c) You must submit the implementation plan to the Administrator
with the notification of compliance status specified in Sec. 63.5761.
(d) You must keep the implementation plan on site and provide it to
the Administrator when asked.
(e) If you revise the implementation plan, you must submit the
revised plan with your next semiannual compliance report specified in
Sec. 63.5764.
Sec. 63.5710 How do I demonstrate compliance using MACT model point
value averaging?
(a) Compliance using the MACT model point value averaging option is
demonstrated on a 3-month rolling-average basis and is determined at
the end of every month (12 times per year).
(b) At the end of every month, use equation 2 to demonstrate that
the HAP emissions from those operations included in the average do not
exceed the emission standard in Sec. 63.5698. (Include terms in
equation 1 in Sec. 63.5698 and equation 2 for only those operations and
materials included in the average.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.001
Where:
HAP emissions=HAP emissions calculated using MACT model point values
for each operation included in the average, kilograms.
PVR=Weighted-average MACT model point value for production
resin used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MR=Mass of production resin used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
PVPG=Weighted-average MACT model point value for pigmented
gel coat used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MPG=Mass of pigmented gel coat used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
PVCG=Weighted-average MACT model point value for clear gel
coat used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MCG=Mass of clear gel coat used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
PVTR=Weighted-average MACT model point value for tooling
resin used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MTR=Mass of tooling resin used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
PVTG=Weighted-average MACT model point value for tooling gel
coat used in the past 3 months, kilograms per megagram.
MTG=Mass of tooling gel coat used in the past 3 months,
megagrams.
(c) At the end of every month, use equation 3 to compute the
weighted-average MACT model point value for each open molding resin and
gel coat operation included in the average.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.002
Where:
PVOP=weighted-average MACT model point value for each open
molding operation (PVR, PVPG, PVCG,
PVTR, and PVTG) included in the average,
kilograms of HAP per megagram of material applied.
Mi=mass of resin or gel coat i used within an operation in
the past 3 months, megagrams.
n=number of different open molding resins or gel coats used within an
operation in the past 3 months.
PVi=the MACT model point value for resin or gel coat i used
within an operation in the past 3 months, kilograms of HAP per megagram
of material applied.
(d) You must use the equations in table 3 to this subpart to
calculate the MACT model point value (PVi) for each resin
and gel coat used in each operation in the past 3 months.
(e) If the HAP emissions, as calculated in paragraph (b) of this
section, are less than the HAP limit calculated in Sec. 63.5698(b),
then you are in compliance with the emission standard in Sec. 63.5698
[[Page 43862]]
for those operations and materials included in the average.
Sec. 63.5713 How do I demonstrate compliance using compliant
materials?
(a) Compliance using the HAP content requirements listed in table 2
to this subpart is based on a 3-month rolling average that is
calculated at the end of every month.
(b) At the end of every month, review the HAP contents of the
resins and gel coats used in the past 3 months in each operation. If
all resins and gel coats used in an operation have HAP contents no
greater than the applicable HAP content requirements in table 2 to this
subpart, then you are in compliance with the emission standard
specified in Sec. 63.5698 for that 3-month period for that operation.
In addition, you do not need to complete the weighted-average HAP
content calculation contained in paragraph (c) of this section for that
operation.
(c) At the end of every month, you must use equation 4 to calculate
the weighted-average HAP content for all resins and gel coats used in
that operation in the past 3 months.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.003
Where:
Mi = mass of open molding resin or gel coat i used in the
past 3 months in an operation, megagrams.
HAPi = HAP content, by weight percent, of open molding resin
or gel coat i used in the past 3 months in an operation. Use the
methods in Sec. 63.5758 to determine HAP content.
n = number of different open molding resins or gel coats used in the
past 3 months in an operation.
(d) If the weighted-average HAP content does not exceed the
applicable HAP content requirement specified in table 2 to this
subpart, then you are in compliance with the emission standard
specified in Sec. 63.5698.
Demonstrating Compliance for Open Molding Operations Controlled by
Add-On Control Devices
Sec. 63.5716 When must I conduct a performance test?
(a) You must conduct an initial control device performance test
within 180 calendar days after the compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.5695 and according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(b) If you commenced construction between today's date and the
effective date of the subpart, you must demonstrate initial compliance
with either the proposed emission standard or the promulgated emission
standard no later than 180 calendar days after the effective date of
the regulation or within 180 calendar days after startup of the source,
whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(c) If you commenced construction between today's date and the
effective date of the subpart, and you chose to comply with the
proposed emission standard when demonstrating initial compliance, you
must conduct a second compliance demonstration for the promulgated
emission standard within 3 years and 180 calendar days after the
effective date of the subpart, or after startup of the source,
whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(d) You must conduct a performance test every 5 years as part of
renewing your 40 CFR part 70 or part 71 operating permit.
Sec. 63.5719 How do I conduct a performance test?
(a) You must capture the emissions using a permanent enclosure
(such as a spray booth or similar containment device) and direct the
captured emissions to the add-on control device.
(b) You must measure emissions as specified in paragraph (b)(1) or
(2) of this section.
(1) If the enclosure vented to the control device is a permanent
total enclosure as defined in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part
51, then you may measure emissions only at the outlet of the control
device.
(2) If the permanent enclosure vented to the control device is not
a total enclosure, you must build a temporary total enclosure, as
defined in Method 204 of appendix M to 40 CFR part 51, around the
permanent enclosure. You must then simultaneously measure emissions
from the control device outlet and the emissions from the total
temporary enclosure outlet. You determine compliance from the combined
emissions from the control device outlet and the total temporary
enclosure outlet.
(c) You must conduct the control device performance test using the
emission measurement methods specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(1) Use either Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, as
appropriate, to select the sampling sites.
(2) Use Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F or 2G of appendix A to 40 CFR part
60, as appropriate, to measure gas volumetric flow rate.
(3) Use Method 18 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to measure HAP
emissions or use Method 25A of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 to measure
total gaseous organic emissions as a surrogate for total HAP emissions.
If you use Method 25A, you must assume that all gaseous organic
emissions measured as carbon are HAP emissions. If you use Method 18
and the number of HAP in the exhaust stream exceeds five, you must take
into account the use of multiple chromatographic columns and analytical
techniques to get an accurate measure of at least 90 percent of the
total HAP mass emissions. Do not use Method 18 to measure HAP emissions
from a combustion device; use instead Method 25A and assume that all
gaseous organic mass emissions measured as carbon are HAP emissions.
(d) The control device performance test must consist of three runs
and each run must last at least 1 hour. The production conditions
during the test runs must represent normal production conditions with
respect to the types of parts being made and material application
methods. The production conditions during the test must also represent
maximum potential emissions with respect to the HAP content of the
materials being applied and the material application rates.
(e) During the test, you must also monitor and record separately
the amounts of production resin, tooling resin, pigmented gel coat,
clear gel coat, and tooling gel coat applied inside the enclosure that
is vented to the control device.
Sec. 63.5722 How do I use the performance test data to demonstrate
initial compliance?
Demonstrate initial compliance with the open molding emission
standard as
[[Page 43863]]
described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section:
(a) Calculate the HAP limit you must achieve using equation 1 in
Sec. 63.5698. For determining initial compliance, the HAP limit is
based on the amount of material used during the performance test, in
megagrams, rather than during the past 3 months. Calculate the limit
using the megagrams of resin and gel coat applied inside the enclosure
during the three runs of the performance test and equation 1 in
Sec. 63.5698.
(b) Add the total measured emissions, in kilograms, from all three
of the 1-hour runs of the performance test.
(c) If the total emissions from the three 1-hour runs of the
performance test are less than the HAP limit calculated in paragraph
(a) of this section, then you have demonstrated initial compliance with
the emission standard in Sec. 63.5698 for those operations performed in
the enclosure and controlled by the add-on control device.
Sec. 63.5725 What are the requirements for monitoring and
demonstrating continuous compliance?
(a) You must establish control device parameters that indicate
proper operation of the control device.
(b) You must install, operate, and maintain a continuous parameter
monitoring system as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(1) The continuous parameter monitoring system must complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period.
You must have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have
a valid hour of data.
(2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours
during which the process operated.
(3) You must determine the hourly average of all recorded readings.
(4) You must determine the daily average of all recorded readings
for each operating day.
(5) You must determine the 30-day average for each 30-day period.
(6) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration,
and validation check.
(c) Enclosure bypass line. You must meet the requirements of
paragraph (c)(1) and either paragraph (c)(2) or (3) of this section for
each enclosure ventilation system that contains bypass lines that could
divert emissions from a control device.
(1) If the bypass lines are opened, you must include a description
of the bypass and its duration in the compliance reports required in
Sec. 63.5764(c).
(2) You must properly install, operate, and maintain a flow
measurement device that records the presence of a gas stream flow in
each bypass line. You must meet the requirements in paragraph (b) and
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of this section for each flow
measurement device.
(i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as
straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow.
(ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the
flow rate.
(iii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due
to upstream and downstream disturbances.
(iv) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semi-
annually.
(v) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections
for leakage.
(3) You must secure the bypass line in a nondiverting position with
a seal in such a way that the valve or closure mechanism cannot be
opened without breaking the seal. You must inspect the seal at least
once per month and record the results of the inspection.
(d) Thermal oxidizers. If you are using a thermal oxidizer or
incinerator as an add-on control device, you must comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) You must install a combustion temperature monitoring device in
the firebox of the thermal oxidizer or incinerator, or in the duct
immediately downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat
exchange occurs. You must meet the requirements in paragraph (b) and
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section for each temperature
monitoring device.
(i) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a
representative temperature.
(ii) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.2 deg.
C or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger.
(iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(iv) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 20 deg. F.
(v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a
reading within 16.7 deg. C of the process temperature sensor's reading.
(vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range or install a new temperature sensor.
(vii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and
all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(2) Before or during the performance test, you must conduct a
performance evaluation of the combustion temperature monitoring system
according to Sec. 63.8(e). Section 63.8(e) specifies the general
requirements for continuous monitoring systems and requirements for
notifications, the site-specific performance evaluation plan, conduct
of the performance evaluation, and reporting of performance evaluation
results.
(3) During the performance test required by Sec. 63.5716, you must
monitor and record the combustion temperature and determine the average
combustion temperature for the three 1-hour test runs.
(4) Following the performance test, you must continuously monitor
the combustion temperature and record the average combustion
temperature no less frequently than every 15 minutes.
(5) You must operate the incinerator or thermal oxidizer so that
the average combustion temperature in any 3-hour period does not fall
below the average combustion temperature recorded during the
performance test.
(6) If the average combustion temperature in any 3-hour period
falls below the average combustion temperature recorded during the
performance test, or if you fail to collect the minimum data specified
in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, it is a deviation.
(e) Absorbers, condensers, and carbon adsorbers. If you are using
an absorber, condenser, or carbon adsorber as an add-on control device,
you must comply with the operating, testing, and monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.990.
(f) Other control devices. If you are using a control device other
than those listed in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, then you
must comply with the operating, testing, and monitoring requirements in
Sec. 63.995.
Standards for Closed Molding Resin Operations
Sec. 63.5728 What standards must I meet for closed molding resin
operations?
(a) If a resin application operation meets the definition of closed
molding specified in Sec. 63.5779, there is no
[[Page 43864]]
requirement to reduce emissions from that operation.
(b) If the resin application operation does not meet the definition
of closed molding, then you must comply with the standard for open
molding resin operations specified in Sec. 63.5698.
(c) Open molding resin operations that precede a closed molding
operation must comply with the standard for open molding resin and gel
coat operations specified in Sec. 63.5698. Examples of these operations
include gel coat or skin coat layers that are applied before lamination
is performed by closed molding.
Standards for Resin and Gel Coat Mixing Operations
Sec. 63.5731 What standards must I meet for resin and gel coat mixing
operations?
(a) All resin and gel coat mixing containers with a capacity equal
to or greater than 208 liters (55 gallons) must have a cover with no
visible gaps in place at all times.
(b) The work practice standard in paragraph (a) of this section
does not apply when material is being manually added to or removed from
a container, or when mixing or pumping equipment is being placed in or
removed from a container.
(c) To demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard in
paragraph (a) of this section, you must visually inspect all mixing
containers subject to this standard at least once per month. The
inspection should ensure that all containers have covers with no
visible gaps between the cover and the container, or between the cover
and equipment passing through the cover.
(d) You must keep records of which mixing containers are subject to
this standard and the results of the inspections, including a
description of any repairs or corrective actions taken.
Standards for Resin and Gel Coat Application Equipment Cleaning
Operations
Sec. 63.5734 What standards must I meet for resin and gel coat
application equipment cleaning operations?
(a) For routine flushing of resin and gel coat application
equipment (e.g., spray guns, flowcoaters, brushes, rollers, and
squeegees), you must use a cleaning solvent that contains no HAP. This
emission standard does not apply to solvents used for removing cured
resin or gel coat from application equipment.
(b) You must store HAP-containing solvents used for removing cured
resin or gel coat in containers with covers. The covers must have no
visible gaps and must be in place at all times, except when equipment
is placed in or removed from the container. Cured resin or gel coat
means resin or gel coat that has changed irreversibly from a liquid to
a solid.
(c) Recycled cleaning solvents that contain trace amounts of HAP (5
percent HAP or less by weight) are considered to contain no HAP for the
purposes of this subpart.
Sec. 63.5737 How do I demonstrate compliance with the resin and gel
coat application equipment cleaning standards?
(a) Determine and record the HAP content of the cleaning solvents
subject to the standards specified in Sec. 63.5734 using the methods
specified in Sec. 63.5758.
(b) Record the amount of cleaning solvents purchased as recycled
cleaning solvents, and, therefore, may contain trace amounts of HAP.
(c) At least once per month, you must visually inspect any
containers holding HAP-containing solvents used for removing cured
resin and gel coat to ensure that the containers have covers with no
visible gaps. Keep records of the monthly inspections and any repairs
made to the covers.
Standards for Carpet and Fabric Adhesive Operations
Sec. 63.5740 What standards must I meet for carpet and fabric adhesive
operations?
(a) You must use carpet and fabric adhesives that contain no HAP.
(b) To demonstrate compliance with the emission standard in
paragraph (a) of this section, you must determine and record the HAP
content of the carpet and fabric adhesives using the methods in
Sec. 63.5758.
Standards for Aluminum Boat Surface Coating Operations
Sec. 63.5743 What standards must I meet for aluminum boat surface
coating operations?
(a) You must use aluminum wipe-down solvents with a weighted-
average HAP content that does not exceed 2.57 kilograms of HAP per
liter of solids from aluminum primers and clear coats applied over bare
aluminum (21.5 pounds of HAP per gallon of solids). Compliance is based
on a 3-month rolling average that is calculated at the end of every
month. This limit does not apply to surfaces receiving decals or
adhesive graphics.
(b) You must use aluminum boat surface coatings (including
thinners, activators, primers, topcoats, and clear coats) with a
weighted-average HAP content that does not exceed 1.22 kilograms of HAP
per liter of coating solids (10.2 pounds of HAP per gallon of coating
solids). Compliance is based on a 3-month rolling average that is
calculated at the end of every month.
(c) You must comply with the work practice standard in paragraph
(c)(1), (2), or (3) of this section when cleaning aluminum coating
spray guns with HAP-containing solvents. You do not need to comply with
these work practice standards if you are using a cleaning solvent that
contains no HAP.
(1) Clean spray guns in an enclosed device. Keep the device closed
except when you place spray guns in or remove them from the device.
(2) Disassemble the spray gun and manually clean the components in
a vat. Keep the vat closed when you are not using it.
(3) Clean spray guns by placing solvent in the pressure pot and
forcing the solvent through the gun. Do not use atomizing air during
this procedure. Direct the used cleaning solvent from the spray gun
into a container that you keep closed when you are not using it.
Sec. 63.5746 How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards for
aluminum wipe-down solvents and aluminum coatings?
To demonstrate compliance with the emission standards for aluminum
wipe-down solvents and aluminum coatings specified in Sec. 63.5743 (a)
and (b), you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (f)
of this section.
(a) Determine and record the HAP content (kilograms of HAP per
kilogram of material, or weight fraction) of each aluminum wipe-down
solvent and aluminum coating (including primers, topcoats, clear coats,
thinners, and activators). Use the methods in Sec. 63.5758 to determine
HAP content.
(b) Obtain from the aluminum coating manufacturer's formulation the
solids content (liters of solids per liter of coating, or volume
fraction) of each aluminum surface coating, including primers,
topcoats, and clear coats. Keep records of the solids content.
(c) Compliance is based on a 3-month rolling average calculated at
the end of every month.
(d) At the end of every month, use the procedures in Sec. 63.5749
to calculate the HAP from aluminum wipe-down solvents per liter of
coating solids. Use the procedures in Sec. 63.5752 to calculate the
kilograms of HAP from aluminum coatings per liter of coating solids.
(e) Keep records of the calculations used to determine compliance.
(f) Approval of alternative means of demonstrating compliance. You
may apply to the Administrator for permission to use an alternative
means (such as an add-on control system) of limiting emissions from
aluminum
[[Page 43865]]
wipe-down solvent and coating operations and demonstrating compliance
with the standards in paragraphs (a) and (b) in Sec. 63.5743.
(1) The application must include the information listed in
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) An engineering evaluation that compares the emissions using the
alternative means to the emissions that would result from using the
strategy specified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section. The
engineering evaluation may include the results from an emission test
that accurately measures the capture efficiency and control device
efficiency achieved by the control system and the composition of the
associated coatings so that the emissions comparison can be made.
(ii) A proposed monitoring protocol that includes operating
parameter values to be monitored for compliance and an explanation of
how the operating parameter values will be established through a
performance test.
(iii) Details of appropriate recordkeeping and reporting
procedures.
(2) The Administrator will approve the alternative means of
limiting emissions if the Administrator determines that HAP emissions
will be no greater than if the source uses the procedures described in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section to demonstrate compliance.
(3) The Administrator's approval may specify operation,
maintenance, and monitoring requirements to ensure that emissions from
the regulated operations are no greater than those that would otherwise
result from regulated operations in compliance with this subpart.
Sec. 63.5749 How do I calculate the HAP content of aluminum wipe-down
solvents?
(a) Use equation 5 to calculate the weighted-average HAP content of
aluminum wipe-down solvents used in the past 3 months.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.004
Where:
HAPWD = weighted-average HAP content of aluminum wipe-down
solvents, kilograms of HAP per liter of solids from aluminum primers
and clear coats applied to bare aluminum.
n = number of different wipe-down solvents used in the past 3 months.
VolWDi = volume of aluminum wipe-down solvent i used in the
past 3 months, liters.
DWDi = density of aluminum wipe-down solvent i, kilograms
per liter.
WWDi = mass fraction of HAP in aluminum wipe-down solvent i.
m = number of different aluminum primers and clear coats used in the
past 3 months that were applied to bare aluminum.
VolPj = volume of aluminum primer or clear coat j used in
the past 3 months, liters.
SolidsPj = solids content of aluminum primer or clear coat
j, liter solids per liter of coating.
(b) Compliance is based on a 3-month rolling average. If the
weighted-average HAP content does not exceed 2.57 kilograms of HAP per
liter of solids (21.5 pounds of HAP per gallon solids), then you are in
compliance with the emission standard specified in Sec. 63.5743(a).
Sec. 63.5752 How do I calculate the HAP content of aluminum boat
surface coatings?
(a) Use equation 6 to calculate the weighted-average HAP content
for all aluminum surface coatings used in the past 3 months.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14JY00.005
Where:
HAPSC = weighted-average HAP content for all aluminum
coating materials, kilograms of HAP per liter of coating solids.
m = number of different coatings used in the past 3 months.
VolCi = total volume of coating i used in the past 3 months,
liters.
DCi = density of coating i, kilograms per liter.
WCi = mass fraction of HAP in coating i, kilograms of HAP
per kilogram of coating.
n = number of different thinners and activators used in the past 3
months.
VolTj = total volume of thinner or activator j used in the
past 3 months, liters.
DTj = density of thinner or activator j, kilograms per
liter.
WTj = mass fraction of HAP in thinner or activator j,
kilograms of HAP per kilogram of thinner or activator.
VSi = volume fraction of solids in coating i, liter solids
per liter coating, from coating manufacturer's formulation.
(b) Compliance is based on a 3-month rolling average. If the
weighted-average HAP content does not exceed 1.22 kilograms of HAP per
liter of coating solids (10.2 pound per gallon), then you are in
compliance with the emission standard specified in Sec. 63.5743(b).
Sec. 63.5755 How do I demonstrate compliance with the aluminum boat
surface coating spray gun cleaning standards?
You must demonstrate compliance with the aluminum coating spray gun
cleaning work practice standards by meeting the requirements of
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
(a) Demonstrate that solvents used to clean the aluminum coating
spray guns contain no HAP by determining HAP content with the methods
in Sec. 63.5758. Keep records of the HAP content determination.
[[Page 43866]]
(b) For HAP-containing solvents, comply with the requirements in
paragraph (b)(1) or (2), and (b)(3) of this section.
(1) If you are using an enclosed spray gun cleaner, visually
inspect it at least once per month to ensure that covers are in place
and will close properly when the cleaner is not in use, and that there
are no leaks from hoses or fittings.
(2) If you are manually cleaning the gun or spraying solvent into a
container that can be closed, visually inspect all solvent containers
at least once per month to ensure that the containers have covers.
(3) Keep records of the monthly inspections and any repairs that
are made to the enclosed gun cleaners or the covers.
Methods for Determining Air Pollutant Content
Sec. 63.5758 How do I determine the HAP content of materials?
(a) To determine the HAP content of the materials used in your open
molding resin and gel coat operations, carpet and fabric adhesive
operations, or aluminum boat surface coating operations, use EPA Method
311 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 63. You may use EPA Method 311, an
alternative method as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, or any
other reasonable means for determining the HAP content. Other
reasonable means of determining HAP content include, but are not
limited to, a material safety data sheet (MSDS) or a manufacturer's
hazardous air pollutant data sheet as defined in Sec. 63.5779. You are
not required to test the materials that you use, but the Administrator
may require a test using EPA Method 311 (or an approved alternative
method) to confirm the reported HAP content. If the results of an
analysis by EPA Method 311 are different from the HAP content
determined by another means, the EPA Method 311 results will govern
compliance determinations, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) You may use an alternative to EPA Method 311 for determining
HAP content if that method has been approved by the Administrator
according to Sec. 63.7(f). The Administrator will approve alternative
methods on a case-by-case basis.
(c) If HAP content data are reported by a material supplier or
manufacturer as a range, the upper limit of that range will be used for
determining compliance.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
63.5761 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in table 4 to this
subpart that apply to you, by the dates in table 4 to this subpart. The
notifications are described more fully in the sections of 40 CFR part
63, subpart A, General Provisions, referenced in table 4 to this
subpart.
(b) If you change any information submitted in any notification,
you must submit the changes in writing to the Administrator within 15
calendar days after the change.
63.5764 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit the applicable reports specified in paragraphs
(b) through (d) of this section. To the extent possible, you must
organize each report according to the operations covered by this
subpart and the compliance procedure followed for that operation.
(b) If your facility is not controlled by an add-on control device
(i.e., you are complying with HAP content limits, application equipment
requirements, or MACT model point value averaging provisions), you must
submit a semiannual compliance report. The semiannual reporting period
is each subsequent 6-month period after your compliance date. Unless
the Administrator has approved a different schedule, you must submit
each report so that it is postmarked or delivered no later than 30
calendar days following the end of each reporting period. The
compliance report must include the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Name, title, and signature of the responsible official
certifying the accuracy of the report.
(3) A statement certifying as to the truth, accuracy, and
completeness of the report.
(4) The date of the report and the beginning and ending dates of
the reporting period.
(5) A description of any changes in the manufacturing process,
continuous monitoring system, or controls since the last compliance
report.
(6) A statement or table showing, for each regulated operation, the
applicable HAP content limit, application equipment requirement, or
MACT model point value averaging provision with which you are
complying. The statement or table must also show the actual weighted-
average HAP content or weighted-average MACT model point value (if
applicable) for each operation during each of the rolling 3-month
averaging periods that end during the reporting period.
(7) If you were in compliance with a standard during the reporting
period, you must include a statement to that effect.
(8) If you were not in compliance with a standard or identified
deviations during the reporting period, you must also include the
information listed in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (iv) of this section
in the semiannual compliance report.
(i) A description of the operation that was not in compliance with
the standard.
(ii) The quantity, HAP content, and application method (if
relevant) of the materials not in compliance.
(iii) A description of any corrective action you took to minimize
noncompliance and actions you have taken to prevent it from happening
again.
(iv) A statement of whether or not your facility was in compliance
for the 3-month averaging period that ended at the end of the reporting
period.
(c) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must submit
semiannual compliance reports and quarterly excess emission reports as
specified in Sec. 63.10(e). The contents of the reports and the
schedule for submitting them are specified in Sec. 63.10(e).
(d) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must
complete a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan as specified in
Sec. 63.6(e), and you must submit the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction reports specified in Sec. 63.10(e)(5).
63.5767 What records must I keep?
You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a) through (d)
of this section in addition to records specified in individual sections
of this subpart.
(a) You must keep a copy of each notification and report that you
submitted to comply with this subpart.
(b) You must keep all documentation supporting any notification or
report that you submitted.
(c) If your facility is not controlled by an add-on control device
(i.e., you are complying with HAP content limits, application equipment
requirements, or MACT model point value averaging provisions), you must
keep the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) The total amounts of open molding production resin, pigmented
gel coat, clear gel coat, tooling resin, and tooling gel coat used per
month and the weighted-average HAP contents for each
[[Page 43867]]
operation, expressed as weight-percent. For open molding production
resin and tooling resin, you must also record the amounts of each
applied by atomized and nonatomized methods.
(2) The total amount of aluminum coating used per month (including
primers, top coats, clear coats, thinners, and activators) and the
weighted-average HAP content as determined in Sec. 63.5752.
(3) The amount of each aluminum wipe-down solvent used per month
and the weighted-average HAP content as determined in Sec. 63.5749.
(d) If your facility has an add-on control device, you must keep
the records specified in Sec. 63.10(b) relative to control device
startup, shut down, and malfunction events; control device performance
tests; and continuous monitoring system performance evaluations.
63.5770 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be readily available and in a form so they
can be easily inspected and reviewed.
(b) You must keep each record for 5 years following the date that
each record is generated.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date that each record is generated. You can keep the records
offsite for the remaining 3 years.
(d) You can keep the records on paper or an alternative media, such
as microfilm, computer, computer disks, magnetic tapes, or on
microfiche.
Other Information You Need to Know
63.5773 What parts of the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) apply to me?
You must comply with the requirements of the general provisions in
40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as specified in table 5 to this subpart.
63.5777 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) If the Administrator has delegated authority to your State or
local agency, the State or local agency has the authority to implement
and enforce this subpart.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State or local agency under section 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities that are retained by the Administrator of
the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State or local agency are
listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Under Sec. 63.6(g), the authority to approve alternatives to
the standards listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vii) of this
section is not delegated.
(i) Sec. 63.5698--Standard for open molding resin and gel coat
operations.
(ii) Sec. 63.5728--Standards for closed molding resin operations.
(iii) Sec. 63.5731(a)--Standards for resin and gel coat mixing
operations.
(iv) Sec. 63.5734--Standards for resin and gel coat application
equipment cleaning operations.
(v) Sec. 63.5740(a)--Standards for carpet and fabric adhesive
operations.
(vi) Sec. 63.5743--Standards for aluminum boat surface coating
operations.
(vii) Sec. 63.5746(f)--Approval of alternative means of
demonstrating compliance with the standards for aluminum boat surface
coating operations.
(2) Under Sec. 63.7(f), the authority to approve alternatives to
the test methods listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
section are not delegated.
(i) Sec. 63.5719(b)--Method for determining whether an enclosure is
a total enclosure.
(ii) Sec. 63.5719(c)--Methods for measuring emissions from a
control device.
(iii) Sec. 63.5725(d)(1)--Performance specifications for thermal
oxidizer combustion temperature monitors.
(iv) Sec. 63.5758--Method for determining hazardous air pollutant
content of regulated materials.
Definitions
Sec. 63.5779 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Add-on control means an air pollution control device, such as a
thermal oxidizer, that reduces pollution in an air stream by
destruction or removal before discharge to the atmosphere.
Administrator means the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or an authorized representative
(for example, a State delegated the authority to carry out the
provisions of this subpart).
Aluminum boat means any marine or freshwater vessel that meets both
of the following two criteria: the hull or the deck is constructed
primarily of aluminum, and the vessel is designed and manufactured for
noncommercial and nonmilitary purposes.
Aluminum boat surface coating operation means the application of
primers or top coats to aluminum boats. Aluminum boat surface coating
operations do not include the application of wood coatings or
antifoulant coatings to aluminum boats.
Aluminum coating spray gun cleaning means the process of flushing
or removing paints or coatings from the interior or exterior of a spray
gun used to apply aluminum primers or top coats to aluminum boats.
Aluminum wipe-down solvents means solvents used to remove oil,
grease, welding smoke, or other contaminants from the aluminum surfaces
of a boat before priming or painting. Aluminum wipe-down solvents
contain no coating solids; aluminum surface preparation materials that
contain solids are considered coatings for the purpose of this subpart
and are not wipe-down solvents.
Antifoulant coating means any coating that is applied to the
underwater portion of a boat specifically to prevent or reduce the
attachment of biological organisms and that is registered with EPA as a
pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(7 U.S.C. section 136, et seq.). For the purpose of this subpart,
primers used with antifoulant coatings to prepare the surface to accept
the antifoulant coating are considered antifoulant coatings.
Atomized resin application means a resin application technology in
which the resin leaves the application equipment and breaks into
droplets or an aerosol as it travels from the application equipment to
the surface of the part. Atomized resin application includes, but is
not limited to, resin spray guns and resin chopper spray guns.
Boat means any type of vessel, other than a seaplane, that can be
used for transportation on the water.
Boat manufacturing facility means a facility that manufacturers the
hulls or decks of boats from fiberglass or aluminum or assembles boats
from premanufactured hulls and decks or builds molds to make fiberglass
hulls or decks. A facility that manufacturers only parts of boats (such
as hatches, seats, or lockers) or boat trailers, but no boat hulls or
decks or molds for fiberglass boat hulls or decks, is not considered a
boat manufacturing facility for the purpose of this subpart.
Carpet and fabric adhesive means any chemical material that
permanently attaches carpet, fabric, or upholstery to any surface of a
boat.
Clear gel coat means gel coats that are clear or translucent so
that underlying colors are visible. Clear gel coats are used to
manufacture parts for sale. Clear gel coats do not include tooling gel
coats used to build or repair molds.
Closed molding means any molding process in which pressure is used
to distribute the resin through the
[[Page 43868]]
reinforcing fabric placed between two mold surfaces to either saturate
the fabric or fill the mold cavity. The pressure may be clamping
pressure, fluid pressure, atmospheric pressure, or vacuum pressure used
either alone or in combination. The mold surfaces may be rigid or
flexible. Closed molding includes, but is not limited to, compression
molding with sheet molding compound, infusion molding, resin injection
molding (RIM), vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM), resin
transfer molding (RTM), and vacuum-assisted compression molding.
Processes in which a closed mold is used only to compact saturated
fabric or remove air or excess resin from the fabric (such as in vacuum
bagging), are not considered closed molding. Open molding steps, such
as application of a gel coat or skin coat layer by conventional open
molding prior to a closed molding process, are not closed molding.
Cured resin and gel coat means resin or gel coat that has been
catalyzed and changed from a liquid to a solid.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emission limit, operating
limit, or work practice requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition which is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and which is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limit, operating limit, or work
practice requirement in this subpart during any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart.
Enclosure means a structure, such as a spray booth, that surrounds
a source of emissions and captures and directs the emissions to an add-
on control device.
Fiberglass assembly adhesive means any chemical material used in
the joining of one fiberglass part to another to form a temporary or
permanently bonded assembly. Assembly adhesives include, but are not
limited to, methacrylate adhesives and putties made from polyester or
vinylester resin mixed with inert fillers or fibers.
Fiberglass boat means a vessel in which either the hull or deck is
built from a composite material consisting of a thermosetting resin
matrix reinforced with fibers of glass, carbon, aramid, or other
material.
Fiberglass hull and deck coatings means coatings applied to the
exterior or interior surface of fiberglass boat hulls and decks on the
completed boat. Polyester and vinylester resins and gel coats used in
building fiberglass parts are not fiberglass hull and deck coatings for
the purpose of this subpart.
Gel coat means a thermosetting resin surface coating containing
styrene (Chemical Abstract Service or CAS No. 100-42-5) or methyl
methacrylate (CAS No. 80-62-6), either pigmented or clear, that
provides a cosmetic enhancement or improves resistance to degradation
from exposure to the elements.
Hazardous air pollutant or HAP means any air pollutant listed in,
or added to the list in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act.
Hazardous air pollutant content or HAP content means the amount of
HAP contained in a regulated material at the time it is applied to the
part being manufactured. If no HAP is added to a material as a thinner
or diluent, then the HAP content is the same as the HAP content of the
material as purchased from the supplier. For resin and gel coat, HAP
content does not include any HAP contained in the catalyst added to the
resin or gel coat during application to initiate curing. For filled
resins, HAP content is the fraction of HAP contained in the resin
before any filler is added.
Hazardous air pollutant data sheet (HDS) means documentation
furnished by a material supplier or an outside laboratory to provide
the HAP content of the material by weight, measured using EPA Method
311, manufacturer's formulation data, or an equivalent method. For
aluminum coatings, the HDS also documents the solids content by volume,
determined from the manufacturer's formulation data. The purpose of the
HDS is to help the affected source in showing compliance with the HAP
content limits contained in this subpart. The HDS must state the
maximum total HAP concentration, by weight, of the material. It must
include any HAP concentrations equal to or greater than 0.1 percent by
weight for individual HAP that are carcinogens, as defined by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication
Standard (29 CFR part 1910), and 1.0 percent by weight for all other
individual HAP, as formulated. The HDS must also include test
conditions if EPA Method 311 is used for determining HAP content.
Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) model point value
means a number calculated for open molding operations that is a
surrogate for emissions and is used to determine if your open molding
operations are in compliance with the provisions of this subpart. The
units for MACT model point values are kilograms of HAP per megagram of
resin or gel coat applied.
Manufacturer's certification means documentation furnished by a
material supplier that shows the HAP content of a material and includes
a HDS.
Mold means the cavity or surface into or on which gel coat, resin,
and fibers are placed and from which finished fiberglass parts take
their form.
Mold sealing and release agents means materials applied to a mold
to seal, polish, and lubricate the mold to prevent parts from sticking
to the mold. Mold sealers, waxes, and glazing and buffing compounds are
considered mold sealing and release agents for the purposes of this
subpart.
Mold stripping and cleaning solvents means materials used to remove
mold sealing and release agents from a mold before the mold surface is
repaired, polished, or lubricated during normal mold maintenance.
Month means a calendar month.
Nonatomized resin application means any application technology in
which the resin is not broken into droplets or an aerosol as it travels
from the application equipment to the surface of the part. Nonatomized
resin application technology includes, but is not limited to,
flowcoaters, chopper flowcoaters, pressure fed resin rollers, resin
impregnators, and hand application (for example, paint brush or paint
roller).
Open molding resin and gel coat operation means any process in
which the reinforcing fibers and resin are placed in the mold and are
open to the surrounding air while the reinforcing fibers are saturated
with resin. For the purposes of this subpart, open molding includes
operations in which a vacuum bag or similar cover is used to compress
an uncured laminate to remove air bubbles or excess resin, or to
achieve a bond between a core material and a laminate.
Pigmented gel coat means opaque gel coats used to manufacture parts
for sale. Pigmented gel coats do not include tooling gel coats used to
build or repair molds.
Production resin means any resin used to manufacture parts for
sale. Production resins do not include tooling resins used to build or
repair molds, or fiberglass assembly adhesives as defined in this
section.
Recycled resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning solvent
means cleaning solvents returned to the supplier or another party to
remove resin or gel coat residues so that the solvent can be reused.
[[Page 43869]]
Resin means any thermosetting resin containing styrene (CAS No.
100-42-5) or methyl methacrylate (CAS No. 80-62-6) and used to
encapsulate and bind together reinforcement fibers in the construction
of fiberglass parts.
Resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning means the process
of flushing or removing resins and gel coats from the interior or
exterior of equipment that is used to apply resin or gel coat in the
manufacture of fiberglass parts.
Resin and gel coat mixing operation means any operation in which
resin or gel coat is combined with additives that include, but are not
limited to, fillers, promoters, or catalysts.
Roll-out means the process of using rollers, squeegees, or similar
tools to compact reinforcing materials saturated with resin to remove
trapped air or excess resin.
Skin coat is a layer of resin and fibers applied over the gel coat
to protect the gel coat from being deformed by the next laminate
layers.
Tooling resin means the resin used to build or repair molds (also
known as tools) or prototypes (also known as plugs) from which molds
will be made.
Tooling gel coat means the gel coat used to build or repair molds
(also known as tools) or prototypes (also known as plugs) from which
molds will be made.
Vacuum bagging means any molding technique in which the reinforcing
fabric is saturated with resin and then covered with a flexible sheet
that is sealed to the edge of the mold and where a vacuum is applied
under the sheet to compress the laminate, remove excess resin, or
remove trapped air from the laminate during curing. Vacuum bagging does
not include processes that meet the definition of closed molding.
Wood coatings means coatings applied to wooden parts and surfaces
of boats, such as paneling, cabinets, railings, and trim. Wood coatings
include, but are not limited to, primers, stains, sealers, varnishes,
and enamels. Polyester and vinylester resins or gel coats applied to
wooden parts to encapsulate them or bond them to other parts are not
wood coatings.
Tables To Subpart VVVV
Table 1 to Subpart VVVV.--Compliance Dates for New and Existing Boat Manufacturing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your facility is * * * and * * * then you must comply by this date:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. An existing source................. is a major source on or before 3 years after the promulgation date of
the promulgation date of the the rule.
rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An area source..................... becomes a major source after 1 year after becoming a major source or
the promulgation date of the 3 years after the promulgation date of
rule. the rule, whichever is later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. A new source....................... is a major source at startup a upon startup or the promulgation date of
the rule, whichever is later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Your facility is a major source if it is a stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that emits or can potentially emit, considering controls, in the
aggregate, 9.1 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year of a single hazardous air pollutant or 22.7 megagrams (25
tons) or more per year of a combination of hazardous air pollutants.
Table 2 to Subpart VVVV.--Alternative HAP Content Requirements for Open
Molding Resin and Gel Coat Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must not exceed
this weighted-
For this operation * * * And this application average HAP content
method * * * (weight percent)
requirement:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Production resin Atomized (spray).... 28 percent.
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Production resin Nonatomized 35 percent.
operations. (nonspray).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Pigmented gel coat Any method.......... 33 percent.
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Clear gel coat operations Any method.......... 48 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Tooling resin operations. Atomized (spray).... 30 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Tooling resin operations. Nonatomized 39 percent.
(nonspray).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Tooling gel coat Any method.......... 40 percent.
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart VVVV.--MACT Model Point Value Equations for Open Molding Operations a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use this formula to calculate
For this operation * * * And this application method * * * the MACT model plant value for
each resin and gel coat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Production resin, tooling resin.... (i) Atomized............................ 0.014 x (Resin HAP%) 2.425
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Atomized, plus vacuum bagging with 0.01185 x (Resin HAP%) 2.425
roll-out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Atomized, plus vacuum bagging 0.00945 x (Resin HAP%) 2.425
without roll-out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Nonatomized........................ 0.014 x (Resin HAP%) 2.275
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) Nonatomized, plus vacuum bagging 0.0110 x (Resin HAP%) 2.275
with roll-out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43870]]
(vi) Nonatomized, plus vacuum bagging 0.0076 x (Resin HAP%) 2.275
without roll-out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Pigmented gel coat, clear gel coat, All methods............................. 0.445 x (Gel coat HAP%)
tooling gel coat. 1.675
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Equations calculate MACT model point value in kilograms of HAP per megagrams of resin or gel coat applied. The
equations for vacuum bagging with roll-out are applicable when a facility rolls out the applied resin and
fabric prior to applying the vacuum bagging materials. The equations for vacuum bagging without roll-out are
applicable when a facility applies the vacuum bagging materials immediately after resin application without
rolling out the resin and fabric. HAP% = HAP content expressed as a weight-percent value between 0 and 100%.
Table 4. to Subpart VVVV--Applicability and Timing of Notifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your facility * * * You must submit * * * By this date * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Is an existing source subject to an initial notification containing no later than the dates specified in
this subpart. the information specified in Sec. Sec. 63.9(b)(2).2.
63.9(b)(2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Is a new source subject to this the notifications specified in Sec. no later than the dates specified
subpart. 63.9(b)(3) to (5). Sec. 63.9(b)(4) and (5).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Qualifies for a compliance a request for a compliance extension no later than the dates specified in
extension as specified in Sec. as specified in Sec. 63.9(c). Sec. 63.6(i).
63.9(c).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Is complying with HAP content a notification of compliance status no later than 30 calendar days after
limits, application equipment as specified in Sec. 63.9(h). the end of the first 3-month
requirements, or MACT model point averaging period after your
value averaging provisions. facility's compliance date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Is complying by using an add-on (i) a notification of intent to no later than the date specified in
control device. conduct a performance test as Sec. 63.9(e).
specified in Sec. 63.9(e).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) a notification of the date for with the notification of intent to
the continuous monitoring system conduct a performance test.
performance evaluation as specified
in Sec. 63.9(g).
(iii) a notification of compliance no later than 60 calendar days after
status as specified in Sec. the completion of the add-on
63.9(h). control device performance test and
continuous monitoring system
performance evaluation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--to Subpart VVVV.--Applicability of General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart VVVV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to subpart
Citation Requirement VVVV Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4).................. General Applicability.... Yes................
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)...................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(8).................. ......................... Yes................
Sec. 63.1(a)(9)...................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14)................ ......................... Yes................
Sec. 63.1(b)......................... Initial Applicability Yes................
Determination.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)...................... Applicability After Yes................
Standard Established.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)...................... ......................... Yes................ Area sources are not
regulated by subpart
VVVV.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)...................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)-(5).................. ......................... Yes................
Sec. 63.1(d)......................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.1(e)......................... Applicability of Permit Yes................
Program.
Sec. 63.2............................ Definitions.............. Yes................ Additional definitions
are found in Sec.
63.5779.
Sec. 63.3............................ Units and Abbreviations.. Yes................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(3).................. Prohibited Activities.... Yes................
Sec. 63.4(a)(4)...................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.4(a)(5)...................... ......................... Yes................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)..................... Circumvention/ Yes................
Severability.
Sec. 63.5(a)......................... Construction/ Yes................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)...................... Requirements for Yes................
Existing, Newly
Constructed, and
Reconstructed Sources..
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)...................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(6).................. ......................... Yes................
[[Page 43871]]
Sec. 63.5(c)......................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.5(d)......................... Application for Approval Yes................
of Construction/
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e)......................... Approval of Construction/ Yes................
Reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(f)......................... Approval of Construction/ Yes................
Reconstruction Based on
prior State Review.
Sec. 63.6(a)......................... Compliance with Standards Yes................
and Maintenance
Requirements--Applicabil
ity.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5).................. Compliance Dates for New Yes................ Sec. 63.5695 specifies
and Reconstructed compliance dates.
Sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)...................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)...................... ......................... Yes................
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).................. Compliance Dates for Yes................ Sec. 63.5695 specifies
Existing Sources. compliance dates.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)............... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)...................... ......................... Yes................ Any area source that
becomes a major source
must comply by the date
in Sec. 63.5695 for
existing sources or by
the date 1 year after
becoming a major
source, whichever is
later.
Sec. 63.6(d)......................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2).................. Operation and Maintenance No................. Operating requirements
Requirements. for open molding
operations with add-on
controls are specified
in Sec. 63.5725.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)...................... Startup, Shut Down, and Yes................ Only sources with add-on
Malfunction Plans. controls must complete
startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plans.
Sec. 63.6(f)......................... Compliance with Yes................
Nonopacity Emission
Standards.
Sec. 63.6(g)......................... Use of an Alternative Yes................
Nonopacity Emission
Standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)......................... Compliance with Opacity/ No................. Subpart VVVV does not
Visible Emissions specify opacity or
Standards. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)................. Extension of Compliance Yes................
with Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)..................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)..................... ......................... Yes................
Sec. 63.6(j)......................... Exemption from Compliance Yes................
with Emission Standards.
Sec. 63.7............................ Performance Test Yes................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2).................. Monitoring Requirements-- Yes................ All of Sec. 63.8
Applicability. applies only to sources
with add-on controls.
Additional monitoring
requirements for
sources with add-on
controls are found in
Sec. 63.5725.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)...................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)...................... ......................... No................. Subpart VVVV does not
refer directly or
indirectly to Sec.
63.11.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)...................... Conduct of Monitoring.... Yes................
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3).................. Multiple Effluents and Yes................ Applies to sources that
Multiple Continuous use a CMS on the
Monitoring Systems (CMS). control device stack.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(4).................. Continuous Monitoring Yes................
System Operation and
Maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)...................... Continuous Opacity No................. Subpart VVVV does not
Monitoring Systems have opacity or visible
(COMS). emission standards.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8).................. Continuous Monitoring Yes................
System Calibration
Checks and Out-of-
Control Periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)......................... Quality Control Program.. Yes................
Sec. 63.8(e)......................... CMS Performance Yes................
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).................. Use of an Alternative Yes................
Monitoring Method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)...................... Alternative to Relative Yes................ Applies only to sources
Accuracy Test. that use continuous
emission monitoring
systems (CEMS).
Sec. 63.8(g)......................... Data Reduction........... Yes................
Sec. 63.9(a)......................... Notification Yes................
Requirements--Applicabil
ity.
Sec. 63.9(b)......................... Initial Notifications.... Yes................
Sec. 63.9(c)......................... Request for Compliance Yes................
Extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)......................... Notification That a New Yes................
Source Is Subject to
Special Compliance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.9(e)......................... Notification of Yes................ Applies only to sources
Performance Test. with add-on controls.
Sec. 63.9(f)......................... Notification of Visible No................. Subpart VVVV does not
Emissions/Opacity Test. have opacity or visible
emission standards.
[[Page 43872]]
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)...................... Additional CMS Yes................ Applies only to sources
Notifications--Date of with add-on controls.
CMS Performance
Evaluation.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2)...................... Use of COMS Data......... No................. Subpart VVVV does not
require the use of
COMS.
Sec. 63.9(g)(3)...................... Alternative to Relative Yes................ Applies only to sources
Accuracy Testing. with CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3).................. Notification of Yes................
Compliance Status.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4)...................... ......................... No................. [Reserved].
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(6).................. Notification of Yes................
Compliance Status
(continued).
Sec. 63.9(i)......................... Adjustment of Deadlines.. Yes................
Sec. 63.9(j)......................... Change in Previous Yes................
Information.
Sec. 63.10(a)........................ Recordkeeping/Reporting-- Yes................
Applicability.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)..................... General Recordkeeping Yes................ Secs. 63.5767 and
Requirements. 63.5770 specify
additional
recordkeeping
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(xi)............. Recordkeeping Relevant to Yes................ Applies only to sources
Startup, Shutdown, and with add-on controls.
Malfunction Periods and
CMS.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)-(xiv).......... General Recordkeeping Yes................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)..................... Recordkeeping Yes................ Specifies applicability
Requirements for determinations for non-
Applicability major sources.
Determinations.
Sec. 63.10(c)........................ Additional Recordkeeping Yes................ Applies only to sources
for Sources with CMS. with add-on controls.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)..................... General Reporting Yes................ Sec. 63.5764 specifies
Requirements. additional reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)..................... Performance Test Results. Yes................ Sec. 63.5764 specifies
additional requirements
for reporting
performance test
results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)..................... Opacity or Visible No................. Subpart VVVV does not
Emissions Observations. specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)..................... Progress Reports for Yes................
Sources with Compliance
Extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)..................... Startup, Shutdown, and Yes................ Applies only to sources
Malfunction Reports. with add-on controls
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)..................... Additional CMS Reports- Yes................ Applies only to sources
General. with add-on controls.
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)..................... Reporting Results of CMS Yes................ Applies only to sources
Performance Evaluations. with add-on controls.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)..................... Excess Emissions/CMS Yes................ Applies only to sources
Performance Reports. with add-on controls.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)..................... COMS Data Reports........ No................. Subpart VVVV does not
specify opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.10(f)........................ Recordkeeping/Reporting Yes................
Waiver.
Sec. 63.11........................... Control Device No................. Facilities subject to
Requirements--Applicabil subpart VVVV do not use
ity. flares as control
devices.
Sec. 63.12........................... State Authority and Yes................ Sec. 63.5776 lists
Delegations. those sections of
subpart A that are not
delegated.
Sec. 63.13........................... Addresses................ Yes................
Sec. 63.14........................... Incorporation by No................. Subpart VVVV does not
Reference. incorporate any
material by reference.
Sec. 63.15........................... Availability of Yes................
Information/
Confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 00-15505 Filed 7-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P