RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 25—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
[ 25 PA. CODE CHS. 121, 129 AND 130 ]
Flexible Packaging Printing Presses, Offset Lithographic Printing Presses and Letterpress Printing Presses; Adhesives, Sealants, Primers and Solvents
[44 Pa.B. 3929]
[Saturday, June 28, 2014]The Environmental Quality Board (Board) amends Chapters 121, 129 and 130 (relating to general provisions; standards for sources; and standards for products) to read as set forth in Annex A.
This final-form rulemaking amends Chapter 121 to add terms and definitions in § 121.1 (relating to definitions) and amends Chapter 129 to limit emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from inks, varnishes, coatings, adhesives, fountain solutions and cleaning solutions used or applied on or with flexible packaging printing presses, offset lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses. The final-form rulemaking amends §§ 129.51 and 129.67 (relating to general; and graphic arts systems) and adds §§ 129.67a and 129.67b (relating to control of VOC emissions from flexible packaging printing presses; and control of VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses).
The final-form rulemaking also amends the adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents regulations in Chapters 129 and 130 to clarify the applicability of the adhesive, sealant, adhesive primer and sealant primer requirements of §§ 129.77 and 130.703 (relating to control of emissions from the use or application of adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents; and exemptions and exceptions) to the adhesives used or applied on or with the printing presses regulated under this final-form rulemaking. This order was adopted by the Board at its meeting of February 18, 2014.
A. Effective Date
This final-form rulemaking will be effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
This final-form rulemaking will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) upon publication.
B. Contact Persons
For further information, contact Kirit Dalal, Chief, Division of Air Resource Management, Bureau of Air Quality, 12th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P. O. Box 8468, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468, (717) 772-3436; or Kristen Furlan, Assistant Counsel, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel, 9th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, P. O. Box 8464, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8464, (717) 787-7060. Persons with a disability may use the Pennsylvania AT&T Relay Service by calling (800) 654-5984 (TDD users) or (800) 654-5988 (voice users). This final-form rulemaking is available on the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) web site at www.dep.state.pa.us (DEP Search/Keyword: EQB).
C. Statutory Authority
This final-form rulemaking is authorized under section 5(a)(1) and (8) of the Air Pollution Control Act (35 P. S. § 4005(a)(1) and (8)), which in subsection (a)(1) grants the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations for the prevention, control, reduction and abatement of air pollution in this Commonwealth, and which in subsection (a)(8) grants the Board the authority to adopt rules and regulations designed to implement the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7401—7671q).
D. Background and Summary
The purpose of this final-form rulemaking is to implement control measures to reduce VOC emissions from inks, varnishes, coatings, adhesives, fountain solutions and cleaning solutions used or applied on or with flexible packaging printing presses, offset lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses. VOCs are precursors for ground-level ozone formation. Ground-level ozone, a public health and welfare hazard, is not emitted directly by inks, coatings and other materials to the atmosphere, but is formed by a photochemical reaction between VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. In accordance with sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2)(A) and 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7502(c)(1), 7511a(b)(2)(A) and 7511c(b)(1)(B)), the final-form rulemaking establishes the VOC emission limits and other requirements of the EPA 2006 Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for flexible packaging printing and for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing for these sources in this Commonwealth. See Consumer and Commercial Products, Group II: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing Materials, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, and Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, 71 FR 58745, 58747 (October 5, 2006).
The EPA is responsible for establishing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment: ozone; particulate matter; NOx; carbon monoxide; sulfur dioxide; and lead. The CAA established two types of NAAQS: primary standards, limits set to protect public health; and secondary standards, limits set to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility impairment and from damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings. The EPA established primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to protect public health and welfare.
When ground-level ozone is present in concentrations in excess of the Federal health-based 8-hour NAAQS for ozone, public health and welfare are adversely affected. Ozone exposure correlates to increased respiratory disease and higher mortality rates. Ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs. Within a few days, the damaged cells are shed and replaced. Over a long time period, lung tissue may become permanently scarred, resulting in permanent loss of lung function and a lower quality of life. When ambient ozone levels are high, more people with asthma have attacks that require a doctor's attention or use of medication. Ozone also makes people more sensitive to allergens including pet dander, pollen and dust mites, all of which can trigger asthma attacks.
The EPA concluded that there is an association between high levels of ambient ozone and increased hospital admissions for respiratory ailments, including asthma. While children, the elderly and those with respiratory problems are most at risk, even healthy individuals may experience increased respiratory ailments and other symptoms when they are exposed to high levels of ambient ozone while engaged in activities that involve physical exertion. High levels of ozone also affect animals in ways similar to humans. In addition to causing adverse human and animal health effects, the EPA concluded that ozone affects vegetation and ecosystems, leading to reductions in agricultural crop and commercial forest yields by destroying chlorophyll; reduced growth and survivability of tree seedlings; and increased plant susceptibility to disease, pests and other environmental stresses, including harsh weather. In long-lived species, these effects may become evident only after several years or even decades and have the potential for long-term adverse impacts on forest ecosystems. Ozone damage to the foliage of trees and other plants can decrease the aesthetic value of ornamental species used in residential landscaping, as well as the natural beauty of parks and recreation areas. Through deposition, ground-level ozone also contributes to pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. The economic value of some welfare losses due to ozone can be calculated, such as crop yield loss from both reduced seed production and visible injury to some leaf crops, including lettuce, spinach and tobacco, as well as visible injury to ornamental plants, including grass, flowers and shrubs. Other types of welfare loss may not be quantifiable, such as the reduced aesthetic value of trees growing in heavily visited parks.
High levels of ground-level ozone can also cause damage to buildings and synthetic fibers, including nylon, and reduced visibility on roadways and in natural areas. The implementation of additional measures to address ozone air quality nonattainment in this Commonwealth is necessary to protect the public health and welfare, animal and plant health and welfare, and the environment.
In July 1997, the EPA promulgated primary and secondary ozone standards at a level of 0.08 part per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). In 2004, the EPA designated 37 counties in this Commonwealth as 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Based on ambient air monitoring data for the 2013 ozone season, all monitored areas of this Commonwealth are attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Department must ensure that the 1997 ozone standard is attained and maintained by implementing permanent and enforceable control measures to ensure violations of the standard do not occur for the next decade.
In March 2008, the EPA lowered the standard to 0.075 ppm averaged over 8 hours to provide even greater protection for children, other at-risk populations and the environment against the array of ozone-induced adverse health and welfare effects. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). In April 2012, the EPA designated five areas in this Commonwealth as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088, 30143 (May 21, 2012). These areas include all or a portion of Allegheny, Armstrong, Berks, Beaver, Bucks, Butler, Carbon, Chester, Delaware, Fayette, Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia, Washington and Westmoreland Counties. The Commonwealth must ensure that these areas attain the 2008 ozone standard by 2015 and that they continue to maintain the standard thereafter. Furthermore, five monitors in areas of this Commonwealth that the EPA considered ''unclassifiable/attainment'' when it designated nonattainment areas in April 2012 violated the 2008 standard in 2012. The Commonwealth must also ensure that these ''unclassifiable/attainment'' areas attain and maintain the standard to avoid having them designated as nonattainment areas. Implementing control measures for reducing the emissions of VOCs, such as the recommendations included in the CTGs, is a strategy that the Commonwealth can use to attain and maintain the 2008 standard in all of these areas.
There are no Federal statutory or regulatory limits for VOC emissions from flexible packaging printing presses, offset lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses. State regulations to control VOC emissions from flexible packaging printing presses, offset lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses are required under Federal law, however, and will be reviewed by the EPA to determine if the provisions meet the ''reasonably available control technology'' (RACT) requirements of the CAA and its implementing regulations. See Consumer and Commercial Products, Group II: Control Techniques Guidelines in Lieu of Regulations for Flexible Packaging Printing Materials, Lithographic Printing Materials, Letterpress Printing Materials, Industrial Cleaning Solvents, and Flat Wood Paneling Coatings, 71 FR 58745, 58747. The EPA defines RACT as ''the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.'' See State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas—Supplement (on Control Techniques Guidelines), 44 FR 53761, 53762 (September 17, 1979).
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides that SIPs for nonattainment areas must include ''reasonably available control measures,'' including RACT, for sources of emissions. Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA provides that, for moderate ozone nonattainment areas, states must revise their SIPs to include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document issued by the EPA prior to the area's date of attainment. More importantly, section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires that states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), including the Commonwealth, submit a SIP revision requiring implementation of RACT for all sources of VOC emissions in the state covered by a specific CTG.
Section 183(e) of the CAA (42 U.S.C.A. § 7511b(e)) directs the EPA to list for regulation those categories of products that account for at least 80% of the VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products in ozone nonattainment areas. Section 183(e)(3)(C) of the CAA further provides that the EPA may issue a CTG in place of a National regulation for a product category when the EPA determines that the CTG will be ''substantially as effective as regulations'' in reducing emissions of VOC in ozone nonattainment areas. In 1995, the EPA listed flexible packaging printing materials, lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing materials on its section 183(e) list and, in 2006, issued CTGs for flexible packaging printing materials and for offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing materials. See 60 FR 15264 (March 23, 1995) and 71 FR 58745; Control Techniques Guidelines for Flexible Package Printing, EPA 453/R-06-003, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, September 2006 (FPP CTG); and Control Techniques Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing, EPA 453/R-06-002, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, September 2006 (LLP CTG). The CTGs are available on the EPA web site at www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html.
In the notice published at 71 FR 58745, the EPA determined that the CTGs would be substantially as effective as a National regulation in reducing VOC emissions from these printing material product categories in ozone nonattainment areas. The CTGs provide states with the EPA's recommendation of what constitutes RACT for the covered category. States can use the recommendations provided in the CTGs to inform their own determination as to what constitutes RACT for VOC emissions from the covered category. State air pollution control agencies are free to implement other technically sound approaches that are consistent with the CAA requirements and the EPA's implementing regulations or guidelines.
When developing the RACT measures included in its Flexible Package Printing CTG, the EPA took into account the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the printing and publishing industry promulgated at 61 FR 27132 (May 30, 1996) and codified at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KK (relating to National emission standards for the printing and publishing industry). Many hazardous air pollutants (HAP) are VOCs, but not all VOCs are HAPs. The requirements of the 1996 NESHAP apply to ''major sources'' of HAP from printing and publishing operations, including flexible package printing operations. For the purpose of regulating HAP, a ''major source'' is considered to be a stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single listed HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAPs. See section 112(a)(1) of the CAA (42 U.S.C.A. § 7412(a)(1)).
The Department reviewed the recommendations included in the 2006 CTGs for flexible packaging printing presses and for offset lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses for their applicability to the ozone reduction measures necessary for this Commonwealth. The Bureau of Air Quality determined that the measures provided in the final-form rulemaking are appropriate to be implemented in this Commonwealth as RACT for these source categories.
Implementation of the control measures included in the final-form rulemaking will achieve VOC emission reductions locally and will also reduce the transport of VOC emissions and ground-level ozone to downwind states. Adoption of VOC emission requirements for flexible packaging printing presses, offset lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses is part of the Commonwealth's strategy, in concert with other OTR jurisdictions, to further reduce transport of VOC ozone precursors and ground-level ozone throughout the OTR to attain and maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The final-form rulemaking is required under the CAA and is reasonably required to attain and maintain the health-based 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to satisfy related CAA requirements in this Commonwealth. Upon publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the final-form rulemaking will be submitted to the EPA as a revision to the SIP.
The final-form rulemaking was discussed with the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee (AQTAC) on August 1, 2013. During the AQTAC's consideration of the final-form rulemaking, the following issues were discussed: the change from the proposed 15 pounds per day applicability threshold to the 450 pounds per month applicability threshold and the associated change from daily recordkeeping to monthly recordkeeping; the change from 30% to 70% VOC content for cleaning solutions; the change from the 55-gallon limit to the 110-gallon limit for noncomplying cleaning solutions used at the facility each year; and the use of the VOC content of the highest VOC-containing ink as a surrogate for the VOC content of all inks used on the press to ease the recordkeeping burden. Following its discussion on August 1, 2013, the AQTAC voted 11-1-1 to concur with the Department's recommendation to present the final-form rulemaking to the Board for approval for publication as a final-form rulemaking with consideration of the changes discussed at the meeting.
The Department consulted with the Small Business Compliance Advisory Committee (SBCAC) on July 24, 2013. The SBCAC concurred with the Department's recommendation to forward the final-form rulemaking to the Board for consideration for publication as final-form rulemaking. The Department also consulted with the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC), Policy and Regulatory Oversight Committee on August 28, 2013. The Policy and Regulatory Oversight Committee reported on the final-form rulemaking to the CAC at its meeting of September 17, 2013. The CAC, on the recommendation of the Policy and Regulatory Oversight Committee, concurred with presenting the final-form rulemaking to the Board. The Department anticipates assisting the Graphic Arts Association (GAA), the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) and the SBCAC in reaching out to their membership concerning this final-form rulemaking.
E. Summary of Final-Form Rulemaking and Changes from Proposed to Final-Form Rulemaking
§ 121.1. Definitions
The final-form rulemaking adds 18 new terms and definitions to § 121.1 and revises the definitions of five existing terms to support §§ 129.67a and 129.67b. The final-form rulemaking deletes two proposed new terms that are not needed to support the final-form rulemaking.
The following new terms and definitions are identical to the amendments in the proposed rulemaking: ''alcohol substitute,'' ''flexible packaging,'' ''flexible packaging printing press,'' ''fountain solution,'' ''heatset ink,'' ''letterpress printing,'' ''printing press,'' ''sheet-fed printing'' and ''web printing.''
A member of the AQTAC commented at the AQTAC's August 1, 2013, meeting on the definition of ''alcohol substitute,'' suggesting that the second sentence of the definition should be deleted as extraneous information. The Board considered this suggestion and retained the definition as proposed because the second sentence provides helpful information.
A member of the AQTAC commented at the AQTAC's August 1, 2013, meeting on the definition of ''fountain solution,'' suggesting that the phrase ''specifically isopropyl alcohol'' was restrictive and should be revised to include all alcohols. The Board considered this suggestion and retained the definition as proposed because ''isopropyl alcohol'' is specified in the LLP CTG as one of the most common VOC components, in addition to alcohol substitutes, to be added to fountain solutions.
The following new definitions contain changes made to the proposed language in response to public comments. The Board revised the proposed definition of ''batch'' to reflect that it applies to both fountain solutions and cleaning solutions. The Board revised the proposed definitions of ''lithographic plate,'' ''lithographic printing'' and ''offset lithographic printing'' to delete ''thin metal.'' The Board clarified the proposed definition of ''varnish.''
The following new definition contains changes to the proposed language in response to concerns expressed by members of the AQTAC at its August 1, 2013, meeting. The Board revised the proposed definition of ''alcohol'' to correct the subscript for the hydrogen atom in the general formula that represents alcohols.
The following definitions are new in the final-form rulemaking and are intended to add clarity to other definitions and to § 129.67b: ''cleaning solution,'' ''heatset'' and ''non-heatset.''
The final-form rulemaking does not make changes to the proposed amendments of two existing terms. The definition of ''paper, film or foil coating or paper, film or foil surface coating'' is identical to the amendments in the proposed rulemaking, which clarify that a coating applied to a flexible packaging substrate is considered surface coating and not printing, if the coating is not applied on or in-line with a flexible packaging printing press. These coating processes are regulated under § 129.52b (relating to control of VOC emissions from paper, film and foil surface coating processes). The final-form definition of the existing term ''rotogravure printing'' is identical to the amendment in the proposed rulemaking to add a missing word for clarity.
The final-form rulemaking amends definitions of the existing terms ''as applied,'' ''as supplied'' and ''CPDS—Certified Product Data Sheet'' for clarity. Additionally, a member of the AQTAC asked at the August 1, 2013, meeting if there was an approving authority for the option of using an equivalent or alternative method included in the revised definition of ''CPDS—Certified Product Data Sheet.'' The Board considered this question and clarified the definition to specify that the equivalent or alternative method must be approved by the Department. The Board thanks the AQTAC for providing this comment.
The final-form rulemaking does not adopt the proposed term ''first installation date'' and its definition and moves the definition into Table 1 in § 129.67a and § 129.67b(d)(1), where the term is used in § 129.67b(d)(1)(i) and the definition fits comfortably in § 129.67b(d)(1)(ii). The final-form rulemaking does not adopt the proposed definition of ''heatset dryer'' because it is no longer needed.
§ 129.51. General
The final-form rulemaking amends § 129.51(a) to extend its coverage to the owner and operator of a flexible packaging printing press, offset lithographic printing press or letterpress printing press, or a combination of these press types, covered by this final-form rulemaking. Section 129.51(a) provides an alternative method for the owner and operator of an affected facility to achieve compliance with air emission limits. Section 129.51(a)(3) is amended to clarify the materials included in the requirement.
The final-form rulemaking amends § 129.51(c) to clarify that the test methods in Chapter 139 (relating to sampling and testing) should be followed to monitor compliance with the emission requirements of § 129.51, unless otherwise set forth in Chapter 129.
The final-form rulemaking amends § 129.51(d) to clarify the records that are generally applicable under Chapter 129 to demonstrate emission limitations or control requirements and the amount of time the records shall be kept.
The final-form rulemaking redesignates § 129.51(d)(3) as § 129.51(e) to clarify that the owner or operator of a facility or source claiming that the facility or source is exempt from the VOC control provisions of Chapter 129 shall maintain records that clearly demonstrate to the Department that the facility or source is not subject to the VOC emission limitations or control requirements of Chapter 129.
§ 129.67. Graphic arts systems
The final-form rulemaking amends § 129.67 to account for the new requirements that will apply to the owner and operator of a flexible packaging printing press under § 129.67a. There are no changes to this section from the proposed rulemaking.
Section 129.67 applies more broadly than § 129.67a in two ways. First, § 129.67 applies to rotogravure and flexographic printing presses beyond those used for flexible packaging printing. Second, § 129.67 requires VOC emissions from surface coating operations to count toward the total VOC emissions that trigger applicability of the section to the owner and operator of a facility that has emissions from a rotogravure or flexographic printing press. The VOC emission applicability threshold is higher, however, than under final-form § 129.67a.
The amendments to § 129.67 clarify that an owner or operator of a flexible packaging printing press, who was required to install a control device under § 129.67 prior to the effective date of this final-form rulemaking and who is also subject to the recordkeeping, reporting and work practice requirements of § 129.67a by virtue of meeting the 450 pounds per month or 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period, or both, VOC emission threshold in § 129.67a(a)(1)(ii), is subject both to the existing control device requirement of § 129.67 and the new recordkeeping, reporting and work practice requirements of § 129.67a.
The amendments to § 129.67 also clarify, however, that an owner or operator of a flexible packaging printing press who is subject to the control requirements of § 129.67a by virtue of meeting the threshold of 25 tpy of potential emissions of VOC, before consideration of add-on controls, for an individual flexible packaging printing press dryer under § 129.67a(a)(1)(i) is not subject to § 129.67 because they are subject to more stringent control requirements under § 129.67a. This owner and operator will also be subject to the recordkeeping, reporting, work practice and other requirements of § 129.67a.
§ 129.67a. Control of VOC emissions from flexible packaging printing presses
The final-form rulemaking adds § 129.67a to regulate VOC emissions from flexible packaging printing presses. As explained in subsection (b), § 129.67a supersedes the requirements of a RACT permit already issued under §§ 129.91—129.95 (relating to stationary sources of NOx and VOCs) to the owner or operator for VOC emissions from a flexible packaging printing press subject to § 129.67a, except to the extent the RACT permit contains more stringent requirements.
The applicability of § 129.67a is described in subsection (a), which establishes a threshold with broad applicability in subsection (a)(1)(ii) and a threshold for control requirements on higher VOC-emitting presses, based on their potential emissions from the dryer, before consideration of add-on controls, in subsection (a)(1)(i).
The broadly applicable threshold in subsection (a)(1)(ii) is as follows: 450 pounds (204.1 kilograms) per month or 2.7 tons (2,455 kilograms) per 12-month rolling period of actual VOC emissions, before consideration of add-on controls, from all flexible packaging printing operations, and all VOC emissions from related cleaning activities, at the facility. An owner and operator of a facility that meets or exceeds either of these thresholds shall comply with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of subsection (e), the work practice requirements for cleaning activities of subsection (g) and the sampling and testing requirements in subsection (f), as applicable.
Subsection (a)(1)(iii) was not in the proposed rulemaking. This amendment to the final-form rulemaking provides that the owner and operator of a flexible packaging printing press that emits actual VOC emissions below the 450 pounds per month or 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period threshold are subject to the final-form rulemaking. The owner and operator are subject only to the recordkeeping requirements in subsection (e)(3) and (4) to demonstrate that they are exempt from the VOC control provisions of this section, and they are subject to the reporting requirements, when requested by the Department, in subsection (e)(5).
In the final-form rulemaking, the Department replaced the proposed ''per day'' applicability threshold in § 129.67a(a)(1)(ii) with the 450 pounds per month applicability threshold, in consideration of comments received from commentators. The ''per day'' applicability threshold would have necessitated keeping daily records. The ''per month'' threshold allows monthly records, which is more appropriate for the flexible packaging printing industry than the daily records in the proposed rulemaking, due to the industry practice of tracking material usage on a monthly basis. Furthermore, the ''per month'' applicability threshold considers the recordkeeping and reporting burden of the population of small business-sized printers that are subject to subsection (a)(1)(iii) that need to keep minimum records to demonstrate that they are not subject to any other compliance requirements.
The threshold for control requirements on higher VOC-emitting presses in subsection (a)(1)(i) is 25 tpy potential emissions from the dryer of an individual flexible packaging printing press of VOC from inks, coatings and adhesives combined, before consideration of add-on controls. An owner and operator of a press that meets or exceeds this threshold shall comply with the emission limits in subsection (c) and the compliance and monitoring requirements in subsection (d) if an add-on air pollution control device is used, as well as the sampling and testing requirements in subsection (f) and the recordkeeping, reporting and work practice requirements for cleaning activities of subsections (e) and (g).
The applicability of § 129.67a is further described in subsection (a)(2), which establishes that an owner or operator of a flexographic or rotogravure printing press subject to subsection (a)(1)(ii) and § 129.67 that prints flexible packaging materials, who was required to install a control device under § 129.67 prior to the effective date of this section, shall continue the operation of that control device and also meet the requirements of § 129.67a.
Subsection (a)(3) clarifies that VOCs from adhesives used at the facility that are not used or applied on or with the flexible packaging printing press are not subject to § 129.67a and may be regulated under § 129.52b, § 129.77 or Chapter 130, Subchapter D (relating to adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents). Subsection (a)(4) directs the owner or operator of a surface coating process for flexible packaging substrates that is not done with a flexible packaging printing press to § 129.52(b).
Subsection (b) explains that the requirements of § 129.67a supersede the requirements of a RACT permit issued under §§ 129.91—129.95 prior to January 1, 2015, to the owner or operator of a source subject to § 129.67a, except to the extent the RACT permit contains more stringent requirements. January 1, 2015, is the compliance date for this final-form rulemaking, and appears throughout the final-form rulemaking. It is 2 years later than the January 1, 2013, compliance date in the proposed rulemaking to account for the anticipated publication date of this final-form rulemaking.
Subsection (c) establishes VOC emission limitation options beginning January 1, 2015, for a person subject to § 129.67a by virtue of meeting or exceeding the 25 tpy threshold in subsection (a)(1)(i). Beginning January 1, 2015, a person subject to subsection (a)(1)(i) may not cause or permit the emission into the outdoor atmosphere of VOCs from a flexible packaging printing press, unless one or more of the VOC content limits for inks, coatings and adhesives in subsection (c) is met; one or more of the VOC vapor recovery, oxidation or other control system requirements in subsection (c) is met; or the Department has issued a plan approval, operating permit or Title V permit to the owner or operator prior to January 1, 2015, establishing a Federally-enforceable limitation to limit potential emissions of VOC from the flexible packaging printing press below 25 tpy before consideration of add-on controls. The dates in Table 1 reflect the date of the proposed 1996 NESHAP for the printing and publishing industry, namely March 14, 1995, and the compliance date of this final-form rulemaking, namely January 1, 2015. The EPA used these events for suggested cut-off dates in the Flexible Package Printing CTG.
To improve clarity and provide greater specificity in subsection (c), the final-form rulemaking contains revisions not included in the proposed rulemaking. These revisions include: an equation for calculating VOC content that was proposed in subsection (d)(1) of the proposed rulemaking and fits more comfortably under subsection (c); an equation for calculating daily weighted average VOC content; amendments to reflect the January 1, 2015, compliance date and to include the definition of ''first installation date''; and deletion of proposed subsection (c)(4) because the paragraph was redundant.
Subsection (d) identifies the compliance and monitoring procedures to demonstrate compliance with § 129.67a for the owner or operator of a flexible packaging printing press subject to subsection (a)(1)(i) that uses an add-on air pollution control device in accordance with subsection (c)(3). This subsection has been revised in the final-form rulemaking to provide specificity of the requirements for use of an add-on air pollution control device and to make subsection (d) consistent with the add-on air pollution control device provisions of § 129.67b(e). Subsection (d)(1) describes requirements for monitoring equipment and describes operational records supporting the compliance monitoring system, though most of the recordkeeping requirements are moved to subsection (e). Subsection (d)(1) has been revised to clarify that the temperature must be continuously monitored and the temperature reading shall be recorded at least once every 15 minutes, rather than daily as proposed. Subsection (d)(2) specifies the minimum temperature at which the add-on air pollution control device can operate and provides for temperature fluctuations. Subsection (d)(3) specifies that the add-on air pollution control device must be in operation at all times that the source is operating. Subsection (d)(4) requires that the air pollution control device be approved, in writing, by the Department in a plan approval, operating permit or Title V permit prior to use.
Subsection (e) establishes recordkeeping and reporting requirements beginning January 1, 2015. This subsection has been revised in the final-form rulemaking in response to comments received during the public comment period. Subsection (e) requires the owner and operator to maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with § 129.67a. The records may include purchase, use, production and other records. The recordkeeping requirements in the final-form rulemaking correspond to applicability thresholds and substantive requirements of this section. Specifically, subsection (e)(1) requires a person subject to § 129.67a(a)(1)(i) using an add-on air pollution control device to maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with subsection (d), which contains the compliance and monitoring requirements for add-on air pollution control devices. These records include the temperature reading of the add-on air pollution control device, the maintenance performed on the add-on air pollution control device and monitoring equipment, including the date and type of maintenance, and the catalyst activity test performed, if applicable. Subsection (e)(2) requires a person subject to § 129.67a(a)(1)(i) not using an add-on air pollution control device to maintain records of the as applied VOC content of inks, coatings and adhesives sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the limitations in subsection (c)(1) or (2); subsection (c)(1) and (2) sets forth the individual and weighted average VOC content limit requirements of inks, coatings and adhesives.
Subsection (e)(3) requires owners and operators claiming an exemption from a VOC control provision of this section based on potential or actual VOC emissions to keep records that demonstrate to the Department that the press or facility is exempt. This includes owners and operators with actual VOC emissions below the threshold established in § 129.67a(a)(1)(iii). Subsection (e)(4) allows the owner or operator to group materials into classes using the highest VOC content in any material in a class to represent that class of material. The Board deleted the express reference to the specific parameters of each ink, coating, thinner and component from these requirements to allow owners and operators greater flexibility in developing the records. Subsection (e)(5) specifies that records required under this subsection be maintained for 2 years unless a longer period is required by a plan approval or operating permit issued under Chapter 127 (relating to construction, modification, reactivation and operation of sources). The records shall be submitted to the Department in an acceptable format upon receipt of a written request. Subsection (e)(6) requires that a person subject to subsection (a)(1)(i) using an add-on air pollution control device that is required to demonstrate overall control efficiency in accordance with subsections (c)(3) and (d) shall submit reports to the Department in accordance with Chapter 139.
Subsection (f) specifies sampling and testing methods. This subsection has been expanded in the final-form rulemaking. Subsection (f)(1) requires that sampling of an ink or coating and testing for the VOC content of the sampled ink or coating be performed in accordance with the procedures and test methods specified in Chapter 139. Subsection (f)(1) also requires that sampling and testing of an add-on air pollution control device be performed in accordance with the procedures and test methods specified in Chapter 139 and be performed no later than 180 days after the compliance date of the press or have been performed and previously approved by the Department within 5 years prior to January 1, 2015. The Department may waive retesting of the capture efficiency for capture systems that are not permanent total enclosures if the operating parameters indicate that a fundamental change has not taken place in the operation or design of the equipment, unless retesting is required under Subpart C, Article III (relating to air resources) or a plan approval, operating permit or an order issued by the Department. Fundamental changes include adding print stations to a press, increasing or decreasing the volumetric flow rate from the dryer (for example, by changing the size of press fans or motors, or removal or derating of dryers), or by changing the static duct pressure.
Subsection (f)(2) addresses the test methods and procedures to determine the overall control efficiency of the add-on air pollution control devices subject to prior written approval by the Department. Subsection (f)(2) requires that capture efficiency testing be performed in accordance with either the procedures and test methods specified in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix M, Methods 204—204F or 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KK, Appendix A (relating to data quality objective and lower confidence limit approaches for alternative capture efficiency protocols and test methods). Subsection (f)(2) further requires that the control efficiency must be determined using one or more of three EPA Reference methods: Method 25, Method 25A or Method 18. EPA Reference Method 25A may not be used if the total gaseous nonmethane organic compound concentration at the outlet of the add-on air pollution control device is equal to or greater than 50 parts per million by volume, measured as carbon. EPA Reference Methods 18 and 25 may be used if the total gaseous nonmethane organic compound concentration at the outlet of the add-on air pollution control device is equal to or greater than 50 parts per million by volume, measured as carbon. EPA Reference Method 18 may be used in conjunction with EPA Reference Method 25A to subtract emissions of exempt VOCs. The method used to measure the inlet concentration of VOC may be the same method used to determine the outlet concentration of VOC unless use of the same method is determined to be technically infeasible. Subsection (f)(3) authorizes the use of other test methods demonstrated to provide results that are acceptable for purposes of determining compliance with § 129.67a if prior approval is obtained in writing from the Department and the EPA.
Subsection (g) establishes work practice requirements for cleaning activities beginning January 1, 2015. This subsection applies only to the owner and operator of a flexible packaging printing press subject to subsection (a)(1)(i), (1)(ii) or (2). It does not apply to the owner and operator of a press with emissions below the applicability threshold in subsection (a)(1)(iii). Subsection (g)(1) establishes work practices. Subsection (g)(2) and (3) specifies the cleaning activities to which the work practices apply and do not apply. Consistent with a one-page internal EPA memorandum clarifying this aspect of the CTG, the final-form rulemaking does not specify work practices for cleaning activities addressed by the EPA 2006 Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG. See Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Cleaning in Flexible Package Printing, Peter Tsirigotis, Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-01), EPA, February 9, 2009. Subsection (g)(3)(v) is more stringent than what is recommended in the CTG for flexible packaging printing presses. The CTG recommends that the work practices for cleaning materials apply to parts washers or cold cleaners used for cleaning press parts. In this Commonwealth, however, the use of parts washers and cold cleaners is regulated under § 129.63 (relating to degreasing operations). The requirements of § 129.63 are more stringent than the recommendation in the CTG, but must be maintained to satisfy the anti-backsliding provisions of sections 110 and 193 of the CAA (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7410 and 7515).
§ 129.67b. Control of VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses
The final-form rulemaking adds § 129.67b to regulate VOC emissions from offset lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses. As explained in subsection (b), § 129.67b supersedes the requirements of a RACT permit already issued under §§ 129.91—129.95 to the owner or operator for VOC emissions from an offset lithographic printing press or a letterpress printing press, or both, subject to § 129.67b, except to the extent the RACT permit contains more stringent requirements.
The applicability of § 129.67b is described in subsection (a), which establishes a threshold with broad applicability in subsection (a)(1)(ii)—(iv), and a threshold for control requirements on higher VOC-emitting presses, based on their potential emissions from the dryer, before consideration of add-on controls, in subsection (a)(1)(i).
The broadly applicable threshold in subsection (a)(1)(ii)—(iv) is as follows: 450 pounds (204.1 kilograms) per month or 2.7 tons (2,455 kilograms) per 12-month rolling period of actual VOC emissions, before consideration of add-on controls, from all letterpress printing press operations, offset lithographic printing press operations, or a combination of letterpress and offset lithographic printing press operations, and all emissions from related cleaning activities, at the facility. An owner and operator of a facility that meets or exceeds this threshold shall comply with the compliance and monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of subsections (e)—(g), the sampling and testing requirements in subsection (h) and the work practice requirements for cleaning activities in subsection (i). Subsection (a)(1)(iv), regarding the combination of presses, is new in the final-form rulemaking.
Subsection (a)(1)(v) was not in the proposed rulemaking. This new provision establishes that the owner and operator of an offset lithographic printing press or letterpress printing press that emits below the 450 pounds per month or 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period threshold are subject to the final-form rulemaking. These owners and operators are subject only to the recordkeeping requirements in subsection (f)(3) and (4) to demonstrate that they are exempt from the VOC control provisions of this section and to the reporting requirements of subsection (g), when requested by the Department.
In the final-form rulemaking, the Department replaced the proposed ''per day'' applicability threshold in § 129.67b(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) with the 450 pounds per month applicability threshold, in consideration of comments received from commentators. The ''per day'' applicability threshold would have necessitated keeping daily records. The ''per month'' threshold allows monthly records, which is more appropriate for the letterpress and offset lithographic printing press industry than the daily records in the proposed rulemaking, due to the industry practice of tracking material usage on a monthly basis. Furthermore, the ''per month'' applicability threshold considers the recordkeeping and reporting burden for the population of small business-sized printers that are subject to subsection (a)(1)(v) that need to keep minimum records to demonstrate that they are not subject to any other compliance requirements.
Each of the applicability provisions in subsection (a)(1) has been revised to clarify that ''inks'' include varnishes. The definition of ''varnish'' in § 121.1 explains, consistent with the LLP CTG, that varnish is an unpigmented ink.
The threshold for control requirements on higher VOC-emitting presses in subsection (a)(1)(i) is 25 tpy of potential VOC emissions from the dryer of a single heatset web offset lithographic printing press or heatset web letterpress printing press from all heatset inks, coatings and adhesives combined, before consideration of add-on controls. An owner and operator of a press that meets or exceeds this threshold must comply with the emission limits in subsections (c) and (d), the compliance and monitoring requirements in subsection (e), as well as the sampling and testing requirements in subsection (h) and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements and the work practice requirements for cleaning activities of subsections (f), (g) and (i).
In response to comments received on the proposed rulemaking, the Department added subsection (a)(2), which specifies that the owner or operator of an offset lithographic printing press subject to paragraph (1) may use the VOC emission retention factors and capture efficiency factors specified in new subsection (l) to determine the amount of potential or actual VOC emissions that is available for capture and control from the inks (including varnishes), fountain solutions and cleaning solutions used on the offset lithographic printing press.
Subsection (a)(3) clarifies that VOCs from adhesives used at the facility that are not used or applied on or with an offset lithographic printing press or a letterpress printing press are not subject to § 129.67b and may be regulated under § 129.77 or Chapter 130, Subchapter D.
Subsection (b) explains that the requirements of § 129.67b supersede the requirements of a RACT permit issued under §§ 129.91—129.95 prior to January 1, 2015, to the owner or operator of a source subject to § 129.67b, except to the extent the RACT permit contains more stringent requirements. January 1, 2015, is the compliance date for this final-form rulemaking, and appears throughout the final-form rulemaking. It is 2 years later than the January 1, 2013, compliance date in the proposed rulemaking to account for the anticipated publication date of this final-form rulemaking.
Subsection (c) establishes VOC emission limitations for cleaning solutions and fountain solutions used in or on printing presses subject to this section. Beginning January 1, 2015, subsection (c)(1) prohibits a person subject to subsection (a)(1)(i)—(iv) from causing or permitting the emission of VOCs into the outdoor atmosphere from cleaning solution used in or on an offset lithographic printing press or a letterpress printing press, unless specified conditions are met. This paragraph requires a VOC composite partial vapor pressure less than 10 millimeters of mercury at 68°F (20°C) or a VOC content less than 70% by weight. This paragraph allows a total gallon exemption for up to 110 gallons of noncomplying cleaning solutions. The 70% and 110-gallon restrictions are revised from the 30% and 55-gallon restrictions included in the proposed rulemaking in response to public comment specifically sought by the Department in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking and are consistent with the LLP CTG. Subsection (c)(2) prohibits a person subject to subsection (a)(1)(i), (iii) or (iv) from causing or permitting the emissions of VOC into the outdoor atmosphere from a fountain solution used in an offset lithographic printing press unless the fountain solution meets a specified VOC limit. This paragraph has been revised in the final-form rulemaking in response to public comments received to specify VOC content limits rather than alcohol content or alcohol substitute limits. Subsection (c)(3) provides two exemptions from subsection (c)(2).
Subsection (d) establishes VOC emission limitations for heatset web offset lithographic printing presses and heatset web letterpress printing presses. This subsection has been reorganized in the final-form rulemaking and now contains the definition of ''first installation date,'' which is used in this subsection and was defined in § 121.1 in the proposed rulemaking. Subsection (d)(1) applies to a person subject to § 129.67b by virtue of meeting or exceeding the threshold established in subsection (a)(1)(i) of 25 tpy of potential VOC emissions from the dryer of a single heatset press before consideration of add-on controls. Beginning January 1, 2015, subsection (d)(1) prohibits the emission into the outdoor atmosphere of VOCs from a single heatset web offset lithographic printing press or a single heatset web letterpress printing press, or both, unless the overall weight of VOCs emitted to the atmosphere from the heatset press dryer is reduced through the use of vapor recovery or oxidation or another method that is authorized under § 129.51(a). Subsection (d)(1) addresses heatset dryer pressure and overall control efficiency of an add-on air pollution control device for a heatset dryer and provides for an alternative limitation. The heatset dryer pressure must be maintained lower than the press room area pressure so that air flows into the heatset dryer at all times when the press is operating. The final-form rulemaking provides greater specificity on the conditions for Department approval of an alternative limitation for the overall control efficiency of an add-on air pollution control device for a heatset dryer. Subsection (d)(2) lists exceptions to the requirement for an add-on air pollution control device. Subsection (d)(3) specifies that subsection (d) does not apply if the Department has issued a plan approval, operating permit or Title V permit prior to January 1, 2015, to the owner or operator establishing a Federally-enforceable limitation to limit potential emissions below 25 tpy before consideration of add-on controls.
Subsection (e) specifies compliance and monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of § 129.67b. Subsection (e)(1) sets forth compliance and monitoring requirements applicable to the owner or operator of a heatset printing press using an add-on air pollution control device in accordance with subsection (d) as a result of meeting or exceeding the 25 tpy potential VOC emissions threshold for a single heatset press in subsection (a)(1)(i). Subsection (e)(1) has been revised in the final-form rulemaking to be consistent with the compliance and monitoring requirements in § 129.67a(d) previously described, in response to comments received during the public comment period. Subsection (e)(2) indicates how an owner or operator of an offset lithographic printing press who is subject to the fountain solution VOC limits of subsection (c)(2) may demonstrate compliance. Subsection (e)(2) is revised in the final-form rulemaking in response to public comments received to clarify that the VOC content of a fountain solution shall be determined one time for each recipe of fountain solution. Subsection (e)(3) indicates the acceptable methods by which the owner or operator of an offset lithographic printing press or letterpress printing press may demonstrate compliance with the VOC content limit or VOC composite partial vapor pressure limit specified in subsection (c)(1) for a cleaning solution used in or on the press. Subsection (e)(3) is also revised in the final-form rulemaking in response to public comments received to clarify that the VOC content of a cleaning solution shall be determined one time for each recipe of cleaning solution.
Subsection (f) identifies records required to demonstrate compliance for persons subject to § 129.67b beginning January 1, 2015. This subsection has been revised in the final-form rulemaking in response to comments received during the public comment period. Subsection (f) requires the owner and operator to maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with § 129.67b. The records may include purchase, use, production and other records. The recordkeeping requirements in the final-form rulemaking correspond to applicability thresholds and substantive requirements of this section. Specifically, subsection (f)(1) requires a person using an add-on air pollution control device to maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with subsection (e), which contains the compliance and monitoring requirements for add-on air pollution control devices. These records include the temperature reading of the add-on air pollution control device, the maintenance performed on the add-on air pollution control device and monitoring equipment, including the date and type of maintenance, and the catalyst activity test performed, if applicable. Subsection (f)(2) requires persons subject to the applicability requirements of subsection (a)(1)(i)—(iv) to maintain records of cleaning solutions and fountain solutions used at the facility.
Subsection (f)(3) requires owners and operators claiming an exemption from a VOC control provision of this section based on potential or actual VOC emissions to keep records that demonstrate to the Department that the press or facility is exempt. This includes owners and operators with actual VOC emissions below the threshold established in § 129.67b(a)(1)(v). Subsection (f)(4) allows the owner or operator to group materials into classes using the highest VOC content in any material in a class to represent that class of material. The Board deleted the express reference to the specific parameters of each ink, coating, thinner and component from these requirements to allow greater flexibility in developing the records.
Subsection (g) establishes reporting requirements beginning January 1, 2015. This subsection applies to persons subject to § 129.67b. Subsection (g)(1) requires that records be maintained for 2 years unless a longer period is required under by a plan approval or operating permit issued under Chapter 127. The records shall be submitted to the Department in an acceptable format upon receipt of a written request. Subsection (g)(2) specifies that the owner or operator of an offset lithographic printing press or letterpress printing press required to demonstrate overall control efficiency in accordance with subsection (d) shall submit reports to the Department in accordance with Chapter 139.
Subsection (h) specifies sampling and testing methods. This subsection has been expanded in the final-form rulemaking and is consistent, except for one difference, with § 129.67a(f). The difference is that there is not a requirement for capture efficiency testing for the lithographic and letterpress printing presses due to the option to use the retention factors in subsection (l)(2)(i), which assume 100% capture by the press dryer if constant negative pressure into the dryer is demonstrated.
Subsection (i) establishes work practice requirements for cleaning activities. This subsection requires the owner and operator of an offset lithographic printing press or letterpress printing press subject to subsection (a)(1)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) to comply with specified work practice standards for cleaning activities at the facility. Subsection (i) does not apply to the owner and operator of a press with emissions below the applicability threshold in subsection (a)(1)(v). Subsection (i)(1) specifies the work practices. Subsection (i)(2) and (3) specifies the cleaning activities to which the work practices apply and do not apply. Subsection (i) is more stringent than what is recommended in the CTG. The CTG recommends that the work practices for cleaning materials apply to parts washers or cold cleaners used for cleaning press parts. In this Commonwealth, however, the use of parts washers and cold cleaners is regulated under § 129.63. The requirements of § 129.63 are more stringent than the recommendation in the CTG, but must be maintained to satisfy the anti-backsliding provisions of sections 110 and 193 of the CAA.
Subsection (j) sets forth the procedure for determining the composite partial vapor pressure of organic compounds in cleaning solutions. Subsection (j)(1) addresses quantifying the amount of each compound in the blend using gas chromatographic analysis, and is amended in the final-form rulemaking to allow flexibility in choice of ASTM method. Subsection (j)(2) provides the equation for calculating composite partial vapor pressure.
Subsection (k) lists acceptable methods for determining vapor pressure of each single component compound in cleaning solutions. This subsection is amended in the final-form rulemaking to allow flexibility in choice of ASTM method.
Subsection (l) is new in the final-form rulemaking. It establishes retention factors and capture efficiency factors for calculating the amount of VOCs retained in the printed web substrate or the shop towels or captured by the press dryer for control by the add-on air pollution control device for specified offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing processes.
§ 129.77. Control of emissions from the use or application of adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents
The final-form rulemaking amends § 129.77(k)(2) to clarify that § 129.77 does not apply to the use or application of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers and sealant primers that are subject to other regulations in Chapter 129 or Chapter 130 (relating to standards for products). There are no changes to this section from the proposed rulemaking.
§ 130.703. Exemptions and exceptions
The final-form rulemaking amends § 130.703(a)(2) to clarify that § 130.703 does not apply to the use or application of adhesives, sealants, adhesive primers and sealant primers that are subject to other regulations in Chapter 129 or Chapter 130. There are no changes to this section from the proposed rulemaking.
F. Summary of Major Comments and Responses
The Board approved publication of the proposed rulemaking at its meeting of September 20, 2011. The proposed rulemaking was published at 42 Pa.B. 779 (February 11, 2012). The public comment period opened February 11, 2012. Three public hearings were held on March 14, 15 and 16, 2012, in Pittsburgh, Norristown and Harrisburg, respectively. The public comment period closed on April 16, 2012, for a 66-day public comment period. Public comments were received from four commentators. The comments received on the proposed rulemaking are summarized in this section and are addressed in a Comment and Response Document which is available from the Department. The Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) also provided comments.
General support of proposed rulemaking
Several commentators supported the Department overall in its use of the CTGs.
Effect of printing industry emissions on the environment
One commentator asserted that an overall negative effect of small printers to the environment did not seem to be clearly shown. The Board disagrees. Each CTG provides emission estimates and impacts of the emissions from the covered printing industry. Each CTG also reflects the EPA's listing of flexible packaging printing materials, lithographic printing materials and letterpress printing materials on its CAA section 183(e) list of categories of products that account for at least 80% of the VOC emissions from consumer and commercial products in ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA states on page 3 of the Flexible Package Printing CTG: ''In section 183(e), Congress directed EPA to assist States in achieving VOC emission reductions from consumer and commercial products. These products individually may result in relatively small amounts of VOC emissions, but, in the aggregate, they contribute significantly to ozone formation in nonattainment areas.''
Definitions
A commentator wrote that several definitions need to be revised or added to provide clarity and consistency with the CTG. ''Batch'' should be revised to reflect that it applies to both fountain solutions and ''cleaning solution'' and definitions should be added for ''cleaning solution,'' ''heatset'' and ''non-heatset.'' IRRC suggested the clarity of the rulemaking would be improved by defining ''heatset.'' In response, the Board revised the definition of ''batch,'' which already applies to ''fountain solution,'' to also apply to ''cleaning solution.'' The Board added a definition of ''cleaning solution'' using wording similar to that provided by the commentator. The Board added definitions for ''heatset'' and ''non-heatset'' using some of the commentator's suggested language and also using information available in the CTG. The definition of ''non-heatset'' includes the polymerization curing processes of infrared drying, ultraviolet curing and electron beam curing.
One commentator and IRRC recommended that ''thin metal'' be deleted from the definitions of ''lithographic plate'' and ''lithographic printing'' because plates can also be made from paper or plastic. IRRC further noted that this language also appears in the definition of ''offset lithographic printing.'' The Board agrees and deleted ''thin metal'' from the definitions of ''lithographic plate,'' ''lithographic printing'' and ''offset lithographic printing.''
One commentator and IRRC requested that the acronyms MSDS and CPDS be explained or defined for clarity in the subsection in which they first appear, namely § 129.67b(e)(2)(ii). The commentator suggested wording. The Board agrees that the acronyms MSDS and CPDS should be defined. Both terms are already defined in § 121.1, as they are used in other portions of Chapters 121—145. Since both terms are already defined in § 121.1, the Board did not move the definitions into § 129.67b(e)(2)(ii). Instead, the Board revised the definition of ''CPDS—Certified Product Data Sheet'' in § 121.1 to make it applicable to § 129.67b and left the generally-applicable definition of ''MSDS—Material Safety Data Sheet'' as is.
IRRC commented that under § 121.1, the proposed definition of ''batch'' begins with the phrase ''For purposes of § 129.67b...'', the proposed definition of ''first installation date'' begins with the phrase ''For purposes of § 129.67a... and 129.67b...'' and the proposed definition of ''varnish'' begins with the phrase ''For purposes of § 129.67b....'' Since these definitions are specific to the sections referenced in each definition, IRRC suggested that the definitions be moved to those particular sections. The Board agrees with the suggestion to move the definition of ''first installation date.'' The Board moved the definition into Table 1 in § 129.67a and § 129.67b(d)(1), where the term is used in § 129.67b(d)(1)(i) and the definition fits comfortably in § 129.67b(d)(1)(ii). The Board considered the recommendation to move the definition of ''batch'' to § 129.67b, but has left it in § 121.1, along with the rest of the definitions for this final-form rulemaking. The term's definition is lengthy and does not fit well into § 129.67b, where the term appears in subsection (e)(2) and (3). The wording ''For purposes of § 129.67b'' is necessary in § 121.1 because ''batch'' appears in unrelated definitions in § 121.1 and also in unrelated § 129.63 and §§ 123.22 and 129.17 (relating to combustion units; and Kraft pulp mills). Similarly, the Board did not delete ''varnish'' in § 121.1, as its definition also does not fit well into § 129.67b, where the term appears in subsections (a), (d), (f), (h) and (l). Further, ''varnish'' is used in the definition of ''non-heatset'' in § 121.1. The wording ''For purposes of § 129.67b'' is necessary in § 121.1 because ''varnish'' also appears in unrelated § 129.102 (relating to emission standards) and in three unrelated sections in Chapter 130, Subchapter C (relating to architectural and industrial maintenance coatings).
IRRC commented that the last sentence of the definition of ''first installation date'' in § 121.1 is substantive and should be moved to the appropriate section or sections of the final-form rulemaking. The Board agrees and moved the definition of ''first installation date'' into Table 1 of § 129.67a and § 129.67b(d)(1)(ii).
Applicability
Two commentators wrote that conservative material use estimates should be followed that would allow facilities to determine applicability by tracking material use volumes rather than completing complex and time-consuming calculations. The Board disagrees. The Department consulted with the EPA on this matter and has decided not to create a separate applicability criterion based on material use limits since the lower applicability limits are based on actual emissions of 450 pounds per month and 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling total. The Department plans to include material use information in a Frequently Asked Questions document or Fact Sheet to assist owners and operators in making a preliminary determination of whether they might be subject to the regulation. In addition, the Department has added flexibility by removing the ''per day'' applicability threshold and by allowing actual emissions to be estimated by using the highest VOC content in any material in a class to represent that class of materials. Furthermore, the Department and staff of the Environmental Management Assistance Program (EMAP) are willing to work with the GAA on its toolkit for GAA members to provide assistance with the emission calculations when necessary. EMAP fulfills the technical assistance part of the small business compliance assistance program required under the CAA by providing free and confidential environmental regulation compliance assistance to small businesses in this Commonwealth on a nondiscriminatory basis. EMAP, associated with the Pennsylvania Small Business Development Centers, is a partnership funded, in part, through the Department and the Department of Community and Economic Development, the United States Small Business Administration and participating colleges and universities.
One commentator noted that the material use approach makes it much easier for facilities to determine their applicability and was approved by the EPA in its Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific Source Categories released on April 14, 1998. The commentator suggested specific numeric edits and language to revise the section in accordance with the comment. The Board does not agree that it is technically advisable to use PTE guidance to determine actual emissions. The Board believes that, since the EPA did not reference the PTE guidance document in the LLP CTG when it referenced other documents, the EPA did not intend the PTE guidance to be used to determine applicability for the offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing source categories. Furthermore, the levels suggested by the commentator seem not to take into account the ''50% of the major source threshold margin of safety factor'' suggested by the PTE guidance document. Therefore, the Board is not including material use thresholds as an applicability criterion in the final-form rulemaking.
A commentator stated that proposed § 129.67b(a)(1)(i) is not consistent with the LLP CTG because in the CTG the exemption threshold of a potential to emit, prior to controls, of at least 25 tpy of VOC emissions applies only to the emissions of VOC from petroleum ink oil and not to total VOC emissions from the press dryer as was proposed. IRRC acknowledged comments regarding certain sections of the rulemaking being inconsistent with the CTG. IRRC referenced proposed § 129.67b(a)(1)(i)—(iii) and asked the Board to explain the need to deviate from the CTG.
The Board disagrees that the final-form rulemaking should be revised to account for only some, but not all, of the potential VOC emissions from the dryers, prior to controls, of heatset web offset lithographic printing and letterpress printing operations in determining applicability. Even though the LLP CTG recommends basing the ''potential to emit'' applicability threshold on potential emissions from the dryer, prior to controls, of VOCs from ink oils, basing the threshold on potential emissions, prior to controls, of all VOC emissions from the dryer is also reasonable. The Department had detailed discussions with EPA Region 3 concerning this issue. The Department understands that small to no amounts of coatings and adhesives go through lithographic printing presses and letterpress printing presses; therefore, the majority of potential VOC emissions will be from ink oils and the applicability will effectively be only to potential VOC emissions from heatset inks. Implementation of the add-on air pollution control measure requirements will continue to be cost-effective even if the small amounts of potential VOC emissions from coatings and adhesives are included. Several nearby states similarly base this potential emissions applicability threshold on the VOC emissions from more than just inks. For instance, New York's regulation is based on the VOC emissions from inks, coatings and adhesives used on the press (see 6 NYCRR § 234.3(b)(1)); Maryland's regulation is based on all VOC emissions from the press (see COMAR 26.11.19.11(e)); and Connecticut's regulation is based on all VOC emissions from the dryers prior to control (see Conn. Agencies Regs. § 22a-174-20(gg)(4)). The EPA provides in the CTGs that the recommendations are guidance and that states may promulgate applicability criteria that differ from those recommended in the CTG. After considering this comment and the other information described in this response, the Board determined that changes to this provision are not being made in the final-form rulemaking.
A commentator suggested that the applicability threshold expressed in proposed § 129.67b(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) as 15 pounds per day or 2.7 tpy should be revised to reflect a single annual limit of 3 tpy over a 12-month rolling period, which the EPA has defined as one of several options for an acceptable applicability threshold. IRRC acknowledged comments regarding certain sections of the rulemaking being inconsistent with the CTG, referencing proposed §§ 129.67a(a)(1)(ii) and 129.67b(a)(1)(i)—(iii), and asked the Board to explain the need to deviate from the CTG.
The Board considered the comments but disagrees with using only an annual limit for the applicability threshold for actual VOC emissions, and with that limit being 3 tpy over a 12-month rolling period. The Board established the applicability threshold for actual VOC emissions in the final-form rulemaking as a per-month or as a per-12-month rolling period threshold. The Board deleted the proposed 15 pounds per day threshold. The monthly threshold provides the basis for evaluating the 12-month rolling period threshold. With regard to whether the 12-month rolling period threshold should be 3 tpy, the Board has historically used 2.7 tpy or 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling period as the equivalent to 15 pounds per day for surface coating and other VOC emission-control regulations. See, for instance, §§ 129.52 and 129.52a (relating to surface coating processes; and control of VOC emissions from large appliance and metal furniture surface coating processes) and § 129.52b. The Board derives 2.7 tpy as follows:
15 pounds per day x 365 days per year = 5,475 pounds per year
5,475 pounds per year/2,000 pounds per ton = 2.7375 tpy
The Board keeps one decimal place for more accuracy; the EPA rounds 2.7 to 3.
Using 3 tpy in the printing rulemakings would be inconsistent with other air quality regulations in Subpart C, Article III. The EPA provides in the CTGs that the recommendations are guidance and states may promulgate applicability criteria that differ from those recommended in the CTG.
One commentator stated that the ''per day'' applicability threshold imposes daily recordkeeping, which is not acceptable or technically feasible, given the nature of the printing industry and how it uses inks, fountain solutions, coatings and other input materials. The Board, in consideration of this comment and the recordkeeping comments received from other commentators, replaced the proposed ''per day'' applicability threshold with a 450 pounds per month applicability threshold in the final-form rulemaking. The monthly applicability threshold allows the owners or operators of all flexible packaging, lithographic printing and letterpress printing facilities to keep monthly records using purchase, use or production records.
A monthly applicability threshold for actual VOC emissions is consistent with the CTGs. The LLP CTG states on page 4: ''In developing their RACT rules, State and local agencies should consider carefully the facts and circumstances of the affected sources in their States. As noted above, States can adopt the above recommended 15 lb/day actual emissions of VOC applicability criterion before consideration of controls, or an equivalent applicability level expressed on a monthly basis (e.g., 450 lb/month) or 12-month rolling basis (e.g., 3 tons per 12-month rolling period), or they can develop other applicability criteria that they determine are appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of the sources in their particular nonattainment areas.'' Page 3 of the FPP CTG has a similar sentence. Therefore, considering the number of small businesses that would be required to keep daily records to demonstrate applicability only, the Board decided instead to use the alternative monthly basis applicability level. In addition, the EPA provides in the CTGs that the recommendations are guidance and states may promulgate applicability criteria that differ from those recommended in the CTG. Note that for certain other VOC regulations applying to other industry sectors, the Board has found daily recordkeeping to be acceptable and technically feasible. The Board agrees that a ''per day'' applicability threshold imposes daily recordkeeping.
One commentator believes that the exclusion in proposed § 129.67b(a)(2) of only the VOCs from adhesives that are applied by means of the printing presses needs to be expanded to cover all adhesive application in a graphic arts operation, primarily because of the types of adhesives used. The commentator stated that adhesives are not commonly applied by the press, but for those that are, they are the same adhesives that are applied by means of other pieces of equipment in the facility. The commentator further requested that adhesives used in graphic arts operations also be excluded from the requirements of § 129.77. The commentator suggested revisions to §§ 129.67b(a)(2) and 129.77(l), saying the revisions are necessary to avoid the confusion that would be caused by requiring owners and operators of graphic arts facilities to comply with two separate regulations governing VOC emissions—the lithographic and letterpress regulation or the flexographic printing regulation and the miscellaneous industrial adhesives regulation.
The Board disagrees that all VOC emissions from adhesive application facility-wide should be excluded from regulation under both §§ 129.67b and 129.77. Further, the commentator is mistaken in asserting that the proposed rulemaking would have excluded VOC emissions from adhesives used or applied on or with an offset lithographic printing press or letterpress printing press from being regulated under § 129.67b. Section 129.67b(a)(2) excludes emissions of VOCs from adhesives that are not used or applied on or with the printing press from regulation under § 129.67b. Emissions of VOC from adhesives that are used or applied on or with an offset lithographic printing press or letterpress printing press are subject to regulation under § 129.67b. The Department consulted with EPA Region 3 about applicability to VOC emissions from adhesives when drafting § 129.67b(a)(2) and revising § 129.77.
The Board explains further that the meaning of ''printing press'' is integral to understanding these provisions, as only adhesives used or applied on or with the printing press are subject to § 129.67b. The Department crafted the definition of ''printing press'' in consultation with the EPA to address the situations described in the commentator's comments about how the adhesives used on the press versus the adhesives used elsewhere in the facility were to be regulated. The proposed rulemaking specifically included the following language in § 129.67b(a)(2) to direct the regulated community to other potentially applicable requirements:
(2) VOCs from adhesives used at a facility that are not used or applied on or with an offset lithographic printing press or a letterpress printing press are not subject to this section and may be regulated under § 129.77 or Chapter 130, Subchapter D (relating to control of emissions from the use or application of adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents; and adhesives, sealants, primers and solvents).The Board retained this wording in the final-form rulemaking, as the Board believes it is reasonable and that the regulated parties have the technical capability to implement the different regulations. The Board notes further that proposed § 129.67b(a)(2) is redesignated as final-form § 129.67b(a)(3). See the response to the next comment. Additionally, as previously explained, free and confidential assistance is available to the owners and operators of small businesses to explain how to comply with the requirements.
IRRC noted that a commentator suggested that the exemption under § 129.67b(a)(2) for VOCs from adhesives used at facilities that are not used or applied with an offset lithographic printing press or a letterpress printing press needs to be expanded to cover all adhesives applied in graphic art operations. IRRC further noted that § 129.67a(a)(3) contains a similar provision relating to flexible packaging printing presses. IRRC asked whether the Board considered expanding the exemption as suggested by the commentator. The Board responds that it considered the comments and decided not to modify the final-form rulemaking in this area, as explained in the preceding response.
One commentator indicated that the printing industry submitted comments on September 26, 2011, to EPA Region 3 requesting that a modification of the applicability requirements for § 129.77 be made that would specifically exclude adhesives used in graphic arts from the requirements of § 129.77. The Board explains that the September 26, 2011, comments to the EPA were submitted with reference to the EPA's proposed approval of the Pennsylvania SIP revision submittal to incorporate the adhesive and sealant rulemaking into the SIP. The EPA addressed the printing industry comments in its final action approving the SIP revision, stating that:
Pennsylvania's regulation for adhesives and sealants clearly addresses the adhesives and adhesive application activities regulated. . . . Thus, we believe the Pennsylvania regulations are clear that the adhesives used in printing operations were considered and that the state intended to cover those adhesives.The EPA approved the SIP revision at 77 FR 59090, 59091 (September 26, 2012).
Recordkeeping
Several commentators commented that they believe the daily recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rulemaking would be burdensome to printers without any benefit. The Board, in consideration of the recordkeeping comments received from these commentators, replaced the ''per day'' applicability threshold—which necessitated keeping daily material use records—with a 450 pounds per month applicability threshold. In addition, the Board has made several changes to streamline the recordkeeping requirements. For instance, the Board added language to the recordkeeping subsections that states: Records maintained for compliance demonstrations may include purchase, use, production and other records. Further, the Board deleted the requirement commented on, which specified records of particular parameters of each ink used. The Board added flexibility by including a paragraph that states: An owner or operator claiming exemption from a VOC control provision of this section based on potential or actual VOC emissions, as applicable, shall maintain records that demonstrate to the Department that the press or facility is exempt. The final-form rulemaking does not prescribe the records to be kept, but allows the owner or operator of the facility to calculate VOC emissions by whatever means are appropriate to demonstrate that the amount of emissions is below the level of actual or potential VOC emissions necessary to be exempted from the control provisions of the regulation, before consideration of add-on controls. In addition, the Board added flexibility by allowing VOC content records to be based upon the highest VOC content in any material in a class rather than on each individual material in the class.
One commentator suggested that the minimum recordkeeping requirements as set out under § 129.67a(e)(1) should be narrowed to only apply to companies using a ''compliant ink'' approach to comply with the rulemaking (under § 129.67a(c)(1), (2) or possibly (4)). The Board agrees. The Board revised the recordkeeping requirements to correspond to the per month-based applicability threshold and narrowed some of the parameters which were required in the proposed recordkeeping section. The recordkeeping requirements under final-form § 129.67a(e)(1) for an owner or operator subject to § 129.67a(a)(1)(i) using an add-on air pollution control device are specific to the add-on air pollution control device and not to the inks used. Final-form § 129.67a(e)(2) requires the owner or operator subject to § 129.67a(a)(1)(i) that is not using an add-on air pollution control device (in other words, using the ''compliant ink'' approach) to maintain records of the as applied VOC content of inks, coatings and adhesives sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the limitations under § 129.67a(c)(1) or (2). Proposed § 129.67a(c)(4), referenced in the comment, has been deleted in this final-form rulemaking because it was redundant. See provisions added to § 129.67a(e) and see the preceding response and other recordkeeping-related responses.
A commentator noted that the compliance demonstration for sites choosing to meet the requirements of the final-form rulemaking through the use of an add-on control device is to meet a minimum overall control efficiency. The commentator stated that the compliance demonstration under this option is completely independent of the composition or quantity of the ink being used. Since the material specific records are not needed to demonstrate compliance with the rulemaking, the commentator asserted that there is not an environmental or compliance benefit to maintain them. The commentator suggested the rulemaking set separate recordkeeping requirements specifically addressing appropriate records for the control device for sites meeting the rulemaking through § 129.67a(c)(3). The Board agrees and the records required of an owner or operator subject to § 129.67a(a)(1)(i) using an add-on air pollution control device in accordance with § 129.67a(c)(3) are in final-form § 129.67a(e)(1) and are specific to the add-on air pollution control device. Similar revisions were made to § 129.67b(f). See §§ 129.67a(e) and 129.67b(f) and the two preceding responses in this preamble. In addition, the Board revised the final-form rulemaking to move the recordkeeping requirements relating to control devices from the compliance and monitoring portions of the final-form rulemaking (§§ 129.67a(d) and 129.67b(e)) to the recordkeeping sections (§§ 129.67a(e) and 129.67b(f)).
A commentator wrote that proposed § 129.67b(f) requires daily recordkeeping for a variety of parameters and that this entire subsection should be deleted and replaced with the recordkeeping requirements that are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the actual limits in the rulemaking (documentation of the composition of fountain solutions and cleaning solvents). The commentator wrote that recordkeeping of the composition of materials such as ink, varnish or coating, or the quantities of materials consumed are not relevant to demonstrating compliance. The commentator wrote that this type of recordkeeping is associated with determining VOC emissions and is contained in all plan approvals and operating permits issued to printing operations.
The Board disagrees that § 129.67b(f) should be deleted. The Board agrees that the recordkeeping of fountain solution and cleaning solvent composition requirements is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the requirements under § 129.67b(c)(1) and (2) and for determining applicability under § 129.67b(a). The Board made several changes to streamline the recordkeeping requirements. For instance, the Board added language to the recordkeeping subsections that states: Records maintained for compliance demonstrations may include purchase, use, production and other records. The Board revised § 129.67b(f) to set forth recordkeeping requirements under final-form § 129.67b(f)(1) specific to the add-on air pollution control device for those owners or operators subject to § 129.67b(a)(1)(i) and further revised § 129.67b(f) to specify under final-form § 129.67b(f)(2) the cleaning solution and fountain solution records required. The Board also revised § 129.67b(f) to specify under final-form § 129.67b(f)(3) that ''An owner or operator claiming exemption from a VOC control provision of this section based on potential or actual VOC emissions, as applicable, shall maintain records that demonstrate to the Department that the press or facility is exempt.'' In addition, the Board added flexibility to final-form § 129.67b(f) by allowing an owner or operator to group materials into classes using the highest VOC content in any material in a class to represent that class of material, rather than requiring the actual VOC content of each individual material in the class be used for records. See the preceding responses regarding daily records and the following response.
A commentator wrote that, in many instances, daily recordkeeping is in direct conflict with the recordkeeping requirements that are included in plan approvals and operating permits issued to printing operations, and that the most common recordkeeping requirements are monthly. In response, the Board recognizes the commentator's concern. The Board revised the recordkeeping requirements in the final-form rulemaking and provided additional flexibility, as described in several previous responses.
A commentator wrote that, since the applicability threshold for permitting presses is 2.7 tpy, which is equivalent to the proposed threshold for this regulation, there is no reason to deviate from the current approach which is to allow monthly recordkeeping of input materials and to allow for the grouping of these materials into classes using the highest VOC content in any material in that class to represent that class of material. The commentator suggested language to revise the section. The Board responds that the proposed rulemaking had an applicability threshold of 15 pounds per day or 2.7 tons per 12-month rolling basis of VOC emissions. As discussed in previous responses, the ''per day'' applicability threshold would have required daily recordkeeping. However, in consideration of the recordkeeping comments received from commentators, the Board replaced the ''per day'' applicability threshold with a 450 pounds per month applicability threshold. The Board revised the recordkeeping requirements so as not to prescribe the records to be kept, but rather to enable the owner or operator of the facility to calculate VOC emissions by whatever means are appropriate to demonstrate that the amount of emissions is below the level of actual or potential VOC emissions necessary to be exempted from the control provisions of the regulation. Further, the Board agrees that facilities can group like materials into classes to determine applicability, as previously explained.
Emission limit options
A commentator noted that the compliance option of § 129.67a(c)(4) would appear to provide an equivalency approach where a site could meet the RACT rule by means of an averaging approach which would allow for use of noncomplying materials using control efficiencies below those specified under § 129.67a(c)(3). The commentator questioned whether it would meet the intent of RACT as suggested in the CTG. IRRC acknowledged comments regarding certain sections of the proposed rulemaking being inconsistent with the CTG. IRRC referenced proposed § 129.67a(c)(3) and (4) and asked the Board to explain the need to deviate from the CTG. In response, the Board explains that in considering this comment, the Board determined that proposed § 129.67a(c)(4) was redundant; therefore, the Board deleted this paragraph in the final-form rulemaking.
A commentator stated that proposed § 129.67b(c)(1)(i)(B)sets a VOC content limit of 30% VOC by weight. The commentator wrote that, while this limit was included in the 1993 draft CTG for offset lithography, it is superseded by the 70% VOC by weight content limit issued in the 2006 LLP CTG. The commentator submitted an excerpt from the CTG as support for its request that the proposed limit of 30% be revised to 70%. IRRC acknowledged this comment and asked the Board to explain the need to deviate from the CTG. IRRC also stated that this section is more stringent than the EPA requirements, and asked the Board to explain the need for the proposed language.
In response, the Board refers the commentators to the preamble to the proposed rulemaking, which explained that the Board proposed the 30% VOC by weight content limit for cleaning materials in part because a 30% VOC by weight content limit has been implemented in the Bureau of Air Quality-General Plan Approval/General Permit (BAQ-GPA/GP) -7 and BAQ-GPA/GP-10, which have been approved for use by permitted facilities since July 2, 1998, and July 3, 1999, respectively. These are the Department's general permits for sheet-fed offset lithographic printing presses and for non-heatset web offset lithographic printing presses, respectively. The limit of 30% VOC by weight content limit for cleaning materials is considered Best Available Technology (BAT) in the general permits; this limit has also been used in plan approvals and State-only operating permits. The Board specifically sought comment on this proposed provision in the preamble. In considering comments received on the proposed 30% VOC by weight content limit for cleaning materials, the Board evaluated different options, including options to retain the 30% VOC by weight content limit while allowing flexibility, but the Board concluded that the most reasonable solution, on balance, is that suggested by the commentators. Consequently, the Board selected the CTG limit of 70% VOC by weight content limit for cleaning materials for the final-form rulemaking. Adopting the 70% VOC by weight content limit will not result in more VOC emissions from cleaning materials used at facilities subject to the final-form rulemaking than anticipated, since the emission reductions discussed in the proposed rulemaking were based on EPA calculations that used the CTG-recommended limit of 70%. Permits that already have the more stringent BAT limit of 30% VOC by weight content from cleaning materials will keep that limit to prevent backsliding. The Board notes further that the term ''cleaning materials'' in the proposed rulemaking has been revised to ''cleaning solutions'' in the final-form rulemaking.
A commentator noted that proposed § 129.67b(c)(1)(ii) allows a 55-gallon cleaning material allowance for those materials that do not meet the VOC limits in § 129.67b(c)(1)(i). The commentator believes that due to the nature of the equipment being cleaned, 55 gallons per year is not adequate to allow a facility to achieve the amount of cleaning required to be done with cleaning materials that do not meet the limit, and suggests an exclusion of 110 gallons per year as suggested in the LLP CTG. IRRC acknowledged this comment and asked the Board to explain the need to deviate from the CTG. IRRC also stated that this section is more stringent than EPA requirements, and asked the Board to explain the need for the proposed language.
In response, the Board refers the commentators to the preamble to the proposed rulemaking in which the Board explained that it proposed the 55-gallon limit because this limit has been implemented in BAQ-GPA/GP-7 and BAQ-GPA/GP-10, which have been approved for use by facilities since July 2, 1998, and July 3, 1999, respectively. These are the Department's general permits for sheet-fed offset lithographic printing presses and for non-heatset web offset lithographic printing presses. The limit of 55 gallons for noncompliant VOC solvent is considered BAT in the general permits; this limit has also been used in plan approvals and State-only operating permits. The Board specifically sought comment on this proposed provision in the preamble. In considering the comments received on the 55-gallon limit, the Board evaluated different options, including options to retain the 55-gallon limit while allowing flexibility, but the Board concluded that the most reasonable solution, on balance, is that suggested by the commentators. Consequently, the Board selected the CTG limit of 110 gallons of noncompliant VOC solvent for the final-form rulemaking. Adopting the 110-gallon limit will not result in more VOC emissions than anticipated from cleaning activities performed by facilities subject to the final-form rulemaking, since the emission reductions discussed in the proposed rulemaking were based on EPA calculations that used the CTG limit of noncompliant VOC solvent usage of 110 gallons. Permits that already have the more stringent BAT limit of 55 gallons will keep that limit to prevent backsliding.
A commentator wrote that proposed § 129.67b(c)(2)(i) was very confusing as written because it seemed to be setting a single limit for alcohol content in all fountain solutions and the limit was the same one that is specified in § 129.67b(c)(2)(i)(A). The same comment applies to § 129.67b(c)(2)(ii) and (2)(ii)(A). The Board agrees that § 129.67b(c)(2)(i) and (2)(i)(A) are duplicative, as are § 129.67b(c)(2)(ii) and (2)(ii)(A). The Board revised the language in the final-form rulemaking to delete the repetitive language.
A commentator wrote that proposed § 129.67b(c)(2)(i)(A)is not consistent with § 129.67b(c)(2)(i)(B) or (C). The commentator suggested that ''reducing the'' in § 129.67b(c)(2)(i)(A) be deleted and replaced with ''using'' and added that the same comment applies for § 129.67b(c)(2)(ii)(A). The Board agrees with this approach. The Board revised the provision in the final-form rulemaking to delete ''reducing'' and to base the provision on use.
A commentator wrote that proposed § 129.67b(c)(2)(i)—(iii) should express the fountain solution content limit as ''VOC content'' and not as a specific material such as ''alcohol'' or ''alcohol substitute,'' as some printing operations are still using a combination of alcohol and alcohol substitutes in their fountain solution. Using ''VOC content'' will allow for this situation. The commentator suggested language to revise the section in accordance with the comment. The Board agrees that using ''VOC content'' in place of ''alcohol'' or ''alcohol substitute'' is an acceptable change and replaced the ''alcohol'' or ''alcohol substitute'' limits with VOC content limits.
A commentator wrote that proposed §§ 129.67b(d)(1), (2) and (2)(iii) are confusing because of the exclusions contained in each, and that the applicability language of § 129.67b(d)(1) duplicates that of § 129.67b(a)(1)(i). The commentator suggested language to revise the section in accordance with the comment, and suggested that proposed § 129.67b(d)(3) and (4) be renumbered to reflect these changes. In response, the Board revised § 129.67b(d)(1)—(4) to delete the duplicative language in subsection (d)(1), changed the order of the remaining paragraphs to clarify what is excluded and renumbered paragraphs as necessary.
Control options
A commentator suggested that proposed § 129.67b(d)(4)(i)be revised by deleting ''overall'' and replacing it with ''destruction'' so that it is consistent with the LLP CTG and does not introduce an unnecessary compliance demonstration for capture testing. The term ''overall'' is used to describe a requirement that is the product of both the capture of VOC emissions and their subsequent destruction by the use of a capture/control system. IRRC acknowledged comments regarding certain sections of the rulemaking being inconsistent with the CTG. IRRC referenced proposed § 129.67b(d)(4)(i) and asked the Board to explain the need to deviate from the CTG.
The Board agrees that the description of ''overall'' efficiency refers to the ''capture'' efficiency multiplied by the ''destruction'' efficiency. The final-form rulemaking means to limit the control (destruction) efficiency of any type of add-on air pollution control device including a thermal oxidizer or other approved device. The Board revised final-form § 129.67b(d)(1)(i) to replace ''overall'' with ''control.'' The Board believes this change is warranted due to the following other changes in the final-form rulemaking. Section 129.67b(d)(1) requires that the heatset dryer pressure shall be maintained lower than the press room area pressure so that air flows into the heatset dryer at all times when the press is operating. This is operating at negative pressure. Since the unit is required to operate at negative pressure, the owner or operator of the facility may use the capture efficiency factor of 100% added under final-form § 129.67b(l)(2)(i) in the calculation of overall efficiency for control (destruction) of volatilized ink oils from oil-based heatset paste inks and varnishes. The use of 100% is equivalent to 1 (that is, 100/100), which would mean that control (destruction) efficiency and overall efficiency would be equal.
The commentator noted that the EPA stated in both the LLP CTG and the Technical Support Document for Title V Permitting of Printing Operations that capture testing is not required and that only a one-time demonstration is necessary to demonstrate that the air flow is into the dryer. In response, the Board explains that it deleted the capture efficiency testing requirement in § 129.67b(h) and added § 129.67b(e)(1)(iv), which states: The negative dryer pressure shall be established during the initial test using an air flow direction indicator, such as a smoke stick or aluminum ribbons, or a differential pressure gauge. Capture efficiency retesting and continuous dryer air flow monitoring are not required.
The commentator suggested that proposed § 129.67b(d)(4)(ii) be revised to reflect that in addition to presses with a low inlet concentration, a press with a combination dryer/oxidizer unit does not have an inlet that meets the requirement for testing. The commentator suggested language to revise the section. IRRC acknowledged this comment and requested that if the concern can be addressed while meeting the required EPA standards, the Board should do so. The Board agrees and revised the final-form rulemaking to allow the owner or operator of a press with a combination dryer and oxidizer, or other control equipment configuration without an identifiable, measurable inlet, to apply for an alternative limit. The Board further notes that proposed § 129.67b(d)(4)(ii) is redesignated as § 129.67b(d)(1)(iii) in the final-form rulemaking.
The commentator suggested that proposed § 129.67b(d)(4)(ii) be revised to eliminate the requirement to seek an alternative limit in writing since that issue would be addressed at the time of permitting a press, thus making the requirement redundant as it imposes an unnecessary administrative burden. The commentator suggested language to revise the section. IRRC acknowledged this comment and requested that if the concern can be addressed while meeting the required EPA standards, the Board should do so.
The Board disagrees that the alternative limit issue will always be resolved at the time of permitting a press and that the proposed regulatory requirement is therefore redundant and imposes an unnecessary administrative burden. The January 1, 2015, compliance date for existing permitted presses subject to the final-form rulemaking will be after the issuance of the original plan approval or permit and does not supersede existing plan approval or permit requirements unless the plan approval or permit requirements are less stringent than the requirements in the final-form rulemaking. For a new press subject to the final-form rulemaking and installed after final-form publication of the requirements in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that uses a combination dryer and oxidizer, the alternative limit may be requested at the time of plan approval, but BAT may require a more stringent limit than the default limit in the final-form rulemaking. Whether an alternative limit is obtained through a plan approval, permit or other written approval from the Department, as appropriate, it is important from an environmental standpoint that the Department consider and approve (or disapprove) the request in writing, as an alternative limit could be less stringent than the 90% or 95% required efficiency. The final-form rulemaking continues to require a written request and specifies the information required for the Department to make the appropriate determination. The Board further notes that proposed § 129.67b(d)(4)(ii) is revised as set forth in § 129.67b(d)(1)(iii) and (iv) in the final-form rulemaking.
Compliance and monitoring
A commentator wrote that proposed § 129.67b(e) contains both monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, but that the recordkeeping requirements should be removed and placed into § 129.67b(f), which is dedicated to recordkeeping. The Board agrees and moved the recordkeeping requirements to subsection (f) in the final-form rulemaking.
A commentator requests that ''incinerator'' in § 129.67b(e)(1)(i)(A) and (B) be deleted and replaced with ''oxidizer'' as ''oxidizer'' is a more accurate term to use when describing add-on control devices used to control emissions from printing presses. The Board agrees and replaced ''incinerator'' with ''oxidizer'' in the final-form rulemaking. Corresponding changes were made to final-form § 129.67a.
A commentator wrote that proposed § 129.67b(e)(1)(i)(A)and (B) should qualify ''continuously'' to indicate that the temperature is to be recorded at least every 15 minutes to be consistent with the guidance in the EPA TSD for Title V Permitting of Printing Operations document. IRRC acknowledged this comment and asked if the Board considered requiring gauges be checked every 15 minutes. In response, the Board revised final-form § 129.67b(e)(1) to require that the temperature be continuously monitored; the temperature reading shall be recorded at least once every 15 minutes while the oxidizer is operating. The Board made similar revisions to final-form § 129.67a(d)(1).
IRRC commented that proposed § 129.67a(d)(3)(i)(A) and (B) requires certain temperatures to be ''continuously monitored and recorded daily.'' IRRC asked how a printing facility would ''continuously'' monitor a temperature gauge. IRRC noted that another commentator commented on a similar provision in § 129.67b(e), and IRRC asked if the Board considered requiring gauges to be checked every 15 minutes. In response, the Board asks the reader to see the preceding response. Note that proposed § 129.67a(d)(3)(i)(A) and (B) is redesignated as final-form § 129.67a(d)(1)(i) and (ii).
A commentator noted that proposed § 129.67b(e)(1)(i)(B)requires daily monitoring of the inlet and exhaust gas temperatures of a catalytic unit. The commentator wrote that monitoring the outlet temperature of a catalytic unit is not necessary as it provides meaningless data due to the variations in coverage on a per job or per day basis. The commentator included language from the EPA TSD for Title V Permitting of Printing Operations document to provide several examples of catalytic oxidizer temperature monitoring that clearly state only the inlet temperature is to be monitored. In response, the Board agrees that monitoring of only the inlet temperature should occur. The requirement to monitor outlet temperature on the catalytic unit has been deleted from final-form § 129.67a(d)(1)(i)(A) for flexible package printing and § 129.67b(e)(1)(i)(B)(I) for lithographic printing and letterpress printing.
A commentator wrote that the Department needs to provide guidance to address temperature monitoring for regenerative thermal oxidizers. Since the temperature that is measured during the compliance test becomes the minimum temperature at which the unit can operate, a provision needs to be added specifying that the temperature to be monitored must equal the lower of the minimum operating temperature or ''set point'' at which the unit is required to run or the temperature that was measured during the compliance test. The Board agrees that the temperature that is measured during the compliance stack test becomes the minimum temperature at which the unit can operate; however, once compliance is demonstrated at that particular temperature, the ''set point'' may no longer guarantee compliance with the required VOC control efficiency. The Board revised final-form §§ 129.67a(d)(1)(i) and 129.67b(e)(1)(i)(A) to read that the ''minimum combustion or operating temperature must be continuously monitored'' to address this concern.
A commentator wrote that a new condition needs to be added that recognizes that temperature fluctuations can and do occur with properly operating oxidizers. The EPA recognized this situation in the TSD for Title V Permitting of Printing Operations document and allows for a 50°F temperature fluctuation over a 3-hour average. The Board agrees and revised the final-form rulemaking to address this concern. See final-form §§ 129.67a(d)(2) and 129.67b(e)(1)(ii).
A commentator wrote that proposed § 129.67b(e)(1)(ii)(A)should be revised to clarify that records of the oxidizer temperature must be retained rather than the hours of operation. The temperature monitoring and recording requirements of § 129.67b(e)(1)(i) provide the necessary documentation that the unit was operating. The commentator suggested language to revise the section. The Board agrees. The final-form rulemaking requires records of only the oxidizer temperature because the clarification to recording the temperature from daily as proposed to once every 15 minutes in the final-form rulemaking provides enough data about when the oxidizer is operating. See final-form § 129.67b(f)(1) for the records required.
A commentator suggested that proposed § 129.67b(e)(2)(iii)(B) be revised to indicate that the calculation only needs to be performed once for each batch of fountain solution being used, not for each use of a batch of fountain solution. The commentator wrote that since more than one fountain solution can be used on different presses in one operation, the calculation needs to be performed for each fountain solution. The commentator added that this is important as once the printing operation determines the proper mix ratio for its fountain solution, the mix ratio is not altered. The commentator suggested language to revise the section. The Board agrees with the comment and revised the final-form rulemaking to require that the calculation be performed once for each recipe of fountain solution.
A commentator and IRRC questioned the necessity of permanently installing a temperature monitoring device for the fountain solution recirculating reservoir when a hand held thermometer is sufficient to accomplish the temperature monitoring requirement. The commentator suggested language to revise the section. IRRC further noted that § 129.67a(d)(3)(i) has a similar temperature monitoring requirement. The Board agrees that it is not necessary to permanently install a tempera- ture monitoring device for the fountain solution recirculating reservoir; therefore, the Board deleted proposed § 129.67b(e)(2)(iv)(A). The Board believes a hand-held thermometer could be used for monitoring the temperature of the fountain solution recirculating reservoir with the recording of the temperature reading being at least once per operating day. The Board further notes that proposed § 129.67b(e)(2)(iv)(B) has been revised in the final-form rulemaking to be part of § 129.67b(e)(2)(iv). The Board disagrees, however, that § 129.67a(d)(3)(i) could be modified in the same way as § 129.67b(e)(2)(iv) because § 129.67a(d)(3)(i) discusses the temperature of the control device, for which use of a hand held ther- mometer is not sufficient. Therefore, changes were not made to that section. The Board notes that proposed § 129.67a(d)(3)(i) has been redesignated as final-form § 129.67a(d)(1).
A commentator stated that it is not necessary to require permission to use a conductivity meter to monitor the alcohol concentration in fountain solution. This is an unnecessary and burdensome requirement that is not warranted. The commentator suggested language to revise proposed § 129.67b(e)(2)(v)(C) accordingly. The Board agrees with the comment and revised § 129.67b(e)(2)(v)(C) to delete the written request to the Department. Further, the Board notes that proposed § 129.67b(e)(2)(v)(C) is redesignated as final-form § 129.67b(e)(2)(v)(B).
A commentator stated that proposed § 129.67b(e)(3)(v)(B)should be revised to indicate that the calculation only needs to be performed once for each batch of cleaning solution being used, not for each use of a batch of cleaning solution. This is important as once the printing operation determines the proper mix ratio for its cleaning solution, the mix ratio is not altered. The commentator suggested language to revise the section in accordance with the comment. The Board agrees with the comment and revised the final-form rulemaking to require that the calculation be performed once for each recipe of cleaning solution.
Sampling and testing
A commentator wrote that proposed § 129.67b(h) needs to be revised to reflect the testing requirements necessary for a successful destruction efficiency determination for an oxidizer used to control emissions from a heatset web offset lithographic press. The nature of the emissions from a heatset web offset lithographic press is such that simply following EPA protocols will result in failure forcing either re-testing or enforcement action. The commentator wrote that the EPA has recommended in the TSD for Title V Printing Operations document that compliance testing of the emissions from an add-on air pollution control device should be conducted at operating conditions representative of a typical production schedule. The commentator suggested language to revise the section. The Board agrees that the proposed language for emissions testing could be clearer and revised final-form § 129.67b(h) using a portion of the suggested language. The Board did not incorporate all of the suggested language regarding stack testing of an add-on air pollution control device. Stack testing of source emissions from an add-on air pollution control device must undergo a stack test protocol review by the Department prior to conducting the stack test. Certain operating conditions, such as temperatures, duration, frequency and loading, are based on the actual source and control device to be tested and should be specified in the stack test protocol submitted to the Department for review and approval in accordance with the procedures and test methods of Chapter 139.
A commentator suggested language for proposed § 129.67b(h) which specified an acceptable time frame for stack testing relative to the compliance date. The Board agrees that the final-form rulemaking should specify the acceptable time frame for performance of the stack test and added final-form § 129.67b(h)(1)(ii).
A commentator suggested that continuous dryer air flow or pressure monitoring is not required to demonstrate constant negative pressure into the dryer, only an initial stack test. The Board agrees. Final-form § 129.67b(d)(1) requires that negative pressure be maintained at all times the press is operating; otherwise, the owner and operator of the press cannot assume 100% capture of emissions from volatilized ink oils from oil-based heatset paste inks and varnishes into the dryer. The proposed § 129.67b(h)(2) testing requirement for dryer constant negative pressure was deleted at final and replaced with requirements in § 129.67b(e)(1)(iv) for compliance and monitoring. See the response to the second comment under ''control options.''
A commentator suggested revising proposed § 129.67b(j) by adding ''one of'' between ''by'' and ''the'' so that it is clear that any of the identified methods are acceptable. The Board agrees with the comment and revised the final-form rulemaking accordingly.
Fiscal impact
IRRC agreed with other commentators that daily recordkeeping requirements could be costly to printing facilities, many of which are small businesses. IRRC asked the Board to quantify the costs of the daily recordkeeping requirements of the proposed rulemaking and explain the need for those requirements. In response, the Board reconsidered the need for daily records and revised the proposed applicability criterion of 15 pounds per day of actual VOC emissions to the equivalent threshold of 450 pounds per month in this final-form rulemaking. The Board also added language that allows the use of ''purchase, use, production and other records'' to demonstrate compliance, thereby providing additional flexibility. These revisions minimize the recordkeeping costs to printing facilities. The Board, therefore, did not quantify the costs required to comply with the proposed daily recordkeeping requirements.
IRRC wrote that the Board has acknowledged the large discrepancy between the number of potentially affected printing facilities identified by a trade association compared to the number of facilities identified by the Department's Air Information Management System (AIMS). IRRC wrote that it appreciates the Board's efforts to work with the regulated community and the SBCAC to gain a better understanding of the number of printing facilities that might be affected by this final-form rulemaking. IRRC asked the Board to incorporate its finding into any new fiscal impact calculations it prepares as it develops the final-form rulemaking. IRRC noted that this should include costs associated with the VOC emissions reduction equipment and recordkeeping requirements.
In response, the Board explains that in developing this final-form rulemaking, the Department made some inquiries of small business-sized printers, including certain print shops operated by the Commonwealth, to determine the applicability of this final-form rulemaking to them. The Board did not gain a significantly different understanding of the number of printing facilities that might be affected by this final-form rulemaking. Based on the findings, the Board still believes that the majority of small business-sized printing operations, those 73% of printers in this Commonwealth who employ fewer than 20 employees that were a concern for the trade association, will not emit enough VOC emissions to meet the applicability threshold for control requirements in this final-form rulemaking. Therefore, the owners and operators of these printing operations will not have increased cost other than the minimal cost of maintaining records to demonstrate that the amount of VOC emissions from their operation is below the applicability threshold of actual or potential VOC emissions that trigger the control provisions of the regulations. The Board has, however, revised the data presented for the final-form rulemaking cost analysis from the data presented for the proposed rulemaking cost analysis. The data were revised on final based on the slight changes in amounts of annual emissions and number of potentially subject operating facilities in 2011 versus the 2009 data that were used for the proposed rulemaking. See the responses to the preceding comment and the first two responses under ''miscellaneous.''
[Continued on next Web Page]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
