PROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

964

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOL. 37, ISSUE 14, FRIDAY, JULY 2, 2010 (c) When calculating the total amount of NO

x emitted during the period May 1 to September 30 under §D(3)(a) or (4)(a) and (b) of this regulation, exclude from those calculations the amount of NO

x emitted during the initial 10 hours of operation during that period;

and (d) Secure the ozone season NO

x allowanc es by December 31 of each year and submit those allowances to the Department for retirement by February 1 of the following year. (3) The owner or operator of an existing load shaving unit installed on or before January 1, 2009, who chooses to secure ozone

season NO

x allowances in lieu of compliance with §B of this regulation shall: (a) Calculate, in tons, the total amount of NO

x emitted during the period May 1 to September 30; (b) Multiply the total tons of NO

x emitted, as calculated in §D(3)(a) of this reg ulation, by three; and (c) Secure at least the same number of ozone season NO

x allowances as the number resulting from the calculation performed in §D(3)(b) of this regulation. (4) The owner or operator of a new load shaving unit installed after January 1, 2009, who chooses to secure ozone season NO

x allowances in lieu of compliance with §C of this regulation shall: (a) Calculate, in tons, the total amount of NO

x , emitted during the period May 1 to September 30; (b) Calculate, in tons, the total amount of NO

x that would have been emitted during the period May 1 to September 30 if the engine had met the NO

x emission rate of 1.4 grams per brake horsepower; (c) Subtract the number calculated in §D(4)(b) from the number calculated in §D(4)(a), then multiply the result by five; and (d) Secure at least the same number of ozone season NO

x allowances as the number resulting from the calculations performed in §D(4)(c) of this regulation. [ D. ] E. Record Keeping. (1) The owner or operator of a load shaving unit [ with a rated capacity equal to or greater than 200 horsepower ] shall maintain an operating log that includes the date the unit operated and the total operating time for each day that the unit operated. ( 2) The operating log shall be maintained for 5 years and m ade available to the Department upon request.

F. (text unchanged)

SHARI T. WILSON Secretary of the Environment



# Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY

26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

Authority: Environment Article, §§1

- 101, 1

- 404, 2

- 101

— 2

- 103, 2

- 301

— 2

-

303, 10

- 102, and 10

- 103, Annotated Code of Maryland

Notice of Proposed Action

[10

- 177

- P] The Secretary of the Environment proposes to amend Regulation

.06 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this action is to adopt the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for large appliance coating. EPA develops CT Gs as guidance on control requirements for source categories. States can follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive standards. MDE proposes to adopt a new standard and requirements for large appliance coating. This action will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval as a revision to Maryland's State Implementation Plan.

Background: EPA published a CTG for large appliance coating, entitled ―Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume V: Surface Coating of Large Appliances ,‖ EPA

450/2

- 77

- 034 (1977 CTG). In October 1982, EPA promulgated the National Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS): Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances, 40 CFR part 60, subpart SS (1982 NSPS). In 2002, EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Surface Coating of Large Appliances, 40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN (2002 NESHAP). The 1977 CTG recommends and the 1982 NSPS requires VOC emissions limits

based on V OC content of low VOC coating materials. The 2002 NESHAP establishes organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions limits based on the organic HAP content of low organic HAP coating materials. Large appliance coatings include, but are not limited to, ma terials referred to as paint, topcoats, basecoats, primers, enamels, and adhesives used in the manufacture of large appliance parts or products. A large appliance part is defined as any organic surface coated metal lid, door, casing, panel, or other interi or or exterior metal part or accessory that is assembled to form a large appliance product. A large appliance product is also defined as any organic

surface

- coated metal range, oven, microwave oven, refrigerator, freezer, washer, dryer, dishwasher, water h eater, or trash compactor manufactured for household, commercial, or recreational use. Several different types of application technologies are used to apply liquid coatings, and the selection of the application technology can have a significant effect on t he amount of coating used and the resulting VOC emissions from the operation. The CTG requires that coatings can only be applied by coating applicators such as: air atomized spray coating, electrostatic spray coating, high volume/low pressure (HVLP) spray coating, dip coating, flow coating, roll coating, electrocoating, and autophoretic coating. Powder coatings can be applied through electrostatic spraying or dipping. Cleaning activities other than surface preparation also occur at large appliance coating f acilities. Cleaning materials are used during these activities to remove coating residue or other unwanted materials from equipment related to coating operations, as well as the cleaning of spray guns, transfer lines (e.g., tubing or piping), tanks, and th e interior of spray booths. These cleaning materials are typically mixtures of VOC containing solvents. Emission control requirements for cleaning materials are in the CTG.

Affected Sources: This action will affect sources that coat doors, cases, lids, pa nels, or other interior or exterior part or accessory of residential and commercial washers, dryers, ranges, refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, dishwashers, trash compactors, air conditioners, ovens, microwave ovens, and other similar products.

Requir ements: COMAR 26.11.19.06 is amended to set the VOC coating standard of 2.3 pounds per gallon of coating applied (minus water) / 0.275 kilogram/liter of coating applied (minus water). Application of coatings on large appliances can only be conducted using one of the following methods: 1. Electrostatic application; 2. HVLP spray; 3. Flow coat; 4. Roller coat; 5. Dip coat including electrodeposition; 6. Brush coat; orPROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

965

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOL. 37, ISSUE 14, FRIDAY, JULY 2, 2010 7. Other coating application method capable of achieving a transfer efficiency equival ent or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying. The requirements of the regulation can be met by complying with the standard for VOC content of coating and using one of the options for application methods or achieving an overall capture and control of

V OC emissions from the large appliance coating installation through the use of control equipment which achieves an overall VOC emissions reduction of at least 90 percent.

Expected Emissions Reductions: EPA‘s CTG for large appliance coating operations will r esult in minimal VOC emissions reductions in Maryland. However, emissions of VOCs from large appliance coating operations are expected to be reduced by 18 percent nationally. The maximum benefit will be provided during the ozone season when VOCs readily

co mbine with NO

x to form the pollutant ground level ozone.

Comparison to Federal Standards There is a corresponding federal standard to this proposed action, but the proposed action is not more restrictive or stringent.

Estimate of Economic Impact I. Summary of Economic Impact. The economic impact of these amendments has been estimated by EPA on a national level. Cost effectiveness is approximately $500/ton of VOC controlled. The impact on the Department is going to be minimal as affected sources are already regulated. The Department will need to ensure compliance with the new standard and requirements.

Revenue (R+/R

- )

II. Types of Economic Impact. Expenditure (E+/E

- ) Magnitude

A. On issuing agency: (E+) Minimal

B. On other State agencies: (E+ ) Minimal

C. On local governments: (E+) Minimal

Benefit (+) Cost (

- ) Magnitude

D. On regulated industries or trade groups: (

- ) $500/ton of VOC

controlled

E. On other industries or trade groups: (+) Unable to Estimate

F. Direct and indire ct effects on public: (+) Unable to Estimate

III. Assumptions. (Identified by Impact Letter and Number from Section II.)

A. Inspections and reporting would be required if new materials

are used or an add

- on control device is installed.

B. Permits and li censing may be required for the installation of

control devices and the use of new materials.

C. Local governments may be required to review and issue permits if a control device is installed to meet requirements.

D. The impact on the regulated industry has been estimated by EPA to be $500/ton VOC for compliance with the requirements of

the CTG. E. The installation of air pollution control devices may be necessary having a positive impact on those companies that manufacture, sell, and install the equipme nt.
F. This action will help improve Maryland‘s air quality and will result in fewer negative health effects on the general public from air pollution.

Economic Impact on Small Businesses The proposed action has minimal or no economic impact on small

busi nesses.

Impact on Individuals with Disabilities The proposed action has an impact on individuals with disabilities

as follows: This action will have a positive impact on individuals with disabilities involving respiratory problems by reducing air pollutant s that contribute to disease.

Opportunity for Public Comment The Department of the Environment will hold a public hearing on the proposed action on August 4, 2010 at 10 a.m. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, 1st Floor Aeris

C onference Room, Baltimore, Maryland 21230

- 1720. Interested persons are invited to attend and express their views. Comments may be sent to Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordinator, Air and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the Environment, 18 00 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730, Baltimore, Maryland 21230

- 1720, or emailed to drabin@mde.state.md.us. Comments must be received not later than August 4, 2010, or be submitted at the hearing. For more information, call Deborah Rabin

at 410

- 537

- 3240. Cop ies of the proposed action and supporting documents are available for review at the following locations: The Air and Radiation Management Administration; regional offices of the Department in Cumberland and Salisbury; all local air quality control offices; and local health departments in those counties not having separate air quality control offices. Anyone needing special accommodations at the public hearing should contact the Department's Fair Practices Office at 410

- 537

- 3964. TTY users may contact the De partment through the Maryland Relay Service at 1

- 800

- 735

- 2258.

.06 Large Appliance Coating. [A. ] (proposed for repeal) A. Definition. (1) In this regulation, the following term has the meaning

indicated. (2) Large Appliance Coating. (a) "Large appliance coating" means the coating of doors, cases, lids, panels, or other interior or exterior parts or accessories of residential and commercial washers, dryers, cooking equipment (including ranges, ovens, and microwave ovens), refrigerators, freezers, water hea ters, dishwashers, trash compactors, air conditioners, and other similar products. (b) “Large appliance coating” does not mean the coating of

toasters, counter

- top grills, and similar small products.

B. [ Emissions Standards ] Coating Standard. (1) (text u nchanged) [ (2) A person may not cause or permit the discharge into the atmosphere of any VOC from a large appliance coating installation in excess of 2.8 pounds per gallon of coating applied (minus water) (0.34 kilogram/liter of coating applied (minus wat er)). ] (2) A person who uses a large appliance coating installation: (a) May not cause or permit the discharge into the atmosphere of any VOC from a large appliance coating installation in excess of 2.3 pounds per gallon of coating applied (excluding

wate r) (0.275 kilogram/liter of coating applied (excluding water)); orPROPOSED ACTION ON REGULATIONS

966

MARYLAND REGISTER, VOL. 37, ISSUE 14, FRIDAY, JULY 2, 2010 (b) Shall use control equipment to a chieve an overall VOC emissions reduction of 90 percent or greater from the large appliance coating installation at the affected facility. (3) A person w ho complies with §B(2)(a) of this regulation shall use one or more of the following application methods: (a) Electrostatic application; (b) HVLP spray; (c) Flow coat; (d) Roller coat; (e) Dip coat including electrodeposition; (f) Brush coat; or (g) Other c oating application method that has a transfer efficiency equivalent to or better than that achieved by HVLP spraying.

SHARI T. WILSON Secretary of the Environment



# Subtitle 11 AIR QUALITY

26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

Authority: Environment Article, §§1

- 101, 1

- 404, 2

- 101

— 2

- 103, 2

- 301

— 2

-

303, 10

- 102, and 10

- 103, Annotated Code of Maryland

Notice of Proposed Action

[10

- 176

- P] The Secretary of the Environment p roposes to amend Regulation

.11 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this action is to incorporate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for

li thographic and letterpress printing into the State‘s current regulations for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The Clean Air Act requires state implementation plans (SIPs) for nonattainment areas to include reasonably available control

techn ologies (RACT) for sources of emissions. EPA develops CTGs as guidance to assist states in determining RACT for those sources. States can follow the CTGs or adopt more restrictive standards. The Department proposes to adopt the CTG standards for lithograph ic and letterpress printing. The standards will reduce VOC emissions from inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning materials used in lithographic and letterpress printing. This action will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval as a revision to Maryland‘ s State Implementation Plan.

Background In 1993, EPA published a draft CTG for lithographic printing (58 FR 59261). After reviewing comments on the draft CTG and review of additional information, EPA published an alternative control techniques (ACT) docume nt in June 1994 that provided supplemental information for states to use in developing rules based on RACT for lithographic printing. The draft CTG and ACT provide information on the lithographic printing industry, VOC emissions from that industry, availab le control technologies for controlling emissions, and

the costs of available controls. The current RACT is similar to the one proposed in 1993. EPA developed the recommendations after reviewing existing state and local VOC emission reduction approaches, r eviewing the draft CTG and ACT, and considering

information obtained since issuance of the ACT. Letterpress printing and lithographic printing have several important similarities, including similar sources of VOC emissions

and similar available VOC control approaches. In light of these similarities, EPA relied heavily on the substantial data and information included in the CTG and ACT for lithographic printing in formulating the recommendations for RACT for the letterpress printing industry.

The current CT G provides control recommendations for reducing VOC emissions stemming from the use of fountain solutions, cleaning materials, and inks in lithographic printing and cleaning materials and inks in letterpress printing.

The control recommendations in the CTG for cleaning materials apply to letterpress and lithographic printing; and those for fountain solutions apply to lithographic printing.

Affected Sources: These proposed amendments affect sources that use lithographic press and letterpress equipment.

Requ irements: The proposed amendments set standards for: 1. Heatset lithographic printing presses, including presses with a potential to emit VOC of 25 tons or more per year from the dryer, prior to controls; 2. Heatset letterpress printing presses with a pote ntial to emit VOC of 25 tons or more per year from the dryer, prior to controls. These regulations exclude heatset presses used for book printing and heatset presses with maximum web width of 22 inches;

3. Coldset or non

- heatset web lithographic printing p resses; 4. Sheet fed lithographic printing press with cylinder width of at least 18 inches or a sheet size greater than 11 inches by 17 inches; 5. Heatset web lithographic printing presses located at a premises

from which the actual VOC emissions from all lithographic web printing presses are 100 pounds or more per day; 6. Cleaning solutions used on the premises in excess of 110 gallons per year; 7. Control device testing; and 8. Record keeping and monitoring.

Impact on Ambient Air Quality: The proposed am endments set standards for lithographic and letterpress printing. VOC emissions reductions in Maryland would be approximately 0.08 tons/day. The maximum benefit will be provided during the ozone season when VOCs readily combine with NO

x to form the polluta nt ground level ozone.

Comparison to Federal Standards There is a corresponding federal standard to this proposed action, but the proposed action is not more restrictive or stringent.

Estimate of Economic Impact I. Summary of Economic Impact. These propos ed regulatory amendments adopt as regulations the CTG for lithographic and letterpress printing. The economic impact of these amendments has been estimated by EPA on a national level. Cost effectiveness is approximately $800 to $2,100/ton of VOC controlled

.

Revenue (R+/R

- )

II. Types of Economic Impact. Expenditure (E+/E

- ) Magnitude

A. On issuing agency: (E+) Minimal

B. On other State agencies: (E+) Minimal

C. On local governments: (E+) Minimal