[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 13, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55332-55359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22653]
[[Page 55331]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Paper and
Other Web Coating; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 13, 2000 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55332]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-6854-7]
RIN 2060-AG58
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing a standard to limit hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions from facilities that coat paper and other web
substrates and are major sources of HAP emissions. The standard is
being proposed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), as
amended on November 15, 1990, to protect public health and the
environment by reducing HAP emissions from new and existing facilities.
The CAA requires these sources to achieve the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. The proposed standard
would eliminate approximately 80 percent of nationwide HAP emissions
from major sources.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before November 13,
2000.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us by September 27, 2000 to
request to speak at a public hearing, we will hold a hearing at 10 a.m.
on October 11, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Send comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket
Number A-99-09, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also send comments and data
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. (See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, below, for more on file formats.) Be sure to
include the docket number, A-99-09, on your comment.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
by the required date (see DATES), a public hearing will be held at our
Office of Administration Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. You should contact Ms. Janet Eck, Coatings and Consumer
Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number (919) 541-7946 to request to speak at a public hearing
or to find out if a hearing will be held.
Docket. Docket No. A-99-09 contains information about the proposed
rule. You can read and copy it between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday (except Federal holidays) at our Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460; telephone (202) 260-7548. Go to Room M-1500, Waterside Mall
(ground floor). The docket office may charge a reasonable fee for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Almodovar, Coatings and
Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number (919) 541-0283; facsimile number (919) 541-
5689; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by e-mail to: [email protected]. Electronic comments must be
submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and
encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in
WordPerfect version 5.1, 6.1, or Corel 8 file format. All
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket
number: A-99-09. No confidential business information (CBI) should be
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mr. Paul Almodovar, c/o
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room 740B), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 411 W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC 27711. The EPA
will disclose information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed
by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of
confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received by EPA,
the information may be made available to the public without further
notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
Janet Eck (see ADDRESSES above) at least 2 days in advance of the
public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing
should also call Ms. Eck (see ADDRESSES above) to verify the time,
date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide
interested parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments
concerning these proposed emission standards.
Docket. The docket for this regulatory action is A-99-09. The
docket is an organized and complete file of all the information we
consider in developing this rule. It is a dynamic file because material
is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system allows
you to readily identify and find documents so you can participate in
rulemaking. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their
preambles, contents of the docket will serve as the record in case of
judicial review (see section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA). The regulatory
text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for
review in the docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air
Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this proposed rule is also available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page
for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is
needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Plain Language. In compliance with President Clinton's June 1, 1998
Executive Memorandum on plain language in government writing, this
preamble is written using plain language. Thus, the use of ``we'' and
``us'' in this document refers to EPA. The use of ``you'' refers to the
reader, and may include industry; State, local, and tribal governments;
environmental groups; and other interested individuals.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include those listed on the following table.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but is just a guide to
entities likely to be regulated by final action on this proposal. It
lists the types of entities that may be regulated, but you should
examine the applicability criteria in section II of this preamble and
in
[[Page 55333]]
Sec. 63.3290 of the proposed rule to decide whether your facility is
likely to be regulated by final action on this proposal. If you have
any questions about whether your facility will be subject to the
standard, call the person listed in the preceeding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Category SIC NAICS potentially regulated
codes codes entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper and Other Web Coating.. 2653 322211 Those facilities with
2657 322212 web coating
\a\2671 322221 operations\b\ that
2672 322222 coat substrate used
\a\2673 322223 in products
\a\2674 322224 including, but not
2675 322225 limited to:
2679 322226 corrugated and solid
\a\2754 322299 fiber boxes; folding
2761 323111 paperboard boxes,
3074 323116 including sanitary;
3081 325992 flexible packaging
3083 326111 (packing paper and
3291 326112 plastics film,
\a\3497 326113 coated and
3861 32613 laminated); pressure
3955 326192 sensitive tape and
\a\3996 32791 labels, coated and
332999 laminated paper, not
339944 elsewhere classified
(nec); plastics,
foil, and coated
paper bags; bags:
uncoated paper and
multiwall; die-cut
paper and board;
converted paper and
paperboard products,
nec (gift wrap,
paper wallpaper,
cigarette paper);
commercial printing,
gravure; manifold
business forms;
plastic aseptic
packaging;
unsupported plastics
film and sheet;
laminated plastics
plate, sheet, and
profile shapes;
abrasive products;
laminated aluminum
(metal) foil and
leaf, flexible
packaging;
photographic
equipment and
supplies; carbon
paper and inked
ribbons; linoleum,
asphalted-felt base,
and other hard
surface floor
coverings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Facilities in these SIC codes are expected to be primarily covered
under the printing and publishing national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).
\b\ Web coating operations refer to the continuous application of a
layer of material across the entire length of the usable substrate to:
provide a covering, finish, or protective layer to the substrate;
provide adhesion between two substrates for lamination; and where the
continuous web substrate is flexible enough to be wound or unwound as
rolls.
Background Information Document. The Background Information
Document (BID) for the proposed standard may be obtained from the TTN;
the paper and other web coating docket (A-99-09); the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777; or the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650. Please refer to
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Other Web Coating--Background Information for Proposed Standards''
(EPA-453/R-00-002).
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. What are the subject and purpose of this proposed rule?
II. Does this proposed rule apply to me?
III. What is the proposed emission standard?
IV. When do I show initial compliance with the proposed rule?
V. What testing and monitoring must I do?
VI. What notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
must I follow?
VII. What are the environmental, energy, and economic impacts of
this proposed rule?
VIII. What is the basis for selecting the level of the proposed
standards?
IX. What is the basis for selecting the format of the proposed
standards?
X. Administrative requirements
I. What Are the Subject and Purpose of This Proposed Rule?
The CAA requires us to establish standards to control HAP emissions
from source categories identified under section 112(c) of the CAA. An
initial source category list was published in the Federal Register on
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The source category list identifies
``Paper and Other Web Coating (Surface Coating)'' as a source category
because it contains major sources. Under the CAA, a major source is
defined as ``* * * any 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) or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.'' We have estimated that there are over 400
existing paper and other web coating facilities, with approximately 210
estimated to be major sources.
The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce emissions of HAP from
paper and other web coating major sources. The source category is for
major sources only. Area sources are not included in this source
category and therefore are not subject to the proposed standards. We
estimate that annual baseline organic HAP emissions from this source
category are approximately 35,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (39,000
tpy). The proposed rule would eliminate approximately 29,000 Mg/yr
(32,000 tpy) of these organic HAP emissions (about an 80 percent
reduction).
The organic HAP emitted from the paper and other web coating
process include toluene, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, xylenes,
phenol, methylene chloride, ethylene glycol, glycol ethers, hexane,
methyl isobutyl ketone, cresols and cresylic acid, dimethylformamide,
vinyl acetate, formaldehyde, and ethyl benzene. These pollutants can
cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects following sufficient
exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat, and
skin irritation, and blood cell, heart, liver, and kidney damage.
The degree of adverse effects to human health from exposure to HAP
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the human
health effects may be experienced are dependent upon (1) The ambient
concentration observed in the area (as influenced by emission rates,
meteorological conditions, and terrain); (2) the frequency and duration
of exposures; (3) characteristics of exposed individuals (genetics,
age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary
significantly with the population; and (4) pollutant-specific
characteristics
[[Page 55334]]
(toxicity, half-life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and
persistence).
II. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me?
A. What Facilities are subject to This Proposed Rule?
The paper and other web coating source category includes any
facility located at a major source and engaged in the coating of paper,
plastic film, metallic foil, and other web surfaces. The source
category does not include printing operations covered under the
printing and publishing national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) (40 CFR part 63, subpart KK). The source category
does not include coil coating, i.e., the application of an organic
coating to the surface of any metal strip at least 0.15 millimeter
(0.006 inch) thick that is packaged in a roll or coil, which is being
regulated as a separate source category. Fabric coating is also being
regulated as a separate source category. However, we identified
facilities in the paper and other web coating source category that also
apply coatings to fabric, sometimes on the same coating lines. We are
proposing that such coating lines be part of the paper and other web
coating source category and not subject to the future fabric coating
NESHAP. Paper and other web coating may be simply referred to as ``web
coating'' since paper is one of several web substrates in the paper and
other web coating source category.
The proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate any web
coating lines at a facility that is a major source of HAP emissions.
This means that the coating lines at a major source would be subject to
the proposed standard without regard to the relative proportion of HAP
emissions from the web coating lines to total HAP emissions at the
source.
If your facility is a nonmajor (area) source, i.e., actual and
potential annual emissions are less than 10 tons of any single HAP and
less than 25 tons of all HAP combined, you would not be subject to this
proposed rule.
If your facility is a major source, you would be required to meet
the proposed emission limits for all the web coating lines at your
facility. We have defined a web to be a continuous substrate (e.g.,
paper, plastic film, foil) that is capable of being rolled at any point
during the coating process. We have defined a web coating line to be
any number of work stations, of which one or more applies a layer of
coating material along the length of a continuous web substrate, and
any associated drying equipment between an unwind (or feed station) and
a rewind (or cutting station). Printing presses subject to the printing
and publishing NESHAP are not web coating lines.
B. What Is the Affected Source?
We define an affected source as a stationary source, group of
stationary sources, or part of a stationary source to which a specific
NESHAP applies. Within a source category, we select the specific
emission sources (emission points or groupings of emission points) that
will make up the affected source for that category. To select these
emission sources, we mainly consider the constituent HAP and quantity
emitted from individual or groups of emission points.
For the paper and other web coating NESHAP, the affected source is
proposed to be the collection of all the web coating lines at a
facility. We are not proposing requirements for operations related to
coating line and parts cleaning, coating mixing and storage, film
formation, and wastewater.
Coating lines and equipment that are not in the source category,
and thus, not in the affected source, include those that perform both
coating and printing and comply with the national emission standards
for the printing and publishing industry; those that coat coil, even if
only part of the time, and therefore, are in the coil coating source
category; and those that coat only fabric and are in the fabric
coating, printing, and dyeing source category (but if both fabric and
other web coating is performed on a coating line, the line is included
in the paper and other web coating affected source).
Many industrial facilities perform both coating and printing
operations. Within the printing industry, the product and packaging
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic industry segment (that includes
the flexible packaging industry as a major subsector) does the most
coating, with material use distributed almost equally between inks and
other types of coatings. Printing operations are covered under the
NESHAP for the printing and publishing industry. The printing and
publishing NESHAP also includes an option for facilities that perform
both printing and coating to include certain coating operations.
Therefore, many facilities that could potentially be subject to the
proposed NESHAP for the paper and other web coating industry may have
coating lines already subject to the printing and publishing NESHAP.
Such web coating lines included in compliance demonstrations under the
printing and publishing NESHAP are not subject to this standard. A
detailed discussion of the printing and publishing industry is included
in the BID for that industry (Docket No. A-92-42, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Printing and Publishing
Industry--Background Information for Proposed Standards (EPA-453/R-95-
002a)).
III. What Is the Proposed Emission Standard?
A. Proposed Limits
In the proposed rule, you would be able to choose any one of three
options to limit organic HAP emissions at existing and new sources and
meet the allowable level. The HAP emission limits are based on emission
capture and control technology that can reduce total organic HAP
emissions by 95 percent at existing sources and 98 percent at new
sources. The emission limits reflect this level of control by limiting
organic HAP emissions to no more than 5 percent and 2 percent of the
organic HAP applied each month at existing and new sources,
respectively; and by limiting emissions based on the weight of the
solids part of your coating or the weight of your total coating. As
discussed in section VIII of this preamble, we believe expressing
emission limits in this way is appropriately based on the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) level of control and offers
flexibility to reduce emissions through the use of control technology,
pollution prevention, or a combination of the two.
The three HAP emission limits proposed for existing sources are:
(1) Limit emissions to no more than 5 percent of the organic HAP
applied for the month; (2) limit the total amount of organic HAP in
your coatings, or the total amount of organic HAP emitted, to no more
than 20 weight percent of the total solids applied to web substrates in
a month; or (3) limit the total amount of organic HAP in your coatings,
or the total amount of organic HAP emitted, to no more than 4 weight
percent of the total mass of coating material applied to the web
substrate in a month.
The three HAP emission limits proposed for new sources are: (1)
Limit emissions to no more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied
for the month; (2) limit the total amount of organic HAP in your
coatings, or the total amount of organic HAP emitted, to no more than 8
weight percent of the total solids applied to web substrates in a
month; or (3) limit the total amount of organic HAP in your coatings,
or the total amount of organic HAP emitted, to no more than 1.6 weight
percent of the
[[Page 55335]]
total mass of coating material applied to the web substrate in a month.
In submitting comments, please specify whether the comment pertains
to one or all of the emission limitation options of the proposed
standard. We will further evaluate the proposed standard based on our
review of public comments and other information we may receive. The
final rule may reflect any one of the proposed options to limit organic
HAP emissions, a combination of the proposed options, or all three
options.
The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) would also apply
to you. The General Provisions codify procedures and criteria we use to
carry out all part 63 NESHAP promulgated under the CAA. The General
Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review
procedures, and procedures for conducting compliance-related activities
such as notifications, recordkeeping and reporting, performance
testing, and monitoring. The proposed rule refers to individual
sections of the General Provisions that we believe will be of
particular interest to you. However, unless specifically overridden in
table 1 of the proposed rule, all of the General Provisions
requirements would apply to you.
B. Interaction With Other Regulations
You may be subject to both the paper and other web coating NESHAP
and other future or existing rules, such as new source performance
standards (NSPS) and State rules requiring reasonably available control
technology limits on volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. You
must comply with all rules. Duplicative recordkeeping and reporting
requirements and differences in emission limitations may be resolved
through your title V permit.
C. What Pollutants Are Limited by This Proposal?
Today's proposed rule would limit total organic HAP emissions from
coating lines. We did not identify inorganic HAP as pollutants emitted
by this source category.
IV. When Do I Show Initial Compliance With the Proposed Rule?
Existing sources would have to comply with the final rule no later
than 3 years after the effective date of the final rule. The effective
date is the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. New or reconstructed sources would have to comply upon start-
up of the affected source or the effective date of the final rule,
whichever is later. Details of compliance requirements can be found in
the General Provisions, as outlined in table 1 of the proposed rule.
Before your initial compliance demonstration, you would choose one
of the three emission limit options for your affected source. In your
initial compliance certification, you would notify the Administrator of
your choice, and after that you would monitor and report compliance
results accordingly. If you decide to change to another emission
limitation option, you are also required to notify the Administrator,
as with other changes at the facility, discussed in section VI.
V. What Testing and Monitoring Must I Do?
In addition to the specific testing and monitoring requirements
specified below for the affected source, the proposed rule adopts the
testing requirements specified in Sec. 63.7 and specifies that
performance tests at existing sources must be conducted by the
compliance date.
A. Test Methods and Procedures
You may comply with the proposed standards by applying materials
meeting the organic HAP emission rate limits, by using capture and
control equipment to reduce organic HAP emissions by 95 percent at
existing sources and by 98 percent at new sources, or by using a
combination of low organic HAP materials and capture and control
equipment to meet the organic HAP emission rate limits.
If you demonstrate compliance based on the coating materials
applied on your coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP
content of materials applied. To make this determination, you may
either use EPA Method 311 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 63, use an
alternative method for determining the organic HAP content (but only
after obtaining EPA approval), or use the volatile organic content of
the coating materials applied as the value for the organic HAP content.
The volatile organic content must be determined by EPA Method 24 of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 (or an approved alternative method). If
you are demonstrating compliance by applying coating materials that
meet the emission limit based on coating solids applied, the solids
content of the materials must be determined using EPA Method 24. You
may rely on manufacturer's data to determine the organic HAP content or
volatile matter and solids content when these data are equivalent to
those obtained from Method 311 (or an approved alternative method) and
Method 24 (or an approved alternative method), respectively. You must
also determine the mass of each coating material applied using company
records. You must calculate the organic HAP content and mass of all
coating materials applied on the coating lines for each monthly period.
However, only changes in a material formulation would require a
redetermination of total organic HAP weight fraction for that material.
To demonstrate compliance, you must calculate the average mass of
organic HAP in coating materials applied and show that it is less than
the organic HAP emission limits specified.
If you use an emission capture and control system to comply with
the proposed standard, you must demonstrate that the overall control
efficiency reduces total organic emissions by at least 95 percent at
existing sources and 98 percent at new sources. Alternatively, you may
use capture and control equipment in combination with low organic HAP
materials and demonstrate you meet the organic HAP emission limit
specified. To comply using the combined approach, you must determine
the overall control efficiency of the equipment and the organic HAP and
solids content of the materials applied. These values must be
determined for each monthly period.
The overall control efficiency for a capture and control system
would be demonstrated based on emission capture and reduction
efficiency. To determine the capture efficiency, you would either
verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure using EPA Method 204
of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, in which case you could assume 100
percent capture; or use EPA Method 204A through F, or Appendix A of 40
CFR part 63, Subpart KK, to measure capture efficiency.
You must determine the emission reduction efficiency of a control
device by conducting a performance test or using a continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS). If you use CEMS, you must determine the inlet
and outlet concentration to calculate the control efficiency. The CEMS
must comply with performance specification 8 or 9 in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.
If you conduct a performance test, we are proposing that the
removal efficiency of a control device be determined based on three
runs, each run lasting 1 hour. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, must be used for selection of the sampling sites. Method 2,
2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used to
determine the gas volumetric flow rate. Method 3, 3A or 3B, of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, must be used for gas
[[Page 55336]]
analysis to determine dry molecular weight. Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, must be used to determine stack moisture. Method 25 or 25A
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used to determine organic
volatile matter concentration. Alternatively, any other test method or
data that have been validated according to the applicable procedures in
Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, may be used if approved by
the Administrator.
If you use a solvent recovery system, you may alternatively
determine the overall control efficiency using a liquid-liquid material
balance. If you demonstrate compliance with the material balance, you
must measure the amount of all materials applied during each month and
determine the volatile matter content of these materials. You must also
measure the amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery
system during the month and calculate the overall solvent recovery
efficiency.
The test methods we propose to require, as discussed above, are
existing EPA methods that are familiar to the industry, readily
available, and appropriate to the device or the parameter being
measured. The tests selected are expected to establish adequately
whether the facility is complying with the standard.
B. Monitoring Requirements
According to paragraph (a)(3) of section 114 of the CAA, monitoring
of stationary sources is required to determine the compliance status of
the sources, and whether compliance is continuous or intermittent. For
affected sources complying with the proposed standard with capture and
control systems, initial compliance is determined through an initial
performance test and ongoing compliance through continuous monitoring.
We are proposing the parameters to be monitored for certain types of
control devices now used in the industry. You must set the values of
these parameters that correspond to compliance with the proposed
standard during your initial performance test. These values are your
``operating limits.'' If future monitoring shows that capture and
control equipment is operating outside the range of values established
during the initial performance test, then you are deviating from the
operating limits.
If you use a capture and control system to meet the proposed
standard, you are required to submit a plan identifying the operating
limit and monitoring procedures for the capture system. You must
monitor in accordance with your plan unless we require an alternate
monitoring procedure.
If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you must monitor
temperature using a continuous parameter monitoring system. If you use
a thermal oxidizer, you must establish the average combustion
temperature recorded during the performance test as the operating
limit. If you use a catalytic oxidizer, you must establish as the
operating limits the average gas temperatures recorded during the
performance test both upstream and downstream of the catalyst bed. The
time-weighted average of the values recorded during the performance
test shall be computed to establish the parameter value(s). For
catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed immediately before
and after the catalyst bed. For thermal oxidizers, the temperature
monitor is placed in the firebox or in the duct immediately downstream
of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
If you use a solvent recovery system, you must conduct monthly mass
balances or operate continuous emission monitors as described in the
performance test section.
If you use a combination of capture and control devices and low-HAP
materials, you are required to monitor the parameters of the capture
and control devices as indicated above. In addition, you must record
data on the HAP and solids content of the materials applied to
determine the HAP emission rate as described in the performance test
section.
The proposed rule specifies the types of parameters that must be
monitored for common types of control devices: temperature monitoring
for oxidizers and either continuous emission monitor systems or mass
balance measurements for solvent recovery. These parameters were
selected because they are good indicators of control device
performance, and because continuous parameter monitoring
instrumentation is available at a reasonable cost. You must install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate all monitoring equipment as specified
in the proposed rule. If you use control devices other than those
identified in the proposed standard, you must submit the operating
parameters to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. You could
be approved, on a case-by-case basis, to monitor parameters not
specifically listed in the proposed standards. The authority to approve
the parameters to be monitored is retained by the Administrator and is
not delegated.
VI. What Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
Must I Follow?
The proposed rule requires you to comply with notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, generally as described in
the General Provisions (see table 1 of the proposed rule) and
specifically as designed to support demonstration of compliance with
this proposed rule. We believe that these requirements are necessary
and sufficient to ensure that you comply with the requirements in the
proposed subpart JJJJ.
A. Initial Notification
If the NESHAP apply to you, you must send an initial notification
to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your facility is located
and to your State agency. If you have an existing source, you must
submit the initial notification no later than 1 year before the
required compliance date for the standard. If you have a new or
reconstructed source, you must submit the notification no later than
120 days after either the date of initial start-up or the effective
date of the final rule, whichever is later.
The Initial Notification Report notifies us and your State agency
that you have an existing facility that is subject to the proposed
standard or that you have constructed a new facility. Thus, it allows
you and the Federal or State enforcement agency to plan for compliance
activities. The General Provisions for NESHAP specifies the information
you must include in the initial notification and other reporting
requirements for new or reconstructed sources.
B. Notification of Performance Tests
If the NESHAP apply to you, you will have several options for
demonstrating compliance. If you demonstrate compliance by using a
capture and control system to reduce emissions of HAP, you must conduct
a performance test as described above. Prior to conducting the
performance test, you must notify us or the delegated State or local
agency at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is
scheduled to begin, as indicated in the General Provisions for NESHAP.
C. Notification of Compliance Status
You are required to send a notice of compliance status within 180
days after the compliance date as specified in the General Provisions
for NESHAP. This report must include your compliance certification, the
results of any performance tests and monitoring, and a description of
how you will demonstrate continuing compliance.
[[Page 55337]]
The notification of compliance status must specifically identify
whether low-HAP materials, emission capture and control systems, or a
combination of low-HAP materials and capture and control systems were
used to comply with this regulation. For capture and control systems,
it must also identify the operating limits established during the
performance test. Specific reporting requirements are dependent upon
how you choose to comply with the proposed rule.
D. Recordkeeping Requirements
To comply with the proposed standard based on organic HAP content
or organic HAP emissions on a weight basis, records must be maintained
of the organic HAP, volatile organic content and solids content of each
coating applied, and the amount of each coating applied on paper and
other web coating lines each month.
If capture and control technology is used, you are required to keep
records of the equipment monitoring parameter measurements specified in
the proposed rule that are discussed in section V above. You must also
develop a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan. You would have to
make the plan available for inspection if the Administrator requests to
see it. It would stay in your records for the life of the affected
source or until the source no longer must meet the standard in the
proposed rule.
E. Periodic Reports
Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting
periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period,
you would submit a semiannual compliance report stating that the
affected source has been in compliance. A deviation is any instance in
which you fail to meet any requirement or obligation of the proposed
standard or any term or condition adopted to meet the proposed
standard. The following semiannual compliance reports would be required
under this proposal when deviations occur:
If you are complying by using oxidizers, report all
deviations from the oxidizer operating parameters.
If you are complying by using solvent recovery systems and
liquid-liquid mass balance, report mass balance calculations for all
months when the material balances deviated from the emission limit.
If you are complying by using oxidizers or solvent
recovery systems with continuous emission monitors, report all
deviations from the operating parameter values established for the
capture system and all deviations of the emission limit.
If you are complying by using low-HAP coating materials,
report all deviations from the emission limit.
If you are complying by using a combination of capture and
control systems with low-HAP coating materials, report all deviations
from the emission limit and all deviations from operating parameters
described above.
You would also have to send us reports for each semiannual
reporting period in which the following occur:
A change occurs at your facility or within your process
that might affect its compliance status.
A change from what was reported in the initial notice
occurs at your facility or within your process.
You decide to change to another emission limitation
option.
VII. What Are the Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
This Proposed Rule?
We developed model plant facilities to represent the industry based
on the data we collected. We estimated environmental, energy, and
economic impacts based upon what these facilities must do to meet the
proposed rule. There are several options for demonstrating compliance
with these standards, and each facility has flexibility to adopt the
compliance option which has the least economic impact for their
individual situation. Most of the existing major source facilities in
this industry apply solvent-based coatings and utilize thermal
oxidation to reduce emissions. Therefore, in estimating the impacts
associated with the proposed rule, we assumed that most facilities
would install a permanent total enclosure and either install a new
thermal oxidizer or improve an existing one. If a facility complies
with the proposed rule by applying coatings that meet the proposed
emission limitation, the capital and operating costs and other impacts
would be lower than estimated. Hence, the estimates presented below may
overestimate the costs and other impacts as some facilities may comply
with the proposed rule by applying low-HAP coatings.
A. Emission Reductions
For existing affected sources in the paper and other web coating
industry (approximately 210 major sources), the nationwide baseline
organic HAP emissions are estimated to be 35,000 Mg/yr (39,000 tpy). We
estimate that implementation of the final rule would reduce emissions
from major sources by approximately 29,000 Mg/yr (32,000 tpy), or
approximately 80 percent.
We have projected the growth of the paper and other web coating
industry and anticipate 32 new affected sources will be constructed
over the next 5 years. These sources will need to comply with NSPS in
40 CFR part 60 for VOC and, therefore, we estimated baseline emissions
using a 90 percent reduction of organic HAP as the existing level of
control. We estimated that nationwide organic HAP baseline emissions
from new sources will be about 2,875 Mg/yr (3,170 tpy). We estimate
that implementation of the final rule would reduce emissions from new
affected sources by about 2,300 Mg/yr (2,535 tpy), or approximately 80
percent.
B. Secondary Environmental Impacts
Secondary environmental impacts are considered to be any air,
water, or solid waste impacts, positive or negative, associated with
the implementation of the final standard. These impacts are exclusive
of the direct organic HAP air emissions reductions discussed in the
previous section.
We estimate that more than 99 percent of the organic HAP emissions
from paper and other web coating are VOC. Therefore, the capture and
control of organic HAP that are presently emitted will result in a
decrease in VOC emissions. Consequently, we estimate the current
nationwide VOC emissions from the paper and other web coating source
category to be at least 35,000 Mg/yr (39,000 tpy), the nationwide
organic HAP estimate. The proposed emission controls for organic HAP
will reduce non-HAP VOC emissions as well. Emissions of VOC have been
associated with a variety of health and welfare impacts. The VOC
emissions, together with nitrogen oxides, are precursors to the
formation of ground-level ozone, or smog. Exposure to ambient ozone is
responsible for a series of public health impacts, such as alterations
in lung capacity and aggravation of existing respiratory disease. Ozone
exposure can also damage forests and crops.
The use of newly installed or upgraded control devices to meet the
proposed standard would result in greater electricity consumption (see
section VII of this preamble). Increases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as well as
certain HAP, from electric utilities could result. The operation of
newly installed or upgraded control devices would also require
combustion of supplemental fuel, typically natural gas (see section VII
of this preamble), resulting in
[[Page 55338]]
additional emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon
dioxide.
It is expected that some paper and other web coating facilities
will comply with the proposed standard by substituting non-HAP
materials for organic HAP presently in use. In some cases, the non-HAP
materials may be VOC, however, in other cases, non-VOC materials (e.g.,
water) may be used. Facilities converting to waterborne materials as a
means or partial means of compliance may have reduced Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste disposal if the status of
the waste material changes from hazardous to nonhazardous. An increase
in wastewater discharge may then occur if this waste material and
waterborne wash up materials are discharged to publicly owned treatment
works. However, we do not expect any significant increases in
wastewater discharge to result from the proposed rule.
New and upgraded catalytic oxidizers will require catalysts.
Catalyst life is estimated to be more than 10 years. Spent catalysts
will represent a small amount of solid waste, and sometimes the spent
catalyst will be regenerated by the manufacturer for reuse. Activated
carbon used in solvent recovery systems is returned to the manufacturer
at the end of its useful life and converted to other salable products.
Little solid waste impact is expected from this source.
C. Energy Impacts
The operation of new and upgraded control devices will require
additional energy. Capture of previously uncontrolled solvent-laden air
will require fan horsepower. Operation of oxidizers, particularly
thermal oxidizers, may require supplemental fuel (typically natural
gas) to increase the combustion temperature and improve destruction
efficiency.
The total additional electrical energy required to meet the
proposed standard is estimated to be 313 million kilowatt-hours per
year. Fuel requirements total 3.7 billion British thermal units per
year. These fuel impacts are based on a ``worst-case'' scenario, that
is the use of thermal oxidizers at all facilities, which is the control
scenario expected to result in the highest energy impacts.
D. Cost Impacts
The total nationwide capital and annualized costs (1998 dollars)
attributable to compliance with the proposed standard have been
estimated for existing and new sources. Costs are based on the use of
permanent total enclosures, thermal oxidizers, and monitoring
equipment. The capital costs with other methods of control (e.g.,
applying low-HAP coatings) are expected to be significantly lower.
It is expected that any new facility using solvent-based coatings
will install control systems to comply with applicable State and
Federal regulations for reducing VOC emissions from the various sectors
of this source category (e.g., the standards of performance for new
stationary sources in 40 CFR part 60). The data we gathered on this
industry indicate that thermal oxidation is the most common control
technology installed to meet the requirements of the existing
regulations. Thermal oxidation is capable of achieving a 98 percent
reduction of HAP emissions. Therefore, the additional costs to a new
facility resulting from this proposed standard were estimated based on
the costs of constructing a permanent total enclosure to deliver all
HAP emissions to the existing thermal oxidizer.
Capital costs would be incurred by installing capture and control
systems at existing facilities presently without capture and control
systems, and upgrading capture and control systems at existing
facilities that do not meet the proposed standard. Additionally, we
estimated the cost for the purchase of monitoring equipment needed as a
capital investment to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of the proposed rule. Total nationwide capital costs are
estimated to be $210 million with the cost for existing sources and new
sources estimated to be $198 million and $12 million, respectively.
Total nationwide annual costs of the proposed standard have been
estimated at $68 million with the annual cost for existing and new
sources estimated to be $63 million and $5 million, respectively. These
costs include capital recovery over a 10-year period, operating costs
for the newly installed and upgraded capture and control systems, and
costs for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. These are net costs
after taking into account the costs presently being incurred for the
baseline control level.
E. Economic Impacts
The economic impact analysis (EIA) shows that the expected price
increases for affected output would range from only 0.1 to 1.1 percent
as a result of the proposed standard. The expected change in production
of affected output is a reduction of 0.1 to 1.1 percent as a result of
the proposed standard. There are three plant closures predicted out of
169 facilities included in the economic model. Although any facility
closure is cause for concern, it should be noted that the baseline
economic condition of the facilities predicted to close affects the
closure estimate provided by the economic model. Facilities which are
already experiencing adverse economic conditions for reasons
unconnected to this rule are more vulnerable to the impact of any new
costs than those that are not. The facilities predicted to close appear
to have low profitability levels currently. While the rule may
adversely impact the three facilities predicted to close, we do not
predict an adverse economic impact to the industry as a whole.
VIII. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Level of the Proposed
Standards?
A. Source of Authority for Standards Development
Section 112(c) of the CAA directs us to develop a list of all
categories of major sources and appropriate area sources that emit one
or more of the 188 HAP listed under section 112(b) of the CAA. Paper
and other web coating is a listed source category because of its
organic HAP emissions that include, but are not limited to, toluene,
methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, xylenes, phenol, methylene chloride,
ethylene glycol and glycol ethers, hexane, methyl isobutyl ketone,
cresols and cresylic acid, dimethylformamide, vinyl acetate,
formaldehyde, and ethyl benzene. Section 112(d) of the CAA then directs
us to promulgate regulations establishing standards for each category
or subcategory of major and area sources of HAP listed pursuant to
section 112(c). Those emission standards are to reflect the application
of MACT.
B. What Is the Basis for Defining the Affected Source?
In selecting the affected source(s) for MACT standards, our primary
goal is to ensure that MACT is applied to all the HAP-emitting
equipment within the source category or subcategory being regulated.
The affected source also defines where new source MACT applies under a
particular standard. Specifically, the General Provisions define the
terms ``construction'' and ``reconstruction'' with reference to the
term ``affected source'' (Sec. 60.2) and provide that new source MACT
applies when construction and reconstruction occur (Sec. 60.5). The
collection of equipment evaluated in determining MACT (including the
MACT floor) is usually the collection of equipment used in defining the
affected source.
In defining the affected source for the paper and other web coating
proposed NESHAP, we considered available information on HAP emissions,
control
[[Page 55339]]
configurations, industry practices, products produced, and the impacts
of other standards. In general, paper and other web coating facilities
are covered by the SIC codes listed in the Regulated Entities table.
However, facilities classified under other SIC codes may be subject to
the proposed standard if the facility meets the definition of a major
source and conducts paper and other web coating (see section II of this
preamble).
Although the industry manufactures an extensive list of products,
the coating processes used by the different segments of the industry
are very similar. Typically, the web substrate is put on a web coating
line where it is unwound, coated, rewound and/or cut to size, and
packaged. Alternatively, a web may be unwound, coated, and combined
with another material by lamination (either before or instead of being
rewound). The web coating line may include one work station or multiple
work stations which apply the coating to the web. Each work station
typically uses a single type of coating applicator (e.g., reverse roll,
knife roll, gravure cylinder, dip, and squeeze). When there are
multiple work stations on a single web coating line, each station may
use a different type of applicator depending on the needs of a specific
product. Typically, a drying oven immediately follows each work
station.
The primary organic HAP emission source in web coating is the
solvent used in the coatings. The solvent acts as a vehicle for the
material that is used to coat the web. Once the coating is on the web,
the solvent is usually evaporated in dryers or otherwise converted to
another material some time during the coating process.
In the various segments of the paper and other web coating
industry, the same primary organic HAP emission sources can be found.
Dryer organic HAP emissions can represent more than 90 percent of the
total organic HAP emissions from coating operations. Some emitted
organic HAP are not captured in the dryer exhaust. This uncaptured or
fugitive organic HAP include that which evaporate from the coatings
into the coating room during application, and that which evaporate from
the web in the dryers but are then swept out of the dryer as the web
travels toward the succeeding work station. Most, if not all, of the
solvent emitted can be collected if capture equipment is installed to
collect fugitive solvent vapors.
Dryer exhaust and fugitive emissions can be vented to control
devices such as oxidizers or solvent recovery systems. Organic HAP may
escape destruction or recovery by the control system, as they may be
retained in the coated web. Organic HAP that remains in the web after
removal from the coating line may leave the facility in the coated web
product or may evaporate during additional processing (e.g., slitting,
folding, stitching, etc.).
Coating application and drying/curing are the largest emission
sources of organic HAP emissions for all segments of the paper and
other web coating industry. Because these emission points are on the
web coating lines, the web coating lines are the largest emission
source. Therefore, the proposed affected source is broadly defined as
the collection of all web coating lines at a facility (see section II
of this preamble). This broad definition was selected to provide
sources with flexibility for compliance demonstrations, i.e., averaging
emissions from all web coating lines rather than demonstrating
compliance for each individual line.
C. What Is the MACT Floor That Is the Basis for the Proposed Standard?
Data were obtained from 268 paper and other web coating facilities.
Facility data were obtained through survey instruments, facility
visits, and data reported to EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval
System.
Of the 268 facilities, 210 were estimated to have the potential to
be major sources. These 210 facilities were analyzed to identify the
top performing facilities in terms of emission limitations from coating
lines. The best controlled facilities used capture and control systems
to reduce HAP emissions. Capture technology included work station hoods
and total enclosures around the coating lines. Control technology
included catalytic and thermal oxidation, as well as solvent recovery
systems using carbon adsorption or condensation units.
In many cases, existing control devices were originally designed
and operated to control VOC emissions. We assumed that the performance
of these control devices with respect to VOC and organic HAP is
equivalent because the organic HAP commonly used in this industry are
also VOC.
Of the 210 facilities in the MACT floor database, 119 used capture
and control systems. The same types of capture and control systems were
used by these facilities even though the types of coatings, web-
substrates and products varied widely. All of the facilities were
ranked by the percent overall emissions reductions achieved for the
collection of all the coating lines at each facility. The average
reduction achieved by the best controlled 12 percent of the facilities
was 95 percent. Consequently, we identified 95 percent overall control
of organic HAP emissions as the MACT floor for existing sources.
We also determined that new sources employing permanent total
enclosures with new destruction or recovery systems can be designed to
achieve 98 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions. This is
the anticipated level of control for new sources using the emission
capture and control technologies used by the best controlled sources in
the category. Although some facilities reported more than 98 percent
overall control of organic HAP emissions, this higher level of control
may not be achievable on a continuous basis under all normal operating
conditions applicable to new sources. Consequently, 98 percent overall
control of organic HAP emissions is the MACT floor for new sources.
D. What Are the Control Options Beyond the MACT Floor?
We did not identify any control equipment capable of achieving
emissions reductions beyond the MACT floor for new sources. We
identified and considered one control level more stringent than the
MACT floor for existing sources. The more stringent level for existing
sources would require 98 percent overall control of organic HAP
emissions from coating lines. In evaluating this control option to
select the most appropriate MACT level, we calculated the additional
costs and emissions reductions associated with requiring existing
sources to achieve this more stringent level of control. While many
existing sources can improve upon existing capture and control systems
to achieve a 98 percent overall control of organic HAP emissions from
coating lines, we believe that most of these same facilities would need
to fully replace existing capture and control systems to achieve the
more stringent level of control.
We calculated the cost effectiveness (i.e., cost for each ton of
HAP reduced) for reducing HAP emissions at existing sources meeting the
MACT floor and the more stringent level of control. Requiring existing
sources to meet the MACT floor level results in estimated emissions
reductions of 28,700 Mg/yr (31,600 tpy) at an estimated cost of $63
million per year or $1,990 per ton of HAP reduced. We determined that
the incremental cost for the more stringent level of control ($84.5
million) compared to the incremental emissions reductions (3,766 tpy)
(an incremental cost effectiveness of $22,433 per ton of HAP reduced)
did not warrant going beyond the MACT floor. Therefore, we
[[Page 55340]]
did not select the more stringent control option as the basis for the
standard.
E. What Is the Proposed MACT Standard?
For reasons discussed above, we selected the MACT floors for
existing and new paper and other web coating lines as the appropriate
level of control for this source category. The proposed level of
control for existing sources is 95 percent overall control of organic
HAP emissions from coating lines, alternatively stated as limiting
emissions to no more than 5 percent of the organic HAP applied. The
proposed level of control for new sources is 98 percent overall control
of organic HAP emissions from coating lines, alternatively stated as
limiting emissions to no more than 2 percent of the organic HAP
applied.
Paper and other web coating facilities may be able to reduce the
HAP content of the coatings applied on their coating lines. We consider
such HAP reductions as pollution prevention and believe pollution
prevention is a desirable outcome. To encourage further pollution
prevention, we are also proposing emission limitations in two formats
that reflect the MACT level of control, but would not require sources
to use add-on controls to achieve that level.
Coating formulations and organic HAP content vary depending on the
coating characteristics required for the products being produced. We
evaluated the coating data available to us to establish a baseline
organic HAP content for the coatings currently used in this source
category. For existing sources, we reduced the baseline organic HAP
content of coatings by 95 percent to establish the emission limitations
of 0.20 kilograms (kg) of HAP emitted per kg of coating solids applied
and 0.04 kg of HAP emitted per kg of coating applied. Similarly, for
new sources, we reduced the baseline organic HAP content by 98 percent
to establish the emission limitations of 0.08 kg HAP emitted per kg of
coating solids applied and 0.016 kg of HAP emitted per kg of coating
applied.
We believe these emission limitations, expressed in the proposed
standard as both a HAP content limit and a HAP emission limit, are
appropriately based on the MACT level of control. Compliance with the
HAP content limits and equivalent HAP emission limits must be
determined using the monthly average HAP applied on a mass solids or
mass coating basis. Sources operating capture and control systems can
comply with these emission limitations by determining the organic HAP
content of the coatings applied on all their coating lines and
factoring in the capture and control efficiency such that the monthly
average controlled organic HAP emissions from the affected source meet
these limits.
IX. What Is the Basis for Selecting the Format of the Proposed
Standards?
The proposed format for the emission standard is an overall percent
reduction of emissions, taking into account both capture and control
system efficiencies. Data available to us regarding the efficiency of
capture and control systems used in this industry indicate that overall
efficiency is typically determined by a performance test for capture
systems and oxidizers and liquid-liquid material balance for solvent
recovery systems. The proposed standard allows for determining overall
control efficiency through a variety of mechanisms to be consistent
with industry practices. We selected this format because it reflects
MACT at all facilities and allows flexibility in the method selected
for achieving the percent reduction limit.
The use of an allowable concentration of emissions in the exhaust
gases discharged to the atmosphere was also considered. The major
disadvantage of this format is its inability to identify the overall
control efficiency of the capture and control system, and thus, the
overall percent reduction of organic HAP emissions. The concentration
of emissions in exhaust gases could be decreased by increasing dilution
air through the capture and control system. Thus, we do not believe an
exhaust gas concentration limit is appropriate for demonstrating the
overall percent reduction of emissions.
To encourage the use of low- and no-HAP materials, two additional
formats are proposed. These formats limit emissions to either mass of
HAP per mass of coating solids applied, or mass of HAP per mass of
coating material applied (both solids and liquid). Affected sources can
use either low- or no-HAP coating materials to meet these limits or
capture and control systems, or a combination of the two. These formats
do not establish any certain percent reduction requirement for capture
and control systems but do accurately reflect application of MACT.
Thus, they can provide flexibility for a source to combine add-on
control with use of low-HAP materials to achieve the emissions
reductions.
X. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently,
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order
12866.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the
[[Page 55341]]
process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials to enable
them to provide timely input in the development of this proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section
of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or
operate paper and other web coating lines. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this action.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on an assessment of health or safety risks.
Furthermore, this rule has been determined not to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least-
costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost of this
proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be about $68 million.
Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined
that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
ranging from 500 to 750 employees; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
[[Page 55342]]
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with
the RFA, EPA conducted an assessment of the proposed standard on small
businesses within the paper and other web coating industry. Based on
SBA size definitions for the affected industries and reported sales and
employment data, EPA identified 50 of the 103 companies owning affected
facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses represent 49
percent of the companies within the source category, they are expected
to incur only 25 percent of the total industry compliance costs of $63
million. There are only six small firms with compliance costs equal to
or greater than 3 percent of their sales. In addition, there are only
four small firms with cost-to-sales ratios between 1 and 3 percent.
The EPA performed an EIA to estimate the changes in product price
and production quantities for the firms affected by this proposed rule.
The analysis shows that of the 54 facilities owned by affected small
firms, only one would be expected to shut down rather than incur the
cost of compliance with the proposed rule. Although any facility
closure is cause for concern, it should be noted that the baseline
economic condition of the facility predicted to close affects the
closure estimate provided by the economic model. Facilities which are
already experiencing adverse economic conditions for reasons
unconnected to this rule are more vulnerable to the impact of any new
costs than those that are not. The facility predicted to close appears
to have low profitability levels currently. The EPA also notes that,
while economies of scale will require individual small firms to pay a
somewhat higher proportion of revenues than large firms for compliance,
the burden on most small firms is quite low nevertheless. The median
compliance cost is well below 1 percent of sales for both small and
large firms affected by the proposed standard (0.16 and 0.03 percent of
sales for small and large firms, respectively).
In summary, this analysis supports today's certification under the
RFA because, while a few small firms may experience significant
impacts, there will not be a substantial number incurring such a
burden. For more information, consult the docket for this project.
Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless
worked aggressively to minimize the impact of this rule on small
entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA. We solicited
input from small entities during the data-gathering phase of the
proposed rulemaking. Section VIII of this preamble further describes
the information we obtained. Many small entities, like other affected
paper and other web coating sources, currently comply with regulations
limiting emissions of VOC. These facilities currently limit VOC
emissions using add-on control equipment or pollution prevention
coatings (coatings with little VOC content). Some small entities raised
concerns regarding potential overlap between VOC regulations and the
NESHAP. To address these concerns and be consistent with the current
VOC control techniques, our proposed compliance options, test methods,
and recordkeeping and reporting requirements would allow small entities
to comply with the proposed regulation using most of their existing VOC
compliance procedures. We believe this will significantly reduce the
compliance burden for small entities, thereby mitigating potential
impacts and preventing any duplication of effort. In addition, we are
proposing compliance options which give small entities flexibility in
choosing the most cost-effective and least-burdensome alternative for
their operation. For example, a facility could purchase and use low-HAP
coatings (i.e., pollution prevention) that meet the proposed standard
instead of using add-on capture and control systems. This method of
compliance can be demonstrated with minimum burden by using already-
maintained purchase and usage records. No testing of materials would be
required, as the facility owner could show that their coatings meet the
emission limits by providing formulation data supplied by the
manufacturer. We are also proposing that compliance demonstrations be
conducted monthly, rather than on a daily basis. We believe this will
reduce the amount of records needed to demonstrate compliance with the
rule. Furthermore, we are proposing the minimum monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements specified in the general
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). We continue to be interested in
the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1951) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of Environmental
Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460,
by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy
may also be downloaded off the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The annual monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the rule) for existing web coating facilities is estimated to be 155
labor hours per facility at a total annual cost of $14,414 per
facility. This estimate includes a one-time submission of a start-up,
shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports for any event
when the procedures in the plan were not followed; semiannual excess
emission reports; notifications; and recordkeeping. The total capital/
start-up cost component (including purchase of services component)
annualized over its expected useful life is $121,000. The operation and
maintenance costs component is $35,000 per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and
[[Page 55343]]
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460,
and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after September 13, 2000, a comment to OMB
is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October
13, 2000. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) instead of government-unique standards in their
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, sampling and
analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or
adopted by one or more VCS bodies. Examples of organizations generally
regarded as VCS bodies include the American Society for Testing and
Materials, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of
Automotive Engineers. The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency decides
not to use available and applicable VCS.
This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore,
during the proposed rulemaking process, EPA searched for VCS that might
be applicable. The search for emissions monitoring procedures
identified 18 VCS that appeared to have possible use in lieu of EPA
standard reference methods. However, after reviewing the available
standards, EPA determined that ten of the candidate consensus standards
(ASME C00031 or PTC 19-10-1981), ASTM D3154-91, ASTM 3271-87, ASTM
D3464-96, ASTM D3796-90, ASTM E337-84, and EN 1093-4:1996, EN
12619:1999, ISO 9096:1992, and ISO 10780:1994) identified for measuring
emissions of HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the
proposed rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency,
documentation, and validation data. Seven of the remaining candidate
consensus standards (ASME/BSR MFC 12m, ASME/BSR MFC 13m, ASTM Z6871Z,
ISO PWI 17895, ISO/DIS 11890-1, ISO/DIS 11890-2 and ISO/FDIS 14965) are
under development or under EPA review. The EPA plans to follow, review
and consider adopting these standards after their development and
further review by EPA are completed.
The ASTM 3960-98 is practical for use in measuring the VOC content
of surface coatings for this proposal. This standard uses the same
techniques, equipment, and procedures as Method 24. Since this proposal
allows the measurement of VOC content as a surrogate for HAP using
Method 24, this is an acceptable method alternative to EPA Method 24
for VOC. Therefore, ASTM 3960-98 will be incorporated by reference into
40 CFR 63.14 by the EPA.
Six consensus standards: ASTM D1475-90, ASTM D2369-95, ASTM D3792-
91, ASTM D4017-96a, ASTM D4457-85 (Reapproved 91), and ASTM D5403-93
are already incorporated by reference in EPA Method 24 and five
consensus standards: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM D4747-87, ASTM
D4827-93, and ASTM PS 9-94 are incorporated by reference in EPA Method
311.
The EPA takes comment on proposed compliance demonstration
requirements proposed in this rulemaking and specifically invites the
public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus
standards. Commentors should also explain why this proposed rule should
adopt these VCS in lieu of EPA's standards. Emission test methods and
performance specifications submitted for evaluation should be
accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, including method
validation data and the procedure used to validate the candidate method
(if method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A was used).
Section 63.3360 of the proposed standard lists the EPA's testing
methods and performance standards included in the proposed rule. Most
of the standards have been used by States and industry for more than 10
years. Nevertheless, Sec. 63.3360 allows for any State or source to
apply to EPA for permission to use an alternative method in place of
any of the EPA testing methods or performance standards listed in
Sec. 63.3360.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 14, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63
of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C., 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding a subpart JJJJ to read as follows:
Subpart JJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.3280 What is in this subpart?
63.3290 Does this subpart apply to me?
63.3300 Which of my emission sources are affected?
63.3310 What definitions are used in this subpart?
Emission Standards and Compliance Dates
63.3320 What emission standards must I meet?
63.3330 When must I comply?
General Requirements for Compliance with the Emission Standards and for
Monitoring and Performance Tests
63.3340 What general requirements must I meet?
63.3350 If I have a control device, what monitoring must I do?
63.3360 What performance test methods must I conduct?
Requirements for Showing Compliance
63.3370 How do I demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards?
[[Page 55344]]
Reports and Records
63.3400 What reports must I submit?
63.3410 What records must I keep?
Delegation of Authority
63.3420 What authorities may be delegated to the States?
63.3420--63.3479 [Reserved]
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 General
Provisions to Subpart JJJJ
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.3280 What is in this subpart?
This subpart describes the actions you must take to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from paper and other web
coating. Paper is one of several web substrates to which coatings are
applied using a web coating line. This subpart establishes emission
standards for web coating lines and specifies what you must do to
comply if you own or operate a facility with web coating lines that is
a major source of HAP. Certain requirements apply to all who must
follow the subpart; others depend on the means you use to comply with
an emission standard.
Sec. 63.3290 Does this subpart apply to me?
The provisions of this subpart apply to each new and existing
facility that is a major source of HAP, as defined in Sec. 63.2, at
which web coating lines are operated.
Sec. 63.3300 Which of my emission sources are affected?
(a) The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection
of all web coating lines at your facility, except:
(1) Web coating lines that are stand-alone coating equipment under
40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, and the owner or operator includes such
coating lines in its compliance demonstration under subpart KK.
(2) Web coating lines which are used for coating coil.
(3) Web coating lines which are research or laboratory equipment as
defined in Sec. 63.3310.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 63.3310 What definitions are used in this subpart?
(a) All terms used in this subpart that are not defined below have
the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and in
subpart A of this part.
Always-controlled work station means a work station associated with
a dryer from which the exhaust is delivered to a control device with no
provision for the dryer exhaust to bypass the control device. Sampling
lines for analyzers and relief valves needed for safety purposes are
not considered bypass lines.
As-applied means the condition of a coating at the time of
application to a substrate, including any added solvent.
As-purchased means the condition of a coating as delivered to the
user.
Capture efficiency means the fraction of all organic HAP emissions
generated by a process that is introduced to a control device,
expressed as a percentage.
Capture system means a hood, enclosed room, or other means of
collecting organic HAP emissions into a closed-vent system that
exhausts to a control device.
Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to
change the position of a valve or damper (e.g., from open to closed) in
such a way that the position of the valve or damper cannot be changed
without breaking the seal.
Coating materials means all inks, varnishes, adhesives, primers,
solvents, reducers, and other solids-containing materials applied to a
substrate via a web coating line. Materials used to form a substrate
are not considered coating materials.
Coil means a continuous metal substrate where the metal is greater
than 0.006 inch thick.
Control device means a device such as a solvent recovery device or
oxidizer which reduces the organic HAP in an exhaust gas by recovery or
by destruction.
Control device efficiency means the ratio of organic HAP emissions
recovered or destroyed by a control device to the total organic HAP
emissions that are introduced into the control device, expressed as a
percentage.
Day means a 24-consecutive-hour period.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject
to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is
permitted by this subpart.
Fabric means any of the substrates knotted, woven and nonwoven
yarn, thread, and textiles; fiberglass; cord; and carpet.
Facility means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common ownership or control, including properties that are separated
only by a road or other public right-of-way.
Formulation data means data on the organic HAP weight fraction,
volatile matter weight fraction, or solids weight fraction of a
material that is generated by the manufacturer or means other than a
test method specified in this subpart or an approved alternative
method.
HAP means hazardous air pollutants.
HAP applied means the organic HAP content of all coating materials
applied to a substrate by a coating line affected source.
Intermittently-controllable work station means a work station
associated with a dryer with provisions for the dryer exhaust to be
delivered to or diverted from a control device depending on the
position of a valve or damper. Sampling lines for analyzers and relief
valves needed for safety purposes are not considered bypass lines.
Month means a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 days
to 35 days to allow for flexibility in recordkeeping when data are
based on a business accounting period.
Never-controlled work station means a work station which is not
equipped with provisions by which any emissions, including those in the
exhaust from any associated dryer, may be delivered to a control
device.
New source means any affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which is commenced after September 13, 2000.
Overall organic HAP control efficiency means the total efficiency
of a capture and control system.
Research or laboratory equipment means any equipment for which the
primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new
processes and products, where such equipment is operated under the
close supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged
in the manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except
in a de minimis manner.
Uncontrolled coating line means a coating line consisting of only
never controlled work stations.
Unwind or feed station means a unit from which substrate is fed to
a web coating line.
Web means a continuous substrate (e.g., paper, film, foil) which is
flexible
[[Page 55345]]
enough to be wound or unwound as rolls. Fabric and coil are not
considered web substrates for purposes of this subpart.
Web coating line means any number of work stations, of which one or
more applies a layer of coating material along the length of a
continuous web substrate, and any associated drying equipment between
an unwind or feed station and a rewind or cutting station. Printing
presses subject to subpart KK of this part are not web coating lines.
Work station means a unit on a web coating line where material is
deposited onto a web substrate.
(b) The symbols used in equations in this subpart are defined as
follows:
(1) Cahi = the monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP
content of coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction,
kilogram (kg)/kg.
(2) Casi = the monthly average, as-applied, solids
content, of coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
(3) Cavi = the monthly average, as-applied, volatile
organic content of coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction,
kg/kg.
(4) Cc = the concentration of organic compounds as
carbon, parts per million by volume (ppmv).
(5) Chi = the organic HAP content of coating material,
i, as-purchased, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
(6) Chij = the organic HAP content of material, j, added
to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction,
kg/kg.
(7) Csi = the solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
(8) Csij = the solids content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/
kg.
(9) Cvi = the volatile organic content of coating
material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
(10) Cvij = the volatile organic content of material, j,
added to as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a weight
fraction, kg/kg.
(11) E = the organic volatile matter control efficiency of the
control device, percent.
(12) CE = the organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the
capture system, percent.
(13) Gi = the mass fraction of each coating material, i,
which was applied at 20 weight percent or greater solids content, on an
as-applied basis, kg/kg.
(14) Ha = the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions,
kg.
(15) He = the total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
(16) HL = the monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP
content of all coating materials applied, expressed as kg organic HAP
per kg of coating material applied, kg/kg.
(17) Hm = the total monthly organic HAP applied, kg.
(18) Hs = the monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP
to solids ratio, kg organic HAP/kg solids applied.
(19) Hsi = the as-applied, organic HAP to solids ratio
of coating material, i.
(20) L = the mass organic HAP emitted per mass of solids applied,
kg/kg.
(21) MBi = the sum of the mass of coating material, i,
as-applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in
bypass mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on never-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
(22) Mci = the sum of the mass of coating material, i,
as-applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in
controlled mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on
always-controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
(23) Mf = the total organic volatile matter mass flow
rate, kg/hour (h).
(24) Mfi = the organic volatile matter mass flow rate at
the inlet to the control device, kg/h.
(25) Mfo = the organic volatile matter mass flow rate at
the outlet of the control device, kg/h.
(26) Mi = the mass of as-purchased coating material, i,
applied in a month, kg.
(27) Mij = the mass of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, in a month, kg.
(28) MLj = the mass of non-solids-containing coating
material, j, added to solids-containing coating materials which were
applied at less than 20 weight percent solids content, on an as-applied
basis, in a month, kg.
(29) Mvr = the mass of volatile matter recovered in a
month, kg.
(30) n = the number of organic compounds in the vent gas.
(31) p = the number of different coating materials applied in a
month.
(32) q = the number of different materials added to the coating
material.
(33) Qsd = the volumetric flow rate of gases entering or
exiting the control device, as determined by Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
or 2G, dry standard cubic meters/hour (dscm)/h.
(34) R = the overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
(35) Rv = the organic volatile matter collection and
recovery efficiency, percent.
(36) S = the mass organic HAP emitted per mass of material applied,
kg/kg.
(37) 0.0416 = conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per
cubic meter (mol/m\3\) (@ 293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury
(mmHg)).
(38) 12.0 = the molecular weight of carbon.
Emission Standards and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.3320 What emission standards must I meet?
(a) If you own or operate any paper and other web coating affected
source that is subject to the requirements of this subpart, you must
comply with these requirements on and after the compliance dates as
specified in Sec. 63.3330.
(b) You must limit emissions to:
(1) No more than 5 percent of the organic HAP applied for the month
at existing sources, and no more than 2 percent of the organic HAP
applied for the month at new sources; or
(2) No more than 4 percent of the mass of coating materials applied
for the month at existing sources, and no more than 1.6 percent of the
mass of coating materials applied for the month at new sources; or
(3) No more than 20 percent of the mass of solids applied for the
month at existing sources, and no more than 8 percent of the solids
applied for the month at new sources.
(c) You must demonstrate compliance with this standard by following
one of the procedures in Sec. 63.3370.
Sec. 63.3330 When must I comply?
(a) If you own or operate an existing affected source subject to
the provisions of this subpart, you must comply by the compliance date.
The compliance date is [3 years after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register]. You must complete any performance test required
in Sec. 63.3360 prior to the compliance date.
(b) If you own or operate a new affected source subject to the
provisions of this subpart, you must comply immediately upon start-up
of the affected source, or after [the date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later.
(c) If you own or operate a reconstructed affected source subject
to the provisions of this subpart, you must comply immediately upon
start-up of the affected source, or after [the date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register], whichever is later. Affected
sources which have undergone reconstruction as defined in Sec. 63.2 are
subject to the requirements for new affected sources. The costs
associated with the purchase and installation of air pollution control
equipment are not considered in determining whether the affected source
has been reconstructed.
[[Page 55346]]
Additionally, the costs of retrofitting and replacing of equipment that
is installed specifically to comply with this subpart are not
considered reconstruction costs.
General Requirements for Compliance With the Emission Standards and
for Monitoring and Performance Tests
Sec. 63.3340 What general requirements must I meet?
Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A of
this part that apply to you if you are subject to this subpart.
Sec. 63.3350 If I have a control device, what monitoring must I do?
(a) A summary of monitoring you must do follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a web coating
line, and have the following: Then you must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Intermittently-controlled Record parameters related to possible
work stations. exhaust flow bypass of control device
and coating use (paragraph (c) of this
section).
������������������������������
(2) Solvent recovery unit.... Operate continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS) and perform quarterly
audits or measure volatile matter
recovered and conduct a liquid-liquid
material balance (paragraph (d) of this
section).
������������������������������
(3) Oxidizer................. Operate continuous parameter monitoring
system (CPMS) (paragraph (e) of this
section).
������������������������������
(4) Capture system........... Monitor capture system operating
parameter (paragraph (f) of this
section).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Following the date on which the initial performance test of a
control device is completed, to demonstrate continuing compliance with
the standard, you must monitor and inspect each capture system and each
control device used to comply with Sec. 63.3320. You must install and
operate the monitoring equipment as specified in paragraphs (c) through
(f) of this section.
(c) Bypass and coating use monitoring. If you own or operate
coating lines with intermittently-controlled work stations, you must
monitor bypasses of the control device and the mass of each coating
material applied at the work station during any such bypass. You must
demonstrate that any coating material applied on an uncontrolled-work
station or an intermittently-controlled work station operated in bypass
mode is allowed in your compliance demonstration according to
Sec. 63.3370(n) through (o). The bypass monitoring must be conducted
using at least one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4)
of this section for each work station and associated dryer.
(1) Flow control position indicator. Install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications a flow
control position indicator that provides a record indicating whether
the exhaust stream from the dryer was directed to the control device or
was diverted from the control device. The time and flow control
position must be recorded at least once per hour, as well as every time
the flow direction is changed. A flow control position indicator must
be installed at the entrance to any bypass line that could divert the
exhaust stream away from the control device to the atmosphere.
(2) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures. Secure any bypass line
valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type
configuration; a visual inspection of the seal or closure mechanism
must be performed at least once every month to ensure that the valve or
damper is maintained in the closed position, and the exhaust stream is
not diverted through the bypass line.
(3) Valve closure continuous monitoring. Ensure that any bypass
line valve or damper is in the closed position through continuous
monitoring of valve position when the control device is in operation.
The monitoring system must be inspected at least once every month to
verify that the monitor will indicate valve position.
(4) Automatic shutdown system. Use an automatic shutdown system in
which the coating line is stopped when flow is diverted away from the
control device to any bypass line when the control device is in
operation. The automatic system must be inspected at least once every
month to verify that it will detect diversions of flow and will shut
down operations.
(d) Solvent recovery unit. If you own or operate a solvent recovery
unit to comply with Sec. 63.3320, you must meet the requirements in
either paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section depending on how control
efficiency is determined.
(1) Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). If you are
demonstrating compliance with the standard in Sec. 63.3320 through
continuous emission monitoring of a control device, you must install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain CEMS to measure the total organic
volatile matter concentration at both the control device inlet and the
outlet such that the reduction efficiency can be determined. Each
continuous emission monitor must comply with performance specification
8 or 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as appropriate. The requirements
of procedure 1, appendix F, of 40 CFR part 60 must also be followed. In
conducting the quarterly audits of the monitors as required by
procedure 1, appendix F, you must use compounds representative of the
gaseous emission stream being controlled.
(2) Liquid-liquid material balance. If you are demonstrating
compliance with the standard in Sec. 63.3320 through liquid-liquid
material balance, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
according to the manufacturer's specifications a device that indicates
the cumulative amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent
recovery device on a monthly basis. The device must be certified by the
manufacturer to be accurate to within 2.0 percent by mass.
(e) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). If you are using
an oxidizer to comply with the standard in Sec. 63.3320, you must
install and operate CPMS according to paragraphs (e)(1) through
(6)(vii) of this section:
(1) Each CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for
each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four
successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
(2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours
during which the process operated.
[[Page 55347]]
(3) You must determine the hourly average of all recorded readings.
Provided all of the recorded readings clearly demonstrate continuous
compliance with the standard that applies to you, then you are not
required to determine the hourly average of all recorded readings.
(4) You must determine the rolling 3-hour average of all recorded
readings for each operating period.
(5) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration,
and validation check.
(6) For each temperature monitoring device, you must also:
(i) Locate the temperature sensor as specified in
Sec. 63.3360(e)(3).
(ii) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2.2
degrees Celsius or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is
larger.
(iii) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic
interference and chemical contaminants.
(iv) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the
minor division of at least 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
(v) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual.
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a
reading within 16.7 degrees Celsius of the process temperature sensor's
reading.
(vi) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature
range or install a new temperature sensor.
(vii) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and
all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic
corrosion.
(f) Capture system monitoring. If you are complying with the
standard in Sec. 63.3320 through the use of a capture system and
control device, you must submit a monitoring plan containing the
information specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. You
must monitor the capture system in accordance with paragraph (f)(3) of
this section. You must submit the monitoring plan to the Administrator
with the compliance status report required by Sec. 63.9(h).
(1) The monitoring plan must:
(i) Identify the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that
the capture efficiency measured during the initial compliance test is
maintained; and
(ii) Discuss why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating
ongoing compliance; and
(iii) Identify the specific monitoring procedures.
(2) The monitoring plan must specify the operating parameter value,
or range of values, that demonstrate compliance with the standards in
Sec. 63.3320. The specified operating parameter, or range of values,
must represent the conditions present when the capture system is being
properly operated and maintained.
(3) You must conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan
submitted to the Administrator unless comments received from the
Administrator require an alternate monitoring scheme.
Sec. 63.3360 What performance test methods must I conduct?
(a) The performance test methods you must conduct are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you control organic HAP on
your web coating lines by: You must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Limiting organic HAP or Determine the organic HAP or volatile
volatile matter content of matter and weight solids content of
coatings. coating materials according to
procedures in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Using a capture and Conduct performance tests to determine:
control system.. (i) the destruction efficiency of
oxidizers according to paragraph (e) of
this section; and (ii) the capture
efficiency of capture systems according
to paragraph (f) of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) If you are using a control device to comply with the
requirements of Sec. 63.3320, you are not required to conduct a
performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or more of the
criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are met.
(1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission
monitors for determining inlet and outlet total organic volatile matter
concentration, and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance
with the requirements of this subpart, such that an overall organic HAP
control efficiency can be calculated, and the continuous emission
monitors are used to demonstrate continuous compliance in accordance
with Sec. 63.3350; or
(2) You have met the requirements of Sec. 63.7(h) (for waiver of
performance testing); or
(3) The control device is a solvent recovery system, and you comply
by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
(c) Organic HAP content. If you own or operate a paper and other
web coating facility, you must determine the organic HAP weight
fraction of each coating material ``as-purchased,'' Chi, by
following one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of
this section, and determine the organic HAP weight fraction of each
coating material ``as-applied,'' Cahi, by following the
procedures in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(1) Method 311. You may test the coating material in accordance
with Method 311 of appendix A of part 63. The Method 311 determination
may be performed by the manufacturer of the coating material and the
results provided to the owner or operator. The organic HAP content must
be calculated according to the criteria and procedures in paragraphs
(c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. If the HAP content values are
not determined using Method 311, the owner or operator must submit an
alternative test method for determining their values for approval by
the Administrator. The recovery efficiency of the test method must be
determined for all of the target organic HAP and a correction factor,
if necessary, must be determined and applied.
(i) Count each organic HAP measured to be present at greater than
or equal to 0.1 weight percent for carcinogens and greater than or
equal to 1.0 weight percent for noncarcinogens.
(ii) The weight fraction of each organic HAP shall be expressed as
a value truncated four places after the decimal point.
(iii) Calculate the weight fraction of organic HAP in the tested
material by summing the counted individual organic HAP weight
fractions. The total HAP content shall be expressed as a value
truncated three places after the decimal point.
[[Page 55348]]
(2) Method 24. The owner or operator may determine the volatile
organic content (i.e., the weight fraction of nonaqueous volatile
matter) of the coating material in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(d)(1)
and use this value for the organic HAP content for all compliance
purposes.
(3) Formulation data. The owner or operator may use formulation
data to calculate the organic HAP weight fraction of a coating
material. Formulation data may be provided to the owner or operator by
the manufacturer of the material. In the event of an inconsistency
between Method 311 of appendix A of part 63 test data and a facility's
formulation data and the Method 311 test value is higher, the Method
311 data will govern. Formulation data may be used provided that the
information represents all organic HAP present at a level equal to or
greater than 0.1 percent for carcinogens and equal to or greater than
1.0 percent for noncarcinogens in any raw material used, weighted by
the mass fraction of each raw material used in the coating material's
formulation.
(4) As-applied organic HAP weight fraction, Cahi. If the
as-purchased coating material is applied to the web without any solvent
or other material added, then the as-applied organic HAP weight
fraction, Cahi, is equal to the as-purchased organic HAP
weight fraction, Chi. Otherwise, the as-applied organic HAP
weight fraction, Cahi, must be calculated using Equation 3a
of Sec. 63.3370.
(d) Volatile organic and solids content. If you own or operate a
paper and other web coating facility, you must determine the as-
purchased volatile organic content, Cvi, and solids content,
Csi, of each coating material applied by following the
procedures in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section, and the as-
applied volatile organic content, Cavi, and solids content,
Casi, of each coating material by following the procedures
in paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(1) Method 24. You must determine the volatile organic and solids
weight fraction of each coating material applied using Method 24 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A. The Method 24 determination may be performed
by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided to the
owner or operator. If these values cannot be determined using Method
24, the owner or operator must submit an alternative technique for
determining their values for approval by the Administrator.
(2) Formulation data. You may determine the volatile organic
content of materials based on formulation data and may rely on volatile
organic content data provided by material suppliers. In the event of
any inconsistency between the formulation data and the results of Test
Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, the results of Test Method 24
will govern.
(3) As-applied volatile organic content, Cavi, and
solids content, Casi. If the as-purchased coating material
is applied to the web without any solvent or other material added, then
the as-applied volatile organic content, Cavi, is equal to
the as-purchased volatile content, Cvi, and the as-applied
solids content, Casi, is equal to the as-purchased solids
content, Csi. Otherwise, the as-applied volatile organic
content, Cavi, must be calculated using Equation 3b of
Sec. 63.3370 and the as-applied solids content, Casi, must
be calculated using Equation 4 of Sec. 63.3370.
(e) Destruction efficiency of oxidizer. If you are using an
oxidizer to comply with the standard in Sec. 63.3320, you must conduct
a performance test to establish the destruction efficiency of the
oxidizer according to the methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)
and (2) of this section. You must establish the associated combustion
zone temperature for a thermal oxidizer and the associated catalyst bed
inlet and outlet temperatures for a catalytic oxidizer according to the
procedures in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(1) An initial performance test to establish the destruction
efficiency of an oxidizer must be conducted such that oxidizer inlet
and outlet testing is conducted simultaneously, and the data are
reduced in accordance with the reference methods and procedures in
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix):
(i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used for
sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
must be used to determine gas volumetric flow rate.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be
used for gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight.
(iv) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used to
determine stack gas moisture.
(v) The gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular weight, and stack
gas moisture must be determined for each run specified in paragraph
(e)(1)(vii) of this section.
(vi) Method 25 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, must be used to
determine volatile organic compound concentration, except as provided
in paragraphs (e)(1)(vi)(A) through (C) of this section. You must
submit notice of the intended test method to the Administrator for
approval along with notice of the performance test required under
Sec. 63.7(c). You may use Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; if
(A) An exhaust gas volatile organic compound concentration of 50
ppmv or less is required to comply with the standards of Sec. 63.3320;
or
(B) The volatile organic compound concentration at the inlet to the
control system and the required level of control are such that result
in exhaust gas volatile organic compound concentrations of 50 ppmv or
less; or
(C) Because of the high efficiency of the control device, the
anticipated volatile organic compound concentration at the control
device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of inlet concentration.
(vii) Except as provided in Sec. 63.7(e)(3), each performance test
must consist of three separate runs; each run conducted for at least 1
hour under the conditions that exist when the affected source is
operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of
determining volatile organic compound concentrations and mass flow
rates, the average of the results of all the runs will apply.
(viii) Organic volatile matter mass flow rates must be determined
for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section using
Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.022
(ix) Emission control device efficiency must be determined using
Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.023
[[Page 55349]]
(2) You must record such process information as may be necessary to
determine the conditions in existence at the time of the performance
test. Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction
will not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a
performance test.
(3) For the purpose of determining the value of the oxidizer
operating parameter that must demonstrate continuing compliance, the
average of the values recorded during the performance test must be
computed according to the procedures in this paragraph (e)(3). For an
oxidizer other than catalytic oxidizer, the owner or operator must
establish as the operating parameter the minimum combustion temperature
in the combustion chamber. This must be accomplished by locating the
temperature sensor in the combustion zone. For a catalytic oxidizer,
the owner or operator must establish as the operating parameters the
minimum gas temperature at the inlet and the temperature rise across
the catalyst bed. This must be accomplished by locating temperature
sensors at both the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed. You must
collect temperature data every 15 minutes during the entire period of
the 3-hour performance test and determine the average temperature over
the 3-hour performance test by computing the average of all of the 15-
minute readings.
(f) Capture efficiency. If you are using an oxidizer to comply with
the standard in Sec. 63.3320, you must determine capture efficiency of
the capture system using the procedures in paragraph (f)(1),(2), or (3)
of this section, as applicable.
(1) You may assume your capture efficiency, CE, equals 100 percent
if your capture system is a permanent total enclosure. You must confirm
that your capture system is a permanent total enclosure by
demonstrating that it meets the requirements of section 6 of EPA Method
204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, and that all exhaust gases from the
enclosure are delivered to a control device.
(2) You may determine capture efficiency, CE, according to the
protocols for testing temporary total enclosures that are specified in
Methods 204 and 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. You may
exclude never-controlled work stations from such capture efficiency
determinations.
(3) You may use any capture efficiency protocol and test methods
that satisfy the criteria of either the Data Quality Objective or the
Lower Confidence Limit approach as described in appendix A of subpart
KK of this part. The owner or operator may exclude never-controlled
work stations from such capture efficiency determinations.
Requirements for Showing Compliance
Sec. 63.3370 How do I demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards?
(a) A summary of how you must demonstrate compliance follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you choose to demonstrate
compliance by: Then you must demonstrate that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Use of ``as-purchased'' (i) Each coating material used at an
compliant coating materials. existing source does not exceed 0.04 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material
(i.e., 4 weight percent) and each
coating material used at a new source
does not exceed 0.016 kg organic HAP per
kg coating material (i.e., 1.6 weight
percent) as-purchased (paragraph (b) of
this section); or
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Each coating material used at an
existing source does not exceed 0.2 kg
organic HAP per kg solids (i.e., 20
weight percent solids) and each coating
material used at a new source does not
exceed 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids
(i.e., 8 weight-percent solids) as-
purchased (paragraph (b) of this
section).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Use of ``as-applied'' (i) Each coating material used at an
compliant coating materials. existing source does not exceed 0.04 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material
(i.e., 4 weight percent) and each
coating material used at a new source
does not exceed 0.016 kg organic HAP per
kg coating material (i.e., 1.6 weight
percent) as-applied on a monthly average
basis (paragraph (c)(1) of this
section); or
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Each coating material used at an
existing source does not exceed 0.2 kg
organic HAP per kg solids (i.e., 20
weight-percent solids) and each coating
material used at a new source does not
exceed 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids
(i.e., 8 weight percent) as-applied on a
monthly average basis (paragraph (c)(2)
of this section); or
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Monthly average of all materials
used at an existing source does not
exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg
coating material (i.e., 4 weight
percent) and monthly average of all
materials used at a new source does not
exceed 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg
coating material (i.e., 1.6 weight
percent) as-applied on a monthly average
basis (paragraph (c)(3) of this
section); or
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) Monthly average of all coating
material used at an existing source does
not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg
solids and monthly average of all
coating materials used at a new source
does not exceed 0.08 kg organic HAP per
kg solids as-applied on a monthly
average basis (paragraph (c)(4) of this
section).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Tracking total monthly Total monthly organic HAP applied does
HAP applied. not exceed the calculated limit based on
emission limitations (paragraph (d) of
this section).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 55350]]
(4) Use of a control device.. Overall organic HAP control efficiency is
equal to 95 percent at an existing
source and 98 percent at a new source,
on a monthly basis (paragraph (e) of
this section).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Use of a combination of (i) Average equivalent emission rate does
compliant coatings and not exceed 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg
control devices, and solids at an existing source and 0.08 kg
maintain an acceptable organic HAP per kg solids at a new
equivalent emission rate. source on a monthly average as-applied
basis (paragraph (f) of this section);
or
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Average equivalent emission rate
does not exceed 0.04 kg organic HAP per
kg coating material at an existing
source and 0.016 kg organic HAP per
coating material at a new source on a
monthly average as-applied basis
(paragraph (g) of this section); or
(iii) Average equivalent emission rate
does not exceed the calculated limit
based on emission limitations (paragraph
(h) of this section).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) As-purchased ``compliant'' coating materials. (1) If you comply
by using coatings that individually meet the limits in
Sec. 63.3320(b)(2) or (3), you must demonstrate that each coating
material applied during the month at an existing source contains no
more than 0.04 weight fraction organic HAP or 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg
solids, and that each coating material applied during the month at a
new source contains no more than 0.016 weight fraction organic HAP or
0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids, on an as-purchased basis, as
determined in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(c).
(2) You are in compliance with emission limits in
Sec. 63.3320(b)(2) and (3) if each coating material applied at an
existing source is applied as-purchased and contains no more than 0.04
kg organic HAP per kg coating material or 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg
solids, and each coating material applied at a new source is applied
as-purchased and contains no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg
coating material or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids.
(c) As-applied ``compliant'' coating materials. If you comply by
using coatings that meet the limits in Sec. 63.3320(b)(2) or (3) as-
applied, you must demonstrate compliance by following one of the
procedures in paragraph (c)(1) through (4) of this section. Compliance
is determined in accordance with paragraph (c)(5) of this section.
(1) Each coating material as-applied meets the weight fraction of
coating standard (Sec. 63.3320(b)(2)). You must demonstrate that each
coating material applied at an existing source during the month
contains no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material
applied, and each coating material applied at a new source contains no
more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied on a
monthly average as-applied basis as determined in accordance with
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (ii) of this section. You must calculate
the as-applied organic HAP content of as-purchased materials which are
reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application.
(i) Determine the organic HAP content or volatile organic content
of each coating material applied on an as-purchased basis in accordance
with Sec. 63.3360(c).
(ii) Calculate the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content,
Cahi, of each coating material using Equation 3a:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.024
or calculate the monthly average as-applied volatile organic
content, Cavi, of each coating material using Equation 3b:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.025
(2) Each coating material as-applied meets the weight fraction of
solids standard (Sec. 63.3320(b)(3)). You must demonstrate that each
coating material applied at an existing source contains no more than
0.20 kg of organic HAP per kg of solids applied, and each coating
material applied at a new source contains no more than 0.08 kg of
organic
[[Page 55351]]
HAP per kg of solids applied on a monthly average as-applied basis. You
must demonstrate compliance in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and
(ii) of this section.
(i) Determine the as-applied solids content of each coating
material following the procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d). You must calculate
the monthly average as-applied solids content of materials which are
reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application, using Equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.026
(ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP to solids ratio,
Hsi, using Equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.027
(3) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials
as-applied is less than weight percent limit (Sec. 63.3320(b)(2)).
Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content,
HL, of all coating materials applied at an existing source
is less than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg of material applied, and all
coating materials applied at a new source are less than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg of material applied, as determined by Equation 6:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.028
(4) Monthly average HAP content of all coating materials, as-
applied, is less than weight fraction of solids limit
(Sec. 63.3320(b)(3)). Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied
organic HAP content on the basis of solids applied, HS, of
all coating materials applied at an existing source is less than 0.20
kg organic HAP per kg solids applied, and all coating materials applied
at a new source are less than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids
applied, as determined by Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.029
(5) The affected source is in compliance with emission limits in
Sec. 63.3320(b)(2) and (3) if:
(i) The organic HAP content of each coating material as-applied at
an existing source is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating
material or 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg solids, and the organic HAP
content of each coating material as-applied at a new source contains no
more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg coating material or 0.08 kg
organic HAP per kg solids; or
(ii) The monthly average organic HAP content of all as-applied
coating materials at an existing source are no more than 0.04 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material or 0.2 kg organic HAP per kg
solids, and the monthly average organic HAP content of all as-applied
coating materials at a new source are no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP
per kg coating material or 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids.
(d) Monthly allowable HAP mass. Demonstrate that the total monthly
organic HAP applied, Hm, as determined by Equation 8, is
less than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP,
Ha, as determined by paragraph (l) of this section:
[[Page 55352]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.030
(e) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than
allowable limit (Sec. 63.3320(b)(1)). Operate a capture system and
control device and demonstrate an overall organic HAP control
efficiency of at least 95 percent at an existing source and at least 98
percent at a new source for each month. Unless either of the cases
described in paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section applies to the
affected facility, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with
the procedure in paragraph (i) of this section when emissions from the
affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device, or the
procedure in paragraph (k) of this section when emissions are
controlled by an oxidizer.
(1) If the affected source has only always-controlled work stations
and operates more than one capture system or more than one control
device, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the
provisions of either paragraph (n) or (p) of this section.
(2) If the affected source operates one or more never-controlled
work stations or one or more intermittently-controllable work stations,
you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (n) of this section.
(f) Capture and control to achieve weight fraction of solids
applied limit (Sec. 63.3320(b)(3)). Operate a capture system and
control device and limit the organic HAP emission rate from an existing
source to no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP emitted per kg solids
applied, and from a new source to no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP
emitted per kg solids applied as determined on a monthly average as-
applied basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture
system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work
stations, or one or more intermittently-controllable work stations,
then you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph (n) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate
compliance following the procedure in paragraph (i) of this section
when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent
recovery device, or the procedure in paragraph (k) of this section when
emissions are controlled by an oxidizer.
(g) Capture and control to achieve weight fraction limit
(Sec. 63.3320(b)(2)). Operate a capture system and control device and
limit the organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP
emitted per kg coating material applied at an existing source, and no
more than 0.016 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating material applied
at new sources as determined on a monthly average as-applied basis. If
the affected source operates more than one capture system, more than
one control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one
or more intermittently-controllable work stations, then you must
demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph
(n) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance
following the procedure in paragraph (i) of this section when emissions
from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device,
or the procedure in paragraph (k) of this section when emissions are
controlled by an oxidizer.
(h) Capture and control to achieve allowable emission rate,
Ha. Operate a capture system and control device and limit
the monthly organic HAP emissions to less than the allowable emissions
as calculated in accordance with paragraph (l) of this section. If the
affected source operates more than one capture system, more than one
control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or
more intermittently-controllable work stations, then you must
demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph
(n) of this section. Otherwise, the owner or operator must demonstrate
compliance following the procedure in paragraph (i) of this section
when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent
recovery device, or the procedure in paragraph (k) of this section when
emissions are controlled by an oxidizer.
(i) Solvent recovery device compliance demonstration. If you use a
solvent recovery device to control emissions, you must show compliance
by following the procedures in either paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this
section:
(1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a liquid-liquid
material balance for each and every month as specified in paragraphs
(i)(1)(i) through (v) of this section and use the applicable equations
in paragraphs (i)(1)(vi) through (ix) of this section to convert the
data to units of the selected compliance option in paragraphs (e)
through (h) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance
with paragraph (i)(1)(x) of this section.
(i) Measure the mass of each coating material applied on the
coating line or group of coating lines controlled by a common solvent
recovery device during the month.
(ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material
as-applied, Cahi, during the month following the procedure
in Sec. 63.3360(c).
(iii) Determine the volatile organic content, Cavi, of each coating
material as-applied during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.3360(d).
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the solids content of each
coating material applied during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.3360(d).
(v) Measure and monitor the amount of volatile organic matter
recovered for the month according to the procedures in
Sec. 63.3350(d)(2).
(vi) Recovery efficiency, Rv. Calculate the volatile
organic matter collection and recovery efficiency, Rv, using Equation
9:
[[Page 55353]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.031
(vii) Organic HAP emitted, He. Calculate the organic HAP
emitted during the month, He, using Equation 10:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.032
(viii) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L,
using Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.033
(ix) Organic HAP based on materials applied, S. Calculate the
organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, using Equation
12:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.034
(x) You are in compliance with the emission limitations in
Sec. 63.3320(b) if:
(A) The volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency,
Rv, is 95 percent or greater at an existing source and 98
percent or greater at a new source; or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, is no
more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at an existing
source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at a
new source; or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, is
no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing
source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at
a new source; or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month, He, is
less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, Ha, as
determined using paragraph (l) of this section.
(2) Continuous emission monitoring of capture system and control
device performance. Demonstrate initial compliance through a
performance test on capture efficiency and continuing compliance
through continuous emission monitors and continuous monitoring of
capture system operating parameters following the procedures in
paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (vii) of this section. Use the applicable
equations specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(viii) through (x) of this
section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the
selected compliance option in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph
(i)(2)(xi) of this section.
(i) Recovery efficiency, E. Continuously monitor the gas stream
entering and exiting the control device to determine the total organic
volatile matter mass flow rate (e.g., by determining the concentration
of the vent gas in grams per cubic meter, and the volumetric flow rate
in cubic meters per second, such that the total organic volatile matter
mass flow rate in grams per second can be calculated), such that the
percent control efficiency, E, of the control device can be calculated
for each month using Equation 2 of Sec. 63.3360.
(ii) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a coating line is
operated, continuously monitor the operating parameter established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency.
(iii) Determine the percent capture efficiency, CE, in accordance
with Sec. 63.3360(f).
(iv) Control efficiency, R. Calculate the overall organic HAP
control efficiency, R, achieved for each month using Equation 13:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.035
(v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on materials applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, measure the mass of each coating material applied on the
coating line or group of coating lines controlled by a
[[Page 55354]]
common control device during the month.
(vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on material applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material
as-applied, Cahi, during the month following the procedure
in Sec. 63.3360(c).
(vii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the solids content of each
coating material as-applied, Casi, during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d).
(viii) Organic HAP emitted, He. Calculate the organic
HAP emitted during the month, He, for each month using
Equation 14:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.036
(ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L,
using Equation 11 of this section.
(x) Organic HAP based on materials applied, S. Calculate the
organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, using Equation
12 of this section.
(xi) Compare actual performance to performance required by
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with the
emission limitations in Sec. 63.3320(b) if the capture system operating
parameter is operated at an average value greater than or less than (as
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance
with Sec. 63.3350(f); and
(A) The organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency,
Rv, is 95 percent or greater at an existing source and 98
percent or greater at a new source; or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, is no
more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at an existing
source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at a
new source; or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, is
no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an existing
source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at
a new source; or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month, He, is
less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, Ha, as
determined using paragraph (l) of this section.
(j) [Reserved]
(k) Oxidizer compliance demonstration procedures. If you use an
oxidizer to control emissions, you must show compliance by following
the procedures in paragraph (k)(1) of this section. Use the applicable
equations specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this section to convert the
monitoring and other data into units of the selected compliance option
in paragraph (e) through (h) of this section. Compliance is determined
in accordance with paragraph (k)(3) of this section.
(1) Demonstrate initial compliance through performance tests of
capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuing
compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control
device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i)
through (vi) of this section:
(i) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency, E, using the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(e).
(ii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency, CE, in
accordance with Sec. 63.3360(f).
(iii) Capture and control efficiency monitoring. Whenever a coating
line is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters
established in accordance with Sec. 63.3350(e) and (f) to ensure
capture and control efficiency.
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on materials applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, measure the mass of each coating material applied on the
coating line or group of coating lines controlled by a common oxidizer
during the month.
(v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on material applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each coating material
as-applied, Casi, during the month following the procedure
in Sec. 63.3360(c).
(vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the solids content of each
coating material applied during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.3360(d).
(2) Convert the information obtained under paragraph (k)(1) of this
section into the units of the selected compliance option using the
calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) Control efficiency, R. Calculate the overall organic HAP
control efficiency, R, achieved using Equation 13 of this section.
(ii) Organic HAP emitted, He. Calculate the organic HAP
emitted during the month, He, using Equation 14 of this
section.
(iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, for
each month using Equation 11 of this section.
(iv) Organic HAP based on materials applied, S. Calculate the
organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, using Equation
12 of this section.
(3) You are in compliance with the emission limitations in
Sec. 63.3320(b) if the oxidizer is operated such that the average
operating parameter value is greater than the operating parameter value
established in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(e) for each 3-hour period,
and the capture system operating parameter is operated at an average
value greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating
parameter value established in accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f); and
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency, R, is 95 percent or
greater at an existing source and 98 percent or greater at a new
source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, is
no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at an existing
source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied at a
new source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S,
is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied at an
existing source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per kg material
applied at a new source; or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month, He, is
less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, Ha,
[[Page 55355]]
as determined using paragraph (l) of this section.
(l) Monthly allowable HAP emissions. This paragraph (l) provides
the procedures and calculations for determining monthly allowable
organic HAP emissions, Ha, for use in demonstrating
compliance in accordance with paragraph (d), (h), (i)(1)(xi)(D),
(i)(2)(xi)(D), or (k)(1)(xi)(D) of this section. You will need to
determine the amount of material applied at 20 weight
percent solids and the amount of material applied at 20 weight percent
solids. The allowable organic HAP limit is then calculated based on
material applied at 20 weight percent solids complying with
0.2 kg organic HAP per kg solids at existing sources or 0.08 kg organic
HAP per kg solids at new sources, and material applied at 20 weight
percent solids complying with 4 weight percent organic HAP at existing
sources and 1.6 weight-percent organic HAP at new sources, as follows:
(1) Determine the as-purchased mass of each coating material
applied each month, Mi.
(2) Determine the as-purchased solids content of each coating
material applied each month, in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(d)(1),
Csi.
(3) Determine the as-purchased mass fraction of each coating
material which was applied at 20 weight percent or greater solids
content, on an as-applied basis, Gi.
(4) Determine the total mass of each solvent, diluent, thinner, or
reducer added to coating materials which were applied at less than 20
weight percent solids content on an as-applied basis each month,
Mij.
(5) Calculate the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions,
Ha, using Equation 15a for existing sources:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.037
or Equation 15b for new sources:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.038
(m) [Reserved]
(n) Combinations of capture and control. If you operate more than
one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-
controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controllable
work stations, you must calculate HAP emissions according to the
procedures in paragraphs (n)(1) through (4) of this section, and use
the calculation procedures specified in paragraph (n)(5) of this
section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the
selected control option in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this section.
Use the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(7) of this section to
demonstrate compliance.
(1) Solvent recovery system using liquid-liquid balance compliance
demonstration. If you choose to comply by means of a liquid-liquid mass
balance for each solvent recovery system used to control one or more
coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP emissions for those
coating lines controlled by that solvent recovery system either:
(i) In accordance with paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v)
through (vii) of this section if the coating lines controlled by that
solvent recovery system have only always-controlled work stations; or
(ii) In accordance with paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (iii), (v) and
(vi), and (o) of this section if the coating lines controlled by that
solvent recovery system have one or more never-controlled or
intermittently-controllable work stations.
(2) Solvent recovery system using performance test compliance
demonstration and CEMS. To demonstrate compliance through an initial
test of capture efficiency, continuous monitoring of a capture system
operating parameter, and a CEMS on each solvent recovery system used to
control one or more coating lines, you must:
(i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent
recovery system, monitor the operating parameter established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f) to ensure capture system efficiency;
and
(ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those coating lines
served by each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent
recovery system either:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii), (v) and
(vi), and (viii) of this section if the coating lines served by that
capture and control system have only always-controlled work stations;
or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii), (vi),
and (o) of this section if the coating lines served by that capture and
control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-
controllable work stations.
(3) Oxidizer. To demonstrate compliance through performance tests
of capture efficiency and control device efficiency, continuous
monitoring of capture system, and CPMS for control device operating
parameters for each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or more
coating lines, you must:
(i) Monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with
Sec. 63.3350(e) to ensure control device efficiency; and
(ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer,
monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with
Sec. 63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency; and
(iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those coating lines
served by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer
either:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (v) and (vii)
of this section if the coating lines served by that capture and control
system have only always-controlled work stations; or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (iii), (v), and
(o) of this section if the coating lines served by that capture and
control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-
controllable work stations.
(4) Uncontrolled coating lines. If you own or operate one or more
[[Page 55356]]
uncontrolled coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP applied
on those coating lines using Equation 8 of this section. The organic
HAP emitted from an uncontrolled coating line is equal to the organic
HAP applied on that coating line.
(5) Convert the information obtained under paragraphs (n)(1)
through (4) of this section into the units of the selected compliance
option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs
(n)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Organic HAP emitted, He. Calculate the organic HAP
emissions for the affected source for the month by summing all organic
HAP emissions calculated according to paragraphs (n)(1), (2)(ii),
(3)(iii), and (4) of this section.
(ii) Solids applied, Casi. If demonstrating compliance
on the basis of organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied or
emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, the owner
or operator must determine the solids content of each coating material
applied during the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d).
(iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, for
each month using Equation 11 of this section.
(iv) Organic HAP based on materials applied, S. Calculate the
organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, using Equation
12 of this section.
(6) Compliance. The affected source is in compliance with the
emission limitations in Sec. 63.3320(b) for the month if all operating
parameters required to be monitored under paragraphs (n)(1) through (3)
of this section were maintained at the values established under
Secs. 63.3350 and 63.3360; and
(i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on solids applied, L, is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg
solids applied at an existing source, and no more than 0.08 kg organic
HAP per kg solids applied at a new source; or
(ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on material applied, S, is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per
kg material applied at an existing source, and no more than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg material applied at a new source; or
(iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
during the month, He, is less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, Ha, as determined using paragraph (l) of this
section; or
(iv) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
was not more than 5 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied
for the month at an existing source, and no more than 2 percent of the
total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at a new source. The
total mass of organic HAP applied by the affected source in the month
must be determined by the owner or operator using Equation 8 of this
section.
(o) Intermittently-controllable and never-controlled work stations.
If you have been expressly referenced to this paragraph by paragraphs
(n)(1)(ii), (n)(2)(ii)(B), or (n)(3)(iii)(B) of this section for
calculation procedures to determine organic HAP emissions for your
intermittently-controllable and never-controlled work stations you
must:
(1) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in
bypass mode and the mass of all coating materials as-applied on never-
controlled work stations during the month, MBi.
(2) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in a
controlled mode and the mass of all coating materials applied on
always-controlled work stations during the month, MCi.
(3) Liquid-liquid compliance demonstration. For each coating line
or group of coating lines for which you use the provisions of paragraph
(n)(1)(ii) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP emitted
during the month using Equation 16:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.039
(4) Performance test to determine capture efficiency and control
device efficiency. For each coating line or group of coating lines for
which you use the provisions of paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(B) or
(n)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP
emitted during the month, He, using Equation 17:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE00.040
(p) Always-controlled work stations with more than one capture and
control system. If you operate more than one capture system or more
than one control device, and only have always-controlled work stations,
then you are in compliance with the emission limitation in
Sec. 63.3320(b)(1) for the month if for each coating line or group of
coating lines controlled by a common control device:
(1) The volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency,
Rv, as determined by paragraphs (i)(1)(i), (iii), (v), and
(vi) of this section, is at least 95 percent at an existing source and
at least 98 percent at a new source; or
(2) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by
paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (v) of this section for each coating line
or group of coating lines served by that control device and a common
capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing source and at
least 98 percent at a new source; or
(3) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by
paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (iii) and (k)(2)(i) of this section for
each coating line or group of coating lines served by that control
device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an
existing source and at least 98 percent at a new source.
Reports and Records
Sec. 63.3400 What reports must I submit?
(a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) through (h)
of this section to the Administrator:
[[Page 55357]]
(b) You must submit an initial notification as required by
Sec. 63.9(b).
(1) Initial notification for existing sources must be submitted no
later than 1 year before the compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.3330(a).
(2) Initial notification for new and reconstructed sources must be
submitted as required by Sec. 63.9(b).
(3) For the purpose of this rule, a title V or part 70 permit
application may be used in lieu of the initial notification required
under Sec. 63.9(b), provided the same information is contained in the
permit application as required by Sec. 63.9(b), and the State to which
the permit application has been submitted has an approved operating
permit program under part 70 of this chapter and has received
delegation of authority from EPA to implement and enforce this subpart.
(4) If you are using a permit application in lieu of an initial
notification in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
permit application must be submitted by the same due date specified for
the initial notification.
(c) You must submit a semi-annual compliance report according to
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Compliance report dates.
(i) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in
Sec. 63.3330(a) and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the calendar half immediately
following the compliance date that is specified for your source in
Sec. 63.3330(a).
(ii) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
calendar half immediately following the compliance date that is
specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.3330(a).
(iii) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(v) For each affected source that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports
pursuant to Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec. 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may
submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to
the dates in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(2) The compliance report must contain the following information in
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section:
(i) Company name and address.
(ii) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(iii) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the
reporting period.
(iv) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations
(emission limit or operating limit) that apply to you, a statement that
there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the
reporting period, and that no continuous monitoring system (CMS) was
inoperative, inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or
adjusted.
(v) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating limit) that applies to you that occurs at an affected
source where you are not using a CEMS to comply with the emission
limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the
information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section, and:
(A) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause), if applicable, and the corrective action
taken.
(C) Information on the number, duration, and cause for CPMS
downtime incidents, if applicable, other than downtime associated with
zero and span and other daily calibration checks.
(vi) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an
affected source where you are using a CEMS to comply with the emission
limit in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs
(c)(2)(i) through (iii) and (vi)(A) through (J) of this section.
(A) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(B) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was
inoperative, except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(C) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was
out-of-control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of start-up, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of the deviation
during the reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the
total source operating time during that reporting period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to start-up, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of CEMS and CPMS
downtime during the reporting period, and the total duration of CEMS
and CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time
during that reporting period.
(H) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS and CPMS downtime
during the reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring
equipment malfunctions, nonmonitoring equipment malfunctions, quality
assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(I) The date of the latest CEMS and CPMS certification or audit.
(J) A description of any changes in CEMS, CPMS, or controls since
the last reporting period.
(d) You must submit a Notification of Performance Tests as
specified in Secs. 63.7 and 63.9(e) if you are complying with the
emission standard using a control device and you are required to
conduct a performance test. This notification, and the site-specific
test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c)(2), must identify the operating
parameters to be monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency of the
capture system and the control efficiency of the control device
measured during the performance test is maintained. Unless EPA objects
to the parameter or requests changes, you may consider the parameter
approved.
(e) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as
specified in Sec. 63.9(h).
(f) You must submit performance test reports as specified in
Sec. 63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control device to comply with the
emission standard, and you have not obtained a waiver from the
performance test requirement or you are not exempted from this
requirement by Sec. 63.3360(b). The performance test must be submitted
as part of the notification of compliance status required in
Sec. 63.3400(i).
(g) You must submit start-up, shutdown, and malfunction reports as
specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5), except that the provisions in subpart A
of this part
[[Page 55358]]
pertaining to start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions do not apply
unless a control device is used to comply with this subpart.
(1) If actions taken by an owner or operator during a start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken
to correct a malfunction) are not completely consistent with the
procedures specified in the source's start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), the owner or operator
must state such information in the report. The start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction report must consist of a letter containing the name, title,
and signature of the responsible official who is certifying its
accuracy and must be submitted to the Administrator.
(2) Separate start-up, shutdown, or malfunction reports are not
required if the information is included in the report specified in
paragraph (c)(2)(vi) of this section.
Sec. 63.3410 What records must I keep?
(a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section on a monthly basis in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(1):
(1) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of all measurements
needed to demonstrate compliance with this standard, including:
(i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.3350(d);
(ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3350(c), (e), and (f);
(iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3360(c);
(iv) Volatile matter and solids content data for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 63.3360(d);
(v) Overall control efficiency determination using capture
efficiency test and oxidizer destruction efficiency test in accordance
with the requirements of Sec. 63.3360(e) and (f); and
(vi) Material usage, HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and solids
usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in accordance with
the requirements of Sec. 63.3370(b), (c), and (e).
(2) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(c) for each continuous
monitoring system operated by the owner or operator in accordance with
the requirements of Sec. 63.3350(b).
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must maintain records of all liquid-liquid material balances
performed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3370. The
records must be maintained in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 63.10(b).
Delegation of Authority
Sec. 63.3420 What authorities may be delegated to the States?
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the Administrator and
not transferred to a State.
(b) Authority which will not be delegated to States:
Sec. 63.3360(c), approval of alternate test method for organic HAP
content determination; Sec. 63.3360(d), approval of alternate test
method for volatile matter determination.
Secs. 63.3421-63.3479 [Reserved]
Tables
Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ.--Applicability of 40 CFR Part 63 General
Provisions to Subpart JJJJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to subpart
General provisions reference JJJJ Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(a)(5).............. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(8).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(a)(9).............. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14)........ Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(b)(1).............. No................... Subpart JJJJ
specifies
applicability.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)-(3).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).............. No................... Area sources are
not subject to
emission
standards of
subpart JJJJ.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3).............. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(c)(5).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.1(d)................. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(e)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.2.................... Yes.................. Additional
definitions in
subpart JJJJ.
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(3).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.4(a)(4).............. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.4(a)(5).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(a)(1)-(2).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(b)(1).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(b)(2).............. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(6).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(c)................. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(d)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(e)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.5(f)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(a)................. Yes.................. Applies only when
capture and
control system
is used to
comply with the
standard.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).............. No................... Reserved.
[[Page 55359]]
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).......... No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(d)................. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(e)................. Yes.................. Provisions
pertaining to
start-ups,
shutdowns,
malfunctions,
and CMS do not
apply unless an
add-on control
system is used.
Sec. 63.6(f)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(g)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(h)................. No................... Subpart JJJJ does
not require
continuous
opacity
monitoring
systems (COMS).
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)............. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.6(j)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.7.................... Yes.................. Except Sec.
63.3330
specifies that
performance
tests at
existing sources
must be
conducted by the
compliance date.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).............. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(b)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(3).......... Yes.................. Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(
i) & (ii) only
apply if you use
capture and
control systems
and are required
to have a start-
up, shutdown,
and malfunction
plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).............. No................... Subpart JJJJ does
Not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8)....... Yes.................. Provisions for
COMS are Not
applicable.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(f)............. Yes.................. Sec. 63.8(f)(6)
only applies if
you use CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)................. Yes.................. Only applies if
you use CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(a)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(b)(1).............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(b)(2).............. Yes.................. Except Sec.
63.3400(b)(1)(i)
requires
submittal of
initial
notification for
existing sources
no later than 1
year before
compliance date.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)-(5).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(c)-(e)............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(f)................. No................... Subpart JJJJ does
not require
opacity and
visible
emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.9(g)................. Yes.................. Provisions for
COMS are not
applicable.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(h)(4).............. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(6).......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(i)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.9(j)................. Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(a)................ Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)-(3)......... Yes.................. Sec. 63.10(b)(2)
(i) through (v)
only apply if
you use a
capture and
control system.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)............. Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(4)......... No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(5)-(8)......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)............. No................... Reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(15)....... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............. No................... Subpart JJJJ does
not require
opacity and
visible
emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)-(5)......... Yes..................
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)......... Yes.................. Provisions for
COMS are not
applicable.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............. No...................
Sec. 63.10(f)................ Yes..................
Sec. 63.11................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.12................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.13................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.14................... Yes..................
Sec. 63.15................... Yes..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 00-22653 Filed 9-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P