[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39794-39828]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12772]
[[Page 39793]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Metal Coil; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2002 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 39794]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7214-6]
RIN 2060-AG97
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface
Coating of Metal Coil
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources that
coat metal coil. The EPA has identified metal coil surface coating as a
major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions such as methyl
ethyl ketone, glycol ethers, xylenes (isomers and mixtures), toluene,
and isophorone. Each of these major HAP 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 final rule implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and will require all new and existing metal coil coating operations
that are major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The
EPA estimates that the final rule will reduce nationwide HAP emissions
from metal coil coating operations by approximately 53 percent. The
emissions reductions achieved by these NESHAP, when combined with the
emissions reductions achieved by other similar standards, will provide
protection to the public and achieve a primary goal of the CAA.
DATES: Effective June 10, 2002. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications in this rule is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of June 10, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-97-47 contains supporting information used in
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall
(ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact your State or local
representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative.
For information concerning the analyses performed in developing these
NESHAP, contact Ms. Rhea Jones, Coatings and Consumer Products Group
(C539-03), Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2940, facsimile number (919)
541-5689; electronic mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information considered by the EPA in the
development of the final rule. The docket is a dynamic file because
material is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries
involved to readily identify and locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of
the docket will serve as the record in the case of judicial review.
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other
materials related to the final rule 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 the final rule will also be available on the WWW
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of the final 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.
Regulated Entities. If a metal coil coating line is operated at
your facility, it may be a regulated entity. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially
Category NAICS codes regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Coil Coating Industry....................... 332812a, 323122, 339991, Those facilities that perform
326113, 32613, 32614, surface coating of metal
331112, 331221, 33121, coil using HAP-containing
331312, 331314, 331315, materials.
331319, 332312, 332322,
332323, 332311, 33637,
332813, 332999, 333293,
336399, 325992, 42183.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The majority of facilities are included in NAICS 332812.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.5090 of the
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA
Regional Office representative.
Judicial Review. The NESHAP for Metal Coil Coating were proposed on
July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44616). The final rule announces the EPA's final
decision on the rule. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of these NESHAP is available by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
August 9, 2002. Only those objections to the rule which were raised
with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment may be
raised during judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements that are the subject of the final rule may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal court brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. What are the background and public participation for the rule?
II. What are the final standards?
A. What facilities are subject to the rule?
B. What is the affected source?
C. What are the emission limits and operating limits?
D. What pollutants are limited by the rule?
E. When do I show initial compliance with the standards?
F. How do I demonstrate compliance?
G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements?
III. What are the major changes we have made to the rule since
proposal?
A. Rule applicability
B. Emission standards
C. Operating limits
[[Page 39795]]
D. Compliance demonstration
IV. What are the responses to major comments?
A. Impact analysis
B. Rule applicability
C. Definitions
D. MACT floor determination
E. Achievability of the Standards
F. Monitoring
G. Administrative Requirements
V. What are the environmental, energy, cost, and economic impacts?
A. What are the HAP emissions reductions?
B. What are the secondary environmental impacts?
C. What are the energy impacts?
D. What are the cost impacts?
E. What are the economic impacts?
VI. What are the administrative requirements?
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Congressional Review Act
I. What Are the Background and Public Participation for the Rule?
Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major
sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than
9.07 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (10 tons per year (tpy)) of any one HAP
or 22.68 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any combination of HAP.
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources)
(CAA section 112(d)(3)).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards that are more
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy requirements (CAA section 112(d)(2)).
On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), we published a list of source
categories slated for regulation under section 112(c). The source
category list included the metal coil coating (surface coating) source
category regulated by the standards being promulgated today. We
proposed standards for the metal coil coating sources covered by the
rule on July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44616).
The preamble for the proposed standards described the rationale for
the proposed standards. Public comments were solicited at the time of
the proposal. The public comment period lasted from July 18, 2000 to
September 18, 2000. Industry representatives, regulatory agencies,
environmental groups, and the general public were given the opportunity
to comment on the proposed rule and to provide additional information
during and after the public comment period. Although we offered at
proposal the opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or
arguments concerning the proposed rule, no one requested a public
hearing, and a public hearing was not held.
We received a total of 17 letters containing comments on the
proposed rule. Commenters included individual companies with coil
coating operations, industry trade associations, State regulatory
agencies, and an association of air pollution control vendors. Today's
final rule reflects our full consideration of all of the comments
received. Major public comments on the proposed rule, along with our
responses to those comments, are summarized in this preamble. See the
Summary of Public Comments and Responses document for a more detailed
discussion of public comments and our responses (docket number A-97-
47).
II. What Are the Final Standards?
A. What Facilities Are Subject to This Rule?
Metal coil surface coating is a process-specific rather than a
product-specific operation. Accordingly, the final rule applies to you
if you own or operate any coil coating line at a facility that is a
major source of HAP emissions. We have defined a coil coating line as a
process and the collection of equipment used to apply an organic
coating to the surface of metal coil that is at least 0.15 millimeter
(0.006 inch) thick. A coil coating line includes a web unwind or feed
section, a series of one or more work stations, any associated curing
oven, wet section, and quench station. A coil coating line does not
include ancillary operations such as mixing/thinning, cleaning,
wastewater treatment, and storage of coating material.
You are not subject to the final rule if your coil coating line is
located at an area source. An area source of HAP is any facility that
has the potential to emit HAP but is not a major source. You may
establish area source status by limiting the source's potential to emit
HAP through appropriate mechanisms available through your permitting
authority.
The requirements of the final rule do not apply to a coil coating
line that is part of research or laboratory equipment, coats metal coil
for use in flexible packaging, or is a coil coating line on which 85
percent or more of the metal coil coated, based on surface area, is
less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick. If you operate a coil
coating line on which 85 percent or more of the metal coil coated,
based on surface area, is less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick,
it would be subject to the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart JJJJ) currently under development. However, you may
choose to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of today's rule
instead of those of subpart JJJJ if either of the following two
criteria applies: (1) The coating line is used to coat metal coil of
thicknesses both less than and greater than or equal to 0.15 millimeter
(0.006 inch) thick, regardless of the percentage of surface area of
each thickness coated, or (2) the coating line is used to coat only
metal coil that is less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick and the
coating line is controlled by a common control device that also
receives organic
[[Page 39796]]
HAP emissions from a coil coating line that is subject to the
requirements of this subpart. Compliance with the requirements of
today's rule in accordance with either of the above criteria
constitutes compliance with the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP (40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ), therefore, you would not be subject to the
compliance demonstration requirements of subpart JJJJ.
This rule does not apply to facilities that print a company logo
for identification purposes or other markings for inventory control
purposes onto bare, uncoated metal coils using flexographic printing
equipment, where no other coating is applied.
A major source is also subject to all other applicable NESHAP for
the various source categories, other than metal coil coating and paper
and other web coating, that may be present at the facility. This means
your facility may be subject to multiple NESHAP, and you are
responsible for complying with the standards set for each NESHAP.
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
emission standard 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.
For the final metal coil NESHAP, the affected source subject to the
emission standards is the collection of all of the metal coil coating
lines at your facility. The portions of the metal coil coating line to
which the emission limitations apply are the coating application
stations and associated curing ovens. Wet section/pretreatment and
quench operations are part of the metal coil coating line, but are not
subject to the emission limitations. The coil coating line does not
include ancillary operations such as storage of coating and cleaning
material, wastewater treatment, coating material mixing/thinning, and
parts and equipment cleaning and, therefore, the standards do not apply
to these operations.
C. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?
Emission Limits. Today's final rule provides you the option of
limiting organic HAP emissions to one of the following three specified
levels: (1) No more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied (98
percent overall control efficiency (OCE) limit); (2) no more than 0.046
kilogram of organic HAP per liter (kg/l) (0.38 pound per gallon (lb/
gal)) of solids applied during each 12-month compliance period
(emission rate limit); or (3) if you are using an oxidizer to control
organic HAP emissions, operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic
HAP concentration of no greater than 20 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) on a dry basis is achieved and the efficiency of the capture
system is 100 percent (outlet concentration limit).
You may choose from several compliance options in the final rule to
achieve the emission limits. You may comply through a pollution
prevention approach by applying only coating materials that meet the
emission rate limit, either individually or collectively. Second, you
may use a capture system and add-on control device to either reduce
emissions by 98 percent or by the degree needed to meet the emission
rate limit. Third, you may use a 100 percent efficient capture system
and an oxidizer that reduces organic HAP emissions to no more than 20
ppmv.
Operating Limits. If you reduce emissions by using a capture system
and add-on control device (other than a solvent recovery system for
which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance), the final
operating limits would apply to you. These limits are site-specific
parameter limits that you determine during the initial performance test
of the system. For capture systems, you must develop a capture system
monitoring plan. The monitoring plan must identify the operating
parameter to be monitored, explain why this parameter is appropriate
for demonstrating ongoing compliance, and identify the specific
monitoring procedures. In the plan you must specify operating limits
for the capture system operating parameter that demonstrate compliance
with the emission limits. The monitoring plan must be available for
inspection by your permitting authority upon request.
For thermal oxidizers, you must monitor the combustion temperature.
For catalytic oxidizers, you must either monitor the temperature
immediately before and after the catalyst bed, or you must monitor the
temperature before the catalyst bed and prepare and implement an
inspection and maintenance plan that includes periodic catalyst
activity checks.
The site-specific operating limits that you establish must reflect
operation of the capture system and control device during a performance
test that demonstrates achievement of the emission limits during
representative operating conditions.
If you use a capture system and control device for compliance, you
are required to develop and operate according to a startup, shutdown,
and malfunction plan (SSMP) during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of the capture system and control device.
The NESHAP General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A codify
certain procedures and criteria for all 40 CFR part 63 NESHAP and also
apply to you, as indicated in Table 2 to subpart SSSS. The General
Provisions contain administrative procedures, preconstruction review
procedures for new sources, and procedures for conducting compliance-
related activities such as notifications, reporting and recordkeeping,
performance testing, and monitoring. Subpart SSSS refers to individual
sections of the General Provisions to highlight key sections that are
relevant. However, unless specifically overridden in Table 2 to subpart
SSSS of Part 63, all of the applicable General Provisions requirements
apply to you.
In addition to the metal coil surface coating NESHAP, you may also
be subject to other future or existing rules, such as State rules
requiring reasonably available control technology limits on volatile
organic compounds (VOC) emissions or the new source performance
standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subpart TT. You must comply with
all rules that apply to you. Compliance with different standards should
be resolved through your title V permit.
D. What Pollutants Are Limited by the Rule?
Today's final rule limits total organic HAP emissions from coil
coating lines. These organic HAP are included on the list of HAP in
section 112(b) of the CAA.
E. When Do I Show Initial Compliance With the Standards?
Existing sources will have to comply with today's final rule no
later than 3 years after June 10, 2002. New or reconstructed sources
must comply immediately upon startup of the affected source or by June
10, 2002, whichever is later.
The initial compliance period begins on the applicable compliance
date described above for an existing source or a new or reconstructed
source and ends on the last day of the 12th month following the
compliance date. If the compliance date falls on any day other than the
first day of the month, then the initial compliance period extends
through that month plus the next 12 months. For the purpose of
demonstrating continuous compliance, a compliance period consists of 12
months. Each month after the end of the
[[Page 39797]]
initial compliance period is the end of a compliance period consisting
of that month and the preceding 11 months. We have defined ``month'' as
a calendar month or a pre-specified period of 28 to 35 days to allow
for flexibility at sources where data are based on a business
accounting period.
F. How Do I Demonstrate Compliance?
You must account for all coating materials used in the affected
source when determining compliance with the applicable emission limit.
To make this determination, you must use at least one of the following
compliance options: use of ``as purchased'' individually compliant
coating materials (compliance option 1); use of ``as applied''
compliant coating materials (compliance option 2); use of a capture
system and control device to achieve 98 percent OCE or 20 ppmv outlet
(compliance option 3); and use of a capture system and control devices
to maintain an acceptable emission rate (compliance option 4). You may
apply any of the compliance options to an individual coil coating line,
or to multiple lines as a group, or to the entire affected source. You
may use different compliance options for different coil coating lines,
or at different times on the same line. However, you may not use
different compliance options at the same time on the same coil coating
line. If you switch between compliance options for any coil coating
line or group of lines, you must document this switch, and you must
report it in your next semiannual compliance report.
If you use compliance option 1, then you must demonstrate that the
organic HAP in each coating material used during each compliance period
does not exceed 0.046 kg/l (0.38 lb/gal) of solids, as purchased.
There are two procedures for demonstrating compliance through the
use of compliance option 2. You may either demonstrate that the organic
HAP in each coating material used does not exceed 0.046 kg/l (0.38 lb/
gal) of solids, as applied for each compliance period or demonstrate
that the average of all coating materials used does not exceed this
limit for each compliance period.
If you use compliance option 3, then you must demonstrate that
either the overall organic HAP control efficiency is at least 98
percent on a monthly basis for individual or groups of coil coating
lines; or overall organic HAP control efficiency is at least 98 percent
during the initial performance test for individual coil coating lines;
or oxidizer organic HAP outlet concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv
and there is 100 percent capture efficiency during the initial
performance test. When using emission capture and add-on controls to
demonstrate compliance, you must also demonstrate that applicable
operating limits are achieved continuously.
If you use compliance option 4, then you must demonstrate that the
average organic HAP emission rate does not exceed 0.046 kg/l (0.38 lb/
gal) of solids applied during each compliance period.
In addition to the testing and monitoring requirements specified
below for the affected source to demonstrate compliance, the final rule
adopts the testing requirements specified in Sec. 63.7.
1. Test Methods and Procedures
If you demonstrate compliance with compliance option 1 or 2 based
on the application of compliant coating materials on your coil coating
lines or with compliance option 4 based on the combination of coating
materials applied and control devices, you must determine the organic
HAP content or the volatile matter content, and the solids content of
coating materials ``as purchased'' or ``as applied.'' To determine
organic HAP content, 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
nonaqueous volatile matter content of the coating materials applied as
a surrogate for the organic HAP content. The nonaqueous volatile matter
content, which would include all organic HAP plus all other organic
compounds (excluding water), must be determined by EPA Method 24 of
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, or an EPA approved alternative method.
You may rely on manufacturer's data to determine the organic HAP
content or volatile matter content. However, if there is any
inconsistency between the results of the test methods specified above
(or an approved alternative) and manufacturer's or supplier's data, the
test method results will prevail for compliance and enforcement
purposes. You may use the test methods specified in the rule for
determining volume solids content of the coating materials (ASTM D2697-
86 (Reapproved 1998) or ASTM D6093-97), or you may rely on
manufacturer's or supplier's data.
You must determine the mass of each coating material ``as
purchased'' or ``as applied'' using company records. If diluent
solvents or other ingredients are added to a coating material prior to
application, then the total organic HAP fractions and mass of coating
material ``as applied'' must be adjusted appropriately to account for
such additions. You must calculate the organic HAP content, solids
content, and mass of all coating materials applied on the coil coating
lines for each monthly period. However, only changes in a material
formulation would require a re-determination of total organic HAP mass
fraction for that coating material.
If you use an emission capture and control system to comply with
compliance option 3 of the standard, you must demonstrate either the
OCE or the oxidizer outlet HAP concentration is achieved.
Alternatively, in accordance with compliance option 4, you may use
capture and control equipment to demonstrate you meet the organic HAP
emission rate limit specified. To comply using this approach, you must
determine the OCE of the equipment and the organic HAP and solids
content of the coating materials applied. These values must be
determined for each monthly period and combined to determine the
emission rate for each rolling 12-month compliance period.
If you use a capture system and add-on control device other than a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances, you would use the specified test methods to determine both
the efficiency of the capture system and the emission reduction
efficiency of the control device (or the oxidizer outlet organic HAP
concentration). To determine the capture efficiency, you must either
verify the presence of a permanent total enclosure (PTE) using EPA
Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (and all coating materials
must be applied and dried within the enclosure); or use EPA Method 204A
through F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, to measure capture efficiency.
If you have a PTE and all materials are applied and dried within the
enclosure and you route all exhaust gases from the enclosure to a
control device, you assume 100 percent capture. To demonstrate
compliance using the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration limit,
100 percent capture is required.
You must determine the emission reduction efficiency of a control
device or the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration by conducting a
performance test or using a continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS). If you use CEMS to calculate the control efficiency, you must
measure both the inlet and outlet concentrations. 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 requiring that the
emission
[[Page 39798]]
reduction efficiency of a control device or the oxidizer outlet organic
HAP concentration be determined based on three runs, each run lasting 1
hour. Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is used for
selection of the sampling sites. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine the gas volumetric flow
rate. Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used for
gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an
alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for measuring the oxygen,
carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas in ASME PTC
19-10-1981-Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses.'' Method 4 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine stack moisture. Method 25
or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine organic
volatile matter concentration. You must use Method 25A to demonstrate
compliance with the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration limit
because the limit is less than 50 ppmv. 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
upon obtaining approval by the Administrator. If you use a solvent
recovery system, you may choose to determine the OCE using a liquid-
liquid material balance instead of conducting an initial performance
test. If you use the material balance alternative, you must measure the
amount of all coating materials applied in the controlled coating
operations served by the solvent recovery system during each month and
determine the total 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 compare the amount
recovered to the amount used to determine the OCE.
2. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring is required by the standards to ensure that an affected
source that does not use CEMS to demonstrate compliance is in
continuous compliance. Monitoring requirements apply if you comply with
the rule using emission capture and control devices to meet compliance
option 3 or 4.
You must establish operating limits as part of the initial
performance test of a capture system and control device other than a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances. The operating limits are the minimum or maximum (as
applicable) values achieved for capture systems and control devices
during the most recent performance test, conducted under representative
conditions, that demonstrated compliance with the emission limits.
The final rule specifies the parameters to monitor for oxidizers,
the type of add-on control device most commonly used in the industry.
You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate all
monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications and
ensure that the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) meet the
requirements in Sec. 63.5150 of today's final rule. If you use control
devices other than oxidizers, you must submit the operating parameters
to be monitored to the Administrator for approval. The authority to
approve the parameters to be monitored is retained by the Administrator
and is not delegated to States.
If you use a capture and control system to meet the emission limits
and you do not use liquid-liquid material balances to demonstrate
compliance, you are required to develop a capture system monitoring
plan identifying the operating parameter(s) to be monitored, explaining
the appropriateness of the parameter(s) for demonstrating ongoing
compliance, and identifying the specific monitoring procedures. The
monitoring plan also must establish operating limits at the capture
system operating parameter value, or range of values, that demonstrates
compliance with the emission limits. The plan must be available for
inspection by the permitting authority upon request. You must monitor
in accordance with your plan.
After proposal of this NESHAP, we developed criteria to be used for
setting operating parameter limits for monitoring capture systems and
proposed them in other surface coating NESHAP (see, for an example, the
proposal of Subpart NNNN--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Surface Coating of Large Appliances (65 FR 81133). These or
similar criteria will be included in implementation materials we are
developing for today's final rule as an example that facilities may
follow in developing their monitoring plans.
If you use a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you must continuously
monitor the appropriate temperature and record it at least every 15
minutes. 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. The operating limit is the
average temperature measured during each performance test; for each
consecutive 3-hour period, the average temperature must be at or above
this limit. For catalytic oxidizers, temperature monitors are placed
immediately before and after the catalyst bed. The operating limits are
the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the average
temperature difference across the catalyst bed during the performance
test. For each 3-hour period, the average temperature and the average
temperature difference are required to be at or above these limits.
Alternatively, you are allowed to meet only the temperature limit
before the catalyst bed if you develop and implement an inspection and
maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer.
If you operate metal coil coating lines with intermittently-
controllable work stations, you must demonstrate that captured organic
HAP emissions within the affected source are being routed to the
control device by monitoring for potential bypass of the control
device. You may choose from the following four monitoring options:
(1) Flow control position indicator to provide a record of whether
the exhaust stream is directed to the control device;
(2) Car-seal or lock-and-key valve closures to secure the bypass
line valve in the closed position when the control device is operating;
(3) Valve closure continuous monitoring to ensure any bypass line
valve or damper is closed when the control device is operating; or
(4) Automatic shutdown system to stop the coil coating operation
when flow is diverted from the control device.
A deviation would occur for any period of time the bypass
monitoring indicates that emissions are not routed to the control
device.
If you use a solvent recovery system, you must conduct monthly
liquid-liquid material balances or operate CEMS as described above in
the test methods and procedures section of this preamble.
If you use a capture system and add-on control device other than a
solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-liquid material
balances, you are required to achieve on a continuous basis the
operating limits you establish during the performance test. In
addition, to demonstrate continuos compliance with compliance option 4,
you must record data on the organic HAP and solids content of the
coating materials applied to determine the organic HAP emission rate
for each compliance period.
[[Page 39799]]
G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements?
You are required to comply with the applicable requirements in the
NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as indicated in
Table 2 to subpart SSSS. The General Provisions notification
requirements include: initial notifications, notification of
performance test if you are complying using a capture system and
control device, notification of compliance status, and additional
notifications required for affected sources with continuous monitoring
systems. The General Provisions also require certain records and
periodic reports.
1. Initial Notification
If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must send a
notification to the EPA Regional Office in the region where your
facility is located and to your State agency no later than 2 years
after June 10, 2002. For new and reconstructed sources, you must send
the notification within 120 days after the date of initial startup or
120 days after June 10, 2002, whichever is later. That report notifies
us and your State agency that you have an existing affected source that
is subject to today's NESHAP or that you have constructed a new
affected source. Thus, it allows you and the permitting authority to
plan for compliance activities. You also need to send a notification of
planned construction or reconstruction of a source that will be subject
to the final rule and apply for approval to construct or reconstruct.
2. Notification of Performance Test
If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control
device for which you do not conduct a liquid-liquid material balance,
you must conduct a performance test. The performance test is required
no later than the compliance date for an existing affected source. For
a new or reconstructed affected source, the performance test is
required no later than 180 days after startup or 180 days after today's
date, whichever is later. You must notify us (or the delegated State or
local agency) at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is
scheduled to begin and submit a report of the performance test results
no later than 60 days after the test.
3. Notification of Compliance Status
You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status within 30 days
after the end of the initial 12-month compliance period. In the
notification, you must certify whether each affected source has
complied with the final standards, identify the option(s) you used to
demonstrate initial compliance, summarize the data and calculations
supporting the compliance demonstration, and provide information on any
deviations from the emission limits, operating limits, or other
requirements.
If you elect to comply by using a capture system and control device
for which you conduct performance tests, you must provide the results
of the tests. Your notification must also include the measured range of
each monitored parameter, the operating limits established during the
performance test, and information showing whether the source has
complied with its operating limits during the initial compliance
period.
4. Recordkeeping Requirements
You must keep records of reported information and all other
information necessary to document compliance with today's final rule
for 5 years. As required under the General Provisions, records for the
2 most recent years must be kept on-site; the other 3 years' records
may be kept off-site. Records pertaining to the design and operation of
the control and monitoring equipment must be kept for the life of the
equipment.
Depending on the compliance option you choose, you may have to keep
records of one or more of the following:
Organic HAP, volatile matter, and solids content of the
coating materials, ``as purchased'' or ``as applied.''
Monthly usage of coating materials, organic HAP, volatile
matter, and solids and compliance demonstrations using these data.
Continuous monitoring system measurements.
Liquid-liquid material balances.
If you demonstrate compliance by using a capture system and control
device, you must keep records of the following:
All required measurements, calculations, and supporting
documentation needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards.
All results of performance tests and parameter monitoring.
All information necessary to demonstrate conformance with
the affected source's SSMP when the plan procedures are followed.
The occurrence and duration of each startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of the emission capture system and control device.
Actions taken during startup, shutdown, and malfunction
that are different from the procedures specified in the affected
source's SSMP.
Each period during which a CPMS is malfunctioning or
inoperative (including out-of-control periods).
Today's final rule requires you to collect and keep records
according to certain minimum data requirements for the CPMS. Failure to
collect and keep the specified minimum data would be a deviation that
is separate from any emission limits or operating limits.
Deviations, as determined from these records, need to be recorded
and also reported. A deviation is any instance when any requirement or
obligation established by the final rule including, but not limited to,
the emission limits and operating limits, is not met.
If you use a capture system and control device to reduce organic
HAP emissions, you must make your SSMP available for inspection if the
Administrator requests to see it. The plan must stay in your records
for the life of the affected source or until the source is no longer
subject to the proposed standards. If you revise the plan, you need to
keep the previous superseded versions on record for 5 years following
the revision.
5. Periodic Reports
Each reporting year is divided into two semiannual reporting
periods. If no deviations occur during a semiannual reporting period,
you must submit a semiannual report stating that the affected source
has been in compliance. If deviations occur, you must include them in
the report as follows:
Report each deviation from the emission limit.
If you use an emission capture system and control device
other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct liquid-
liquid material balances, report each deviation from an operating limit
and each time a bypass line diverts emissions from the control device
to the atmosphere.
Report other specific information on the periods of time
the deviations occurred.
You also must include in each semiannual report an identification
of the compliance option(s) you used for each affected source and the
beginning dates you used each compliance option.
6. Other Reports
You are required to submit reports for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction of the capture system and control device. If
the procedures you follow during any startup, shutdown, or malfunction
are inconsistent with your plan, you must report those procedures with
your semiannual reports in
[[Page 39800]]
addition to immediate reports required by 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
III. What Are the Major Changes We Have Made to the Rule Since
Proposal?
This section summarizes the major changes we have made to the rule
since proposal. We made the changes to clarify the rule's requirements
and to respond to public comments on the proposed rule. A summary of
responses to major comments regarding rule requirements is presented in
section IV.B of this preamble.
A. Rule Applicability
The rule applicability has been clarified through revisions to the
definition of a coil coating line and related definitions and the
addition of a paragraph explicitly presenting criteria under which
today's rule does not apply to a coil coating line. Also, a paragraph
has been added that gives you compliance options if you operate a
coating line(s) that coats both coil and foil.
The revised definition of a coil coating line incorporates the
proposed definition of coil coating operation (the collection of
equipment used to apply an organic coating to the surface of metal coil
that is at least 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick). The definition of
coil coating operation has been removed from the final standard. The
coating of metal coil for use in flexible packaging (subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) is explicitly exempted
from the requirements of today's rule through a revision to the
definition of metal coil stating that metal coil does not include metal
webs that are coated for use in flexible packaging. A definition of
flexible packaging has been added to the final rule. A definition of
protective oil, which is identified as a material not considered to be
a coating in this subpart, has been added to the final rule to clarify
what it includes.
A paragraph that explicitly presents two criteria under which
today's rule does not apply to a coil coating line has been added. The
first criterion, for a coil coating line that is part of research or
laboratory equipment, was proposed in Sec. 63.5100 as an exception to
the emission sources affected by this subpart, and has been moved to
the applicability statement of Sec. 63.5090. The second criterion, for
a coating line that predominantly coats foil (a metal strip that is
less than 0.006 inch thick), has been added to the final rule.
The paragraph that has been added provides compliance options for a
coating line subject to both this subpart and 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ which is currently under development. It allows you to comply only
with this subpart if you operate a coating line that coats both coil
and foil, regardless of the amount of each coated or if you coat only
foil but the coating line is controlled by a common control device that
also receives organic HAP emissions from a coil coating line that is
subject to the requirements of this subpart. Compliance with this
subpart would constitute compliance with subpart JJJJ.
B. Emission Standards
The proposed emission rate limit has been revised in the final
rule, and an oxidizer outlet concentration limit has been added. Also,
the language of the emission standards has been revised to reflect the
change in the compliance period from one month to a 12-month compliance
period, as is described in section III.D of this preamble.
The proposed emission rate limit would have limited organic HAP
emissions to no more than 0.029 kg/l (0.24lb/gal) of solids applied for
the month. The final emission rate limit requires that the level of
organic HAP be no more than 0.046 kg/l (0.38lb/gal) of solids applied
during each 12-month compliance period.
If you use an oxidizer to control organic HAP emissions, the final
rule allows you to operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic HAP
concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv by compound on a dry basis is
achieved, provided the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent.
This outlet concentration limit provides oxidizers with an alternative
to the 98 percent OCE limit.
C. Operating Limits
In response to comments regarding the definition of deviation as it
relates to the failure to meet operating parameters, oxidizer
monitoring, and the establishment of the operating parameter to be
monitored, we have added Sec. 63.5121 entitled ``What operating limits
must I meet?'' to the final rule. This section clarifies that the
operating limits must be met at all times after you establish them and
presents the applicable operating limits for oxidizers and methods of
demonstrating continuous compliance with the operating limits in Table
1 to subpart SSSS.
The catalytic oxidizer operating parameter monitoring requirements
have been revised to incorporate the option of catalyst bed inlet and
outlet gas temperature monitoring that is described below. Regarding
capture system monitoring, the proposed requirement that you submit
your monitoring plan to the Administrator has been revised to require
only that you make the monitoring plan available for inspection by the
permitting authority upon request.
We have also added a specific operating limits paragraph to section
63.5160 of the final rule to clarify the specific procedures to be
followed to establish the operating limits during a performance test.
The procedures for establishing the operating limits for a catalytic
oxidizer have been corrected in the final rule to require that both the
outlet temperature and the inlet temperature to the catalyst bed be
used as operating parameters in order to calculate the temperature
change across the catalyst bed. In addition, an alternative to this
monitoring has been added to the final rule. In lieu of monitoring the
inlet and outlet gas temperatures to calculate temperature change
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the gas temperature at the
inlet to the catalyst bed and develop and implement an inspection and
maintenance plan for the catalytic oxidizer.
D. Compliance Demonstration
Revisions to the proposed compliance demonstration requirements
discussed below include explicitly allowing compliance on a line-by-
line basis, changing the averaging period for the emission rate limit
from a monthly to a rolling 12-month average, revising the definition
of the term Mj to exclude water, and removing the 98 percent
cap on destruction efficiency in calculating HAP emitted to demonstrate
compliance with the emission rate limit.
We intended for the proposed rule to allow line-by-line compliance.
This intent has been clarified in the final rule by adding an
introductory paragraph to Sec. 63.5170 of the final rule. The
introductory paragraph states that you may apply any of the compliance
options to an individual coil coating line, or to multiple lines as a
group, or to the entire affected source. You may use different
compliance options for different coil coating lines, or at different
times on the same line, but you may not use different compliance
options at the same time on the same coil coating line. Recordkeeping
and reporting requirements also are specified if you switch between
compliance options.
The compliance period specified for the emission rate limit in the
proposed rule was 1 month. The compliance period specified in the final
rule is 12 months, and compliance with the emission rate limit is
demonstrated on
[[Page 39801]]
the basis of a rolling 12-month average. The 12-month compliance period
is specified in Sec. 63.5130 of the final rule and also is reflected in
the specifications of the initial compliance period and subsequent
compliance periods that have been added to this section. The initial
compliance period begins on the compliance date and ends on the last
day of the 12th month following the compliance date. If the compliance
date is not the first day of the month, then the initial compliance
period extends through that month plus the next 12 months. For
subsequent compliance periods, each month after the end of the initial
compliance period is the end of a compliance period consisting of that
month and the preceding 11 months.
The term Mj is the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer,
diluent, or other nonsolids-containing coating material, j, applied in
a month and is used in the mass balance to determine the recovery
efficiency of a solvent recovery device. The proposed definition of
Mj included water as a nonsolids-containing coating
material. The definition of the term Mj in Equation 6 of
Sec. 63.5170 of the final rule has been revised to explicitly exclude
water.
Finally, the proposed rule capped oxidizer destruction efficiency
at 98 percent in calculating organic HAP emitted to demonstrate
compliance with the emission rate limit unless performance was
demonstrated with CEMS data. The final rule has been revised to allow
the use of oxidizer destruction efficiencies greater than 98 percent
demonstrated during performance testing, provided the oxidizer has
continuously operated within the operating limits established during
the performance test.
IV. What Are the Responses to Major Comments?
This section summarizes the major public comments we received on
the proposed rule and our responses to those comments. A more
comprehensive summary of comments and responses can be found in Docket
No. A-97-47.
A. Impacts Analysis
Commenters identified flaws with EPA's impacts analysis and were
concerned that inaccuracies in the impact analysis would affect bottom
line figures for the costs impacts, secondary air impacts, and
achievability of the standards. Two commenters asserted that EPA
underestimated oven air flow rates for the model plant analysis due to
failing to calculate air flows in standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)
rather than actual cubic feet per minute (acfm), underestimating air
flows by 1.5 to 2 times that used for model plant analysis for
determining costs. They also claim that upgrading control devices to
achieve the 98 percent OCE limit would generate additional air flow
that has to be treated by the oxidizer due to installing new PTE with
sufficient ventilation to comply with OSHA permissible exposure limits
for the mix of solvents used. Failing to include the associated costs
underestimates the initial capital investment and annual operating
costs of an affected coating line.
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the flow rates in acfm were
derived from Information Collection Request (ICR) information and
converted to scfm for the design of oxidizers; therefore, no error was
made in this calculation. However, after further analysis comparing the
calculated air flow rates to the reported air flow rates for all
facilities that reported air flow rates in acfm, we found that model
plant air flow rates should have been about 50 percent higher.
Therefore, an adjustment factor was developed, resulting in a 50
percent increase in the model plant air flow rates. The adjusted oven
air flow rates were used to revise compliance cost estimates. We also
reviewed the additional capture measures reported by respondents to the
metal coil coating ICR that use PTE. The ICR review revealed that a
large majority of facilities reporting existing PTE did not report the
use of additional ventilation; only 17 percent reported extra
ventilation.
However, we agree that approximately 40 percent more flow is needed
for a PTE if it cannot be designed with adequate local exhaust
ventilation in the form of hoods and oven extensions to ensure worker
safety. Therefore, we developed additional costs to reflect a 40
percent increase in flow for the 17 percent of facilities requiring
extra ventilation.
One commenter stated that EPA's PTE costs are significantly
underestimated based on a cost summary provided by the commenter for a
PTE installed for a tandem coating line in a mezzanine arrangement. The
cost summary included costs for reconfiguration of make-up air duct
work, new exhaust duct work, a new plant make-up air heater, and
explosion proof electrical systems. They assert that EPA estimates
neglect these additional costs. Our data analysis revealed that PTE
costs for a mezzanine arrangement represent the worst case situation
for PTE application. Of the seven facilities in the facility database
who use this configuration, four already have PTE and six comply with
one of the compliance options. The seventh mezzanine PTE was under
construction. Therefore, no additional costs for this design have been
added. The PTE costs we derived represent typical installations;
however, we agree with the commenter that electrical fittings used in
the presence of flammable solvents should be explosion proof. To
account for the additional cost of explosion-proof fittings, the
estimated cost of auxiliaries has been increased from 50 to 80 percent
of the PTE capital cost. These revised costs were used in revising the
compliance cost estimates.
Two commenters believed that many of the assumptions EPA used to
determine the cost of upgrading or replacing thermal oxidizers
contributed to control system upgrade/replacement costs that are
substantially less than what is truly needed. In addition to their
comments about gas flow rate estimates for the model plant analysis,
they claim the following assumptions should be revised or eliminated:
(1) EPA has assumed that costs for duct work, dampers, fans, motors and
stacks are not required for a replacement oxidizer, (2) a 20 percent
discount is assumed for purchase of two oxidizers in the same order,
(3) new oxidizers are assumed to operate with 70 percent heat recovery,
which would likely preheat the inlet stream to above auto-ignition
temperatures for the VOC involved, and (4) EPA assumed that existing
units will be upgraded to achieve higher destruction efficiencies and
accommodate increased flow. The commenter claimed that it is much more
likely that a facility would choose to replace rather than upgrade a
unit given the cost of modifications the commenter asserted to be
necessary, including enlarging the combustion chamber, increasing the
oxidizer blower capacity, increasing the size of the heat exchanger,
and enlarging duct work to handle additional flow.
To address the comments on the costs of upgrading or replacing
thermal oxidizers, for cases in which increased flow to the replacement
oxidizer is not required, the assumption has been made that new ducting
is not required. For cases in which air flow is increased, but a rotary
concentrator is installed, the air flow to the oxidizer is not
increased but new ducting is needed to route air to the rotary
concentrator and from the concentrator to the oxidizer. New costs for
the concentrator and associated equipment have been estimated for these
cases and any others in which increased ventilation air is required.
Since index values for thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers
are
[[Page 39802]]
now greater than for most other control devices, discounts may not be
available. New costs have been developed that have no discount for the
purchase of two oxidizers in the same order.
We reviewed the heat recovery information in the facility database.
In addition, we contacted two oxidizer vendors concerning the potential
for auto-ignition of the inlet stream. Despite the high heat recovery
efficiencies reported by some facilities in the database and the
potential for designing recuperative oxidizers to avoid auto-ignition
problems, we agree there is still the potential of auto-ignition
problems for certain organic compounds used in the metal coil coating
industry. Hence, we followed a conservative approach in reevaluating
the assumptions used in costing replacement oxidizers. Replacement
oxidizers are assumed to achieve a heat recovery of 60 percent versus
the 50 percent heat recovery of baseline oxidizers. This number is
based on our review of the database balanced by information provided by
oxidizer vendors and is appropriate for impact analysis. In actuality,
some sources may achieve higher heat recovery and some lower.
In determining whether an existing oxidizer would be upgraded or
replaced, we assumed that the useful life of an oxidizer is 15 years
based on available information. For sources with oxidizers near the end
of their useful lives, we did not attribute the replacement cost to the
NESHAP since the source would incur the cost in any case. To account
for specific situations where oxidizers are not as old, we costed the
addition of PTE which will result in increased flow requirements, and
we costed the addition of concentrators. We believe these costing
assumptions are reasonable and realistic.
Two commenters claimed that it is not cost effective to push the
existing source OCE limit to 98 percent. The commenters stated that the
incremental cost of increasing the OCE limit from their proposed 95
percent to 98 percent is approximately $35,000/ton HAP removed whereas
the incremental cost of moving from the current baseline to 95 percent
control is approximately $5,000/ton HAP removed based on an economic
assessment done by one of the commenters.
The existing source OCE was not pushed to 98 percent, but rather
was determined to be the MACT floor using data available to the
Administrator. Consequently, the EPA's economic impact analysis was
conducted only for the MACT floor level of 98 percent OCE. The
appropriate cost effectiveness analysis considers the cost of reducing
HAP emissions at the MACT floor level of control compared to the
baseline level rather than the increment between 95 percent and 98
percent OCE which the commenters suggested. The MACT floor analysis
results in a cost effectiveness of approximately $4,500/ton HAP
removed.
One commenter noted that EPA's estimates of the nationwide
incremental costs incurred by the coil coating industry to implement
the rule were, at proposal, a nationwide total capital investment of
$11.6 million and a total annual cost of $5.9 million. The commenter
strongly disagreed with these cost estimates and cited data from an
economic assessment done by their contractor which estimated the total
annual incremental costs for the coil coating industry to be
approximately $20.8 million. The commenter believes that EPA's estimate
is incorrect because (1) EPA calculated the incremental costs by
subtracting baseline costs from the upgrade or replacement cost which
they believe assumes the replacement or upgrade would have been
necessary for continued compliance with the VOC standards, even in the
absence of the new coil NESHAP. (2) The EPA extrapolated nationwide
costs by multiplying the model plant costs by the ratio of total HAP
emissions reported by all facilities in the facility database divided
by the emissions from all plants covered by the model plant analysis.
This assumes that EPA has collected HAP emissions data on all existing
coil coating lines in the country which is unlikely. (3) The EPA
estimated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs by amortizing
certain one time costs over a 15-year period, then adding the annual
cost of compliance demonstrations, reports, and recordkeeping. Most
permitting agencies would require performance testing, which EPA
considered a one time cost, at a greater frequency than 15 years which
would cause cost estimates to be understated.
Since we have revised our cost estimates due to corrections needed
as described above, our estimated nationwide capital and annual costs
have increased (see section V.D of this preamble). The nationwide cost
estimates have been revised to incorporate the revised MACT floor costs
associated with adding PTE, upgrading or replacing existing oxidizers
and installing new condenser systems in some situations as described
above. Even with these revisions, EPA's estimated costs are
significantly lower than the commenters' costs. The revised nationwide
total costs for all plants show an increase in capital costs to $18.1
million and an increase in annual costs to $7.6 million. Regarding the
commenters' list of assumptions that should be modified, these
assumptions were not changed for the following reason. No assumption
concerning continued compliance with VOC standards was made. Estimating
upgrade costs as the difference between the baseline and the MACT floor
level of control is a technique for deriving incremental costs when
detailed site specific data for all sources is not available. The EPA
believes that most metal coil surface coating facilities in the country
are in the database, therefore, any facilities omitted would lead to a
small underestimation of nationwide costs. Finally, regarding the
assumption that the control system performance test is a one time cost
over the 15-year life of the oxidizer, the NESHAP only requires an
initial performance test. Any subsequent testing would not be a result
of the NESHAP requirements, but would be at the discretion of the
permitting authority. Therefore, the cost of performance testing
subsequent to the initial performance test was not attributed to the
NESHAP.
One commenter questioned two of the assumptions used by EPA in
determining how many facilities will have to make control system
upgrades. The commenter submitted that EPA assumed that ten of the
facilities would pursue synthetic minor permits and be exempt from the
coil NESHAP; however, the commenter believed that there is no certainty
in this assumption, as changes in market demand and/or product mix at a
facility may require it to pursue a major source title V permit. The
commenter also submitted that EPA estimated 26 facilities would be in
compliance with the OCE or emission rate limit in the coil NESHAP;
however, the commenter believed there are insufficient data to
determine whether a facility will be able to comply with the monthly
average requirements of the emission rate approach because the ICR data
represent annual average emissions of HAP per solids applied, and the
equivalent emission rate limit, as proposed, will be enforced on a
monthly basis. One commenter noted that EPA's projected HAP emission
reduction of 55 percent also appears to be based on the assumption that
some facilities could comply with the monthly emission rate limit. The
commenter's estimated reduction was based only on achieving 98 percent
OCE and was estimated at 77 percent. The commenter believes that the
Agency should not rely on speculation of the annual reductions
[[Page 39803]]
that will be achieved with the emission rate approach.
The ten facilities that the commenter describes as pursuing
synthetic minor permits were facilities in the database reporting being
already permitted as synthetic minors. No assumption was made that any
facility not permitted as a synthetic minor source would do so to be
exempt from the coil NESHAP. The commenter has a valid point that
basing the assumption of whether a facility can comply with the
emission rate limit during monthly compliance periods on annual
emission rate data may be inappropriate. The compliance period for the
emission rate limit has been revised to a rolling 12-month period to
better reflect the data.
The projected HAP emission reduction (55 percent for the proposed
rule; 53 percent for the final rule) is based on assuming that sources
would choose the least costly means necessary to achieve either the
facility 98 percent OCE or the equivalent emission rate compliance
option. We believe it is reasonable to assume that some facilities will
choose the emission rate limit as the least costly compliance option,
particularly since it has been made less stringent than the proposed
limit and since the compliance period has been changed from a monthly
average to a rolling 12-month average. The revisions to the emission
rate limit will result in a revised estimated HAP emission reduction of
53 percent.
B. Rule Applicability
Two commenters noted that EPA specifies that both the foil coating
and the coil coating operations would be subject to the metal coil
NESHAP at facilities that perform both foil and coil coating operations
on the same equipment. Facilities coating only foil on their coating
equipment would be subject to the Paper and Other Webs (POWC) NESHAP
currently under development. The commenters suggested several ways to
synchronize these two NESHAP including adopting 95 percent OCE as the
MACT floor, revising the emission rate limit to reflect a
representative coating with a HAP to solids ratio of 80/20, allowing
sources to switch between the POWC rule currently under development and
the metal coil rule through their title V permits, or specifying that
the governing NESHAP be based on a threshold percentage of production
time or of total surface area coated.
The metal coil rule as proposed specified that operations
performing both foil coating and coil coating on the same equipment
would be subject to the metal coil NESHAP only. The CAA directs EPA to
develop standards that require the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable for each source category, which are
commonly referred to as MACT standards. For existing major sources,
MACT must be no less stringent than the average emission limitation
achieved by the best preforming 12 percent of sources in the source
category, which is referred to as the MACT floor. The 98 percent OCE
was established using data submitted by coil coating facilities on
their ICR. Data from facilities in the metal coil source category
indicates that 98 percent is MACT for this source category. Selecting a
95 percent OCE is, therefore, not an option for the MACT floor.
To arrive at the emission rate limit, we used the average volume
solids reported by each MACT floor facility. We used a conservative
assumption (i.e., tendency to overestimate HAP) that the entire
volatile fraction of the coating was HAP to determine the HAP to solids
ratio for a representative coating for the metal coil industry. For
proposal, this ratio was 60/40. For the final rule, we revised this
ratio, using the average of the coatings with the lowest solids content
reported by each facility in the MACT floor. This type of coating
represents the most adverse circumstance that could reasonably be
expected to occur at a floor facility. The resulting HAP to solids
ratio is now 70/30. We believe this higher ratio accounts for the range
in coatings used by floor facilities and reflects a HAP/solids mix of
coatings that is representative for the metal coil coating industry.
The resulting emission rate limit is 0.38lb of HAP/gal of solids. The
HAP/solids ratio used to establish the proposed emission rate limit for
the POWC rule and the final printing and publishing rule were based on
information on coating characteristics for each respective source
category and is not, according to our data, representative of coatings
on average in the metal coil source category.
The commenters proposed that we allow a cutoff limit based on
threshold percentage of activity for each source category which would
determine the rule with which a facility would comply. Additional data
analysis was done to determine the degree to which overlap occurs. Our
data analysis revealed there are six facilities in the metal coil MACT
database reporting coating application on substrates of thicknesses
less than 0.006 inches, which would be considered foil. One facility
reported the percentage of foil coating as confidential business
information (CBI). Four facilities reported less than 25 percent foil
coating, making coil coating the principal surface coating activity for
their coating lines. However, one facility reported at least 85 percent
of the substrate being coated as foil, making foil coating the
principal surface coating activity for their coating lines. We believe
that coating lines for which 85 per cent of the substrate coated is
foil would be more appropriately covered by the POWC NESHAP. Therefore,
using the available data, we have established a special provision for
this particular circumstance. If 85 percent or more of the substrate
coated on a line, based on surface area, is of a thickness of less than
0.006 inches, then that line will be covered under the POWC NESHAP
currently under development and is not subject to the metal coil
surface coating NESHAP. We do not anticipate that establishing this
primary use provision at 85 per cent will result in a significant
negative environmental impact. We expect the provision to apply to a
limited number of coating lines (less than ten), and the incremental
difference in emission reduction achieved at those lines will be no
more than three per cent (i.e., the difference between the 98 per cent
OCE achieved by the metal coil rule versus the 95 per cent OCE achieved
by the POWC rule). We estimate this difference to be approximately 75
tpy.
Facilities that may have coil and foil coated on the same line,
regardless of the percentage of surface area, may opt to subject that
line to the metal coil surface coating NESHAP. In addition, facilities
that have metal coil and foil coated on separate lines at a facility
may opt to include all lines under the metal coil NESHAP if the lines
are controlled by a common control device. If for any year a line
utilizing this cutoff limit and complying with the POWC NESHAP coats
more than 15 percent coil substrate based on surface area, that line
will from that point forward be subject to the metal coil NESHAP, and
will no longer be able to utilize the cutoff limit option. The
applicability section of the final rule has been revised accordingly.
The commenters suggested that sources be allowed to switch between
rules through their title V permits when their coating substrate
changes. To do this, sources would have to keep records of substrate
and coating use separately for the POWC and metal coil rules, as well
as calculations for compliance demonstrations and reports for each
rule. The 85 per cent primary use provision allows facilities to comply
with the NESHAP representing their principal coating activity.
[[Page 39804]]
One commenter submitted that product and packaging companies
applying coatings onto continuous metal substrates greater than 0.006
inch thick for flexible packaging should be exempt from the coil
coating MACT rule. The commenter noted that the facility and its
process equipment is either already subject to the printing and
publishing NESHAP or will be subject to the POWC NESHAP.
We agree that the coating of metal substrates for the purpose of
flexible packaging is an operation that is covered under the proposed
POWC NESHAP. The final rule has been revised to clarify that the metal
coil NESHAP does not apply to substrates coated for flexible packaging.
One commenter noted that the proposed applicability section 40 CFR
63.5090 provides that ``The provisions of this subpart apply to each
facility that is a major source of HAP, as defined in Sec. 63.2, at
which a coil coating line is operated'' (underlined emphasis added).
The commenter submitted that the phrase ``coil coating line is
operated'' is not defined and ``coil coating line'' includes any
coating operation, including those operations EPA seeks to exclude in
the definition of ``coating'' in 40 CFR 63.5110. The commenter
requested clarification of the proposed applicability section to
clearly identify regulated facilities using the terms defined at
proposed 40 CFR 63.5110.
We agree with the commenter that the proposed applicability
language was not clear. The definition of coil coating line in section
63.5110 has been revised as follows: ``coil coating line means a
process and the collection of equipment used to apply an organic
coating to the surface of a metal coil.'' The definition of coil
coating operation has been removed from that section. This revision
addresses the commenter's concern.
Two commenters requested that EPA specifically state in the
preamble that all of the equipment included as part of ancillary
operations has been evaluated under the metal coil NESHAP and, thus, is
exempt from the proposed Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON) (67 FR
16154, April 4, 2002).
The NESHAP to which the commenters refer would regulate coating
manufacturing operations and would require controls on the following
emission sources: storage tanks, process (mixing) vessels, equipment
components, wastewater treatment and conveyance systems, transfer
operations, and ancillary sources such as heat exchange systems. As the
commenter stated, we evaluated all of the equipment included as part of
ancillary operations as we developed the proposed rule. We requested
control and emissions information on these operations as part of our
information collection request. However, the information we received
was not sufficiently detailed to give a clear picture of the level of
control achieved for these operations. For example, mixing can occur at
the coating application station inside a PTE, or it can occur at a
location away from the application station without an enclosure. If a
facility reported achieving 98 per cent control of mixing tanks, it was
not clear if all mixing was controlled at this level or only a portion
of the mixing. Due to the lack of detailed information available, we
were not able to determine a MACT floor for such equipment.
Consequently, equipment that is part of ancillary operations is not
included in the affected source for these standards.
The proposed MON is not intended to apply to the end users of
manufactured coatings. As proposed, it will apply only to sources that
manufacture coatings described by SIC codes 285 or 289 or NAICS code
3255. Metal coil coating facilities are not typically in these SIC and
NAICS codes and, therefore, would not be subject to the MON, as
proposed. If a facility does meet the proposed definition of a coating
manufacturer in the MON, its ancillary operations would most likely not
meet the criteria used to determine whether controls are required
(e.g., the capacity of mixing vessels and storage tanks, or the
concentration of total organic HAP in wastewater). The MON preamble
specifically requests comment on the costs of controlling emissions and
appropriate size cutoffs for coating manufacturers who produce coatings
for their own use. Facilities that are potentially affected by the
proposed MON or concerned about how it may apply to coating users may
view comments received on the MON proposal by accessing Docket Number
A-96-04.
C. Definitions
Several commenters submitted that the definition of ``deviation''
in the proposed rule is very broad or overly complicated and requested
that the definition be deleted. The commenters are concerned that all
deviations may be considered violations of the standards. Two
commenters requested that in place of the term ``deviation,'' we
include a definition for ``excursion'' or ``monitoring excursion.''
We are using the term ``deviation'' to standardize the regulatory
language used in NESHAP and to avoid any confusion that might be caused
by using multiple, related terms such as excess emission, exceedence,
excursion, and deviation in the same regulatory program. In the final
rule, the definition of deviation clarifies that any failure to meet an
emission limitation (including an operating limit or work practice
standard) is a deviation, regardless of whether such a failure is
specifically excused or occurs at times when the emission limitations
do not apply, for example, during startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
The enforcement authority determines violations. The definition of
deviation is consistent with the use of the term deviation in the title
V operating permit program.
D. MACT Floor Determination
One commenter asserted that the approach followed by EPA in setting
the OCE MACT floor was flawed and proposed an alternative approach to
setting the MACT floor. The commenter points out that the CAA gives EPA
no direction on how to determine which sources are ``best performing,''
accordingly, EPA has maximum flexibility in making that determination.
In the commenter's approach, the plants in their database operating
with add-on controls were sorted from the lowest to the highest post-
control HAP emissions in terms of lbs of HAP per lbs of solids applied.
The OCE was calculated for each facility, and the arithmetic mean of
the best performing 12 percent of the data set was calculated at 93.6
percent. The commenter asserts that this approach to setting the MACT
floor is more appropriate than EPA's method because it better defines
the ``best performing sources,'' basing performance on the amount of
HAP emitted per solids applied rather than just focusing on OCE. The
commenter claims that this approach also generates a more diverse group
of coating lines in the MACT floor facilities than EPA's method. The
commenter submitted that EPA followed a flexible approach in setting
MACT floors for other NESHAP because of the diversity of industry
sectors and types and formulation of coatings used, diversity that is
also found in the coil coating industry.
We agree that we have flexibility in determining what constitutes
the best-performing 12 percent of sources; however, using the
methodology proposed by the commenter erroneously accepts that low
post-controlled emissions is the result of OCE alone. Post-controlled
emissions most often reflect a combination of low-HAP coating
formulation and OCE. Given the nature of the metal coil surface coating
process and the prevalence of add-on controls in the industry, we
determined that ranking facilities by the highest
[[Page 39805]]
level of control their control devices achieve is the correct method of
establishing the best performers. This methodology generated a universe
of floor facilities that represents the diversity of facilities in the
industry. The floor facilities coat the range of product types found in
the metal coil coating source category.
Several commenters asserted that the proposed OCE of 98 percent is
too stringent for existing sources. The commenters supported an OCE of
95 percent for existing sources and 98 percent for new sources. The
commenters submitted that thermal oxidation (the overwhelming choice
for VOC/HAP control in the coil coating industry) is limited to
achieving 98 percent destruction efficiency for new, properly designed
units and that existing thermal and catalytic oxidizers cannot achieve
98 percent destruction efficiency on a long-term, continuous basis.
The EPA used data submitted by coil coating facilities on their ICR
as the primary basis for establishing a 98 percent OCE. Reported values
show that these control systems are capable of achieving greater than
99 percent HAP destruction, based on 100 percent capture and greater
than 99 percent destruction efficiencies. The average reported OCE of
the MACT floor facilities is 99.4 percent. To determine the level of
emission control that is consistently achievable with this technology,
we also considered the level of control that the EPA has generally
found to be achievable. In addition to general EPA guidance, available
literature was reviewed and state agencies and vendors of control
equipment were contacted (docket No. A-97-47) for further information
indicating the appropriate control efficiency for thermal oxidizers.
All of these sources indicate that thermal oxidizers routinely achieve
destruction efficiencies of at least 98 percent.
With respect to the performance of catalytic oxidizers, for inlet
concentrations greater than 100 ppm, catalytic oxidizers can achieve 95
to 98 percent destruction (docket No. A-97-47). Though 95 percent
destruction is typical, 98 percent can be achieved through the use of
larger catalyst volumes and/or higher temperatures.
E. Achievability of the Standards
Several commenters submitted that the emission rate limit should be
less restrictive. One commenter presented an alternative emission rate
proposal based on upper-bound HAP formulation. Under the commenter's
proposal, the average minimum solids content for the eleven floor
facilities is 29.1 percent solids by volume. Therefore, the commenters
request that EPA use a representative coating of 30 percent solids and
70 percent HAP to derive the equivalent emission rate compliance option
instead of the 40 percent solids and 60 percent HAP ratio used for the
proposed standard. The representative coating would then yield a
precontrol emission rate of 18.5 lbs HAP/gal solids applied, which then
generates an equivalent emission rate of 0.37 lb HAP/gal solids applied
when factored by the 98 percent OCE. The commenters also requested that
the compliance averaging period be a 12-month rolling average. This
would account for the use of annual average data in the derivation of
the equivalent emission rate and the significant variability in the
types of coatings toll coaters typically apply over a 1-year period.
We agree with the commenter that in this case, the emission rate
limit should be a rolling 12-month emission rate because the data on
which the limit was set reflect annual averages and some segments of
the coil coating industry may experience significant variation from
month to month in types of coatings used and their HAP contents. This
revision has been incorporated into Sec. 63.5170 of the final rule. In
addition, we agree that the alternative emission rate limit and
compliant coating option should be revised to reflect the average of
the lowest solids/highest HAP applied by the MACT floor facilities in
the database. The revised emission rate limit and compliant coating
option is 0.38 lb of HAP per gallon of solids applied during each 12-
month compliance period.
Several commenters submitted that EPA has proposed a single set of
emission standards to regulate the entire coil coating industry,
thereby failing to account for the significant diversity in various
segments of the industry. One commenter requested that EPA
subcategorize or, at a minimum, set different emission limits for
different types of coil coating operations based on coating use (water-
borne or solvent-borne), end use industrial sector or the type of
coating business (toll coating versus captive coating). Two of the
commenters note that EPA specifically requested comment on the
appropriateness of requiring the proposed emission limits for
electrodeposition coating (e-coat) lines using water-borne coatings
that comply with NSPS and reasonably available control technology
(RACT) VOC limits. One commenter added that the MACT floor facilities
on which the emission limits are based are comprised of a
disproportionate number of coating lines that produce stock for
architectural and building products, a segment of the coil coating
industry characterized by application of solvent-borne coatings with
significant HAP content and use of enhanced VOC control systems.
We agree with the commenters that there is some diversity in the
industry and designed the standard with sufficient flexibility to
accommodate that diversity. It was based on emission control levels
achieved by the MACT floor facilities which included most segments of
the industry. The emission standard is in two different formats and
allows four options for demonstrating compliance, providing significant
compliance flexibility for the various segments of the industry. The
various options for demonstrating compliance with the emission rate
limit provide viable alternatives for facilities using water-borne
coatings, electrodeposition coating lines, or solvent borne coatings
with relatively higher solids and lower HAP contents than facilities
that choose to comply with the 98 percent OCE. To account for the
variability in coatings used from month to month and to allow for the
most adverse conditions that could be expected, we revised the emission
rate limit and compliant coating option to reflect the lowest levels of
solids used at facilities over a year. In addition to this, the final
rule provides a rolling 12-month compliance period over which emission
rates are determined rather than a block month compliance period. These
allowances and adjustments to the final rule provide greater
flexibility for compliance than subcategorization or dividing
facilities into sectors and setting a separate limit for each sector.
One commenter submitted that due to differences in operations and
coating type, water-based deck lines with in-line tandem coating and
roll forming operations must be considered separately from and treated
differently than traditional coil coating lines using solvent-based
coatings and requested that a water-based compliant emission rate
alternative of 0.518 lb of HAP/gal of solids applied (i.e., 0.062 kg/l)
be established because it is the lowest water-based HAP emission rate
commercially demonstrated for all colors and all seasons of the year.
A compliant coating option in the form of an emission rate was
included in the proposed rule and has been revised to be less stringent
in the final rule. The final emission rate is 0.38 lb organic HAP per
gallon of coating solids applied, averaged over a 12-month period. This
compliance option was included as a pollution prevention
[[Page 39806]]
alternative for facilities using coatings that contain lower levels of
HAP so that the application of controls like those needed for higher-
HAP coating operations would not be necessary. Of the six facilities in
the MACT database operating water-based deck lines, at least two of the
facilities should be able to comply using this option without
reformulating coatings or applying any controls. Data submitted by the
remaining four deck facilities indicate that they will need neither
oxidizers nor PTE to achieve the emission rate limit. They would be
able to achieve the needed emission reductions using other options such
as reformulation or solvent recovery. The commenter suggested an
emission rate limit of 0.518 lb HAP per gallon of coating solids
applied because purportedly, it is the lowest rate that can be achieved
for all colors and for all seasons. We believe the final emission rate
of 0.38 lb/gallon is achievable, in part, because the standard allows
averaging of all coatings across a 12-month period. Thus, a source
would be able to offset usage of higher-HAP coatings, such as the one
the commenter describes, with usage of lower-HAP coatings at other
times in order to average below the emission rate limit over 12 months.
Therefore, given the compliance alternatives, EPA believes that the
final rule provides sufficient flexibility for sources such as these to
comply.
F. Monitoring
Three commenters submitted that it is inappropriate to use the
catalyst bed outlet temperature as a continuous compliance operating
parameter because the temperature rise across the bed is a function of
the total VOC loading to the oxidizer. One of the commenters noted that
the preamble discussion of monitoring requirements for catalytic
incinerators (65 FR 44619) stated that the facility must establish
operating parameters as the minimum gas temperatures both upstream and
downstream of the catalyst bed; the appropriate section of the proposed
Coil NESHAP (Sec. 63.5160(d)(3)) stated that the operating parameter
for a catalytic oxidizer is limited to the minimum gas temperature at
the inlet to the catalyst bed.
Our intent was to include in Sec. 63.5160(d)(3) of the proposed
rule that both the outlet temperature and the inlet temperature be used
as the operating parameters for catalytic oxidizers, in order to
calculate the temperature change across the catalyst bed. This
temperature change is indicative of catalyst activity. The final rule
has been corrected to agree with the proposal preamble discussion and
to clarify the original intent. Also, an alternative to this monitoring
has been added to the rule. In lieu of monitoring the inlet and outlet
gas temperatures to calculate temperature change across the catalyst
bed, facilities may meet a minimum gas temperature at the inlet to the
catalyst bed established during the performance test and develop and
implement an inspection and maintenance plan for the catalytic
oxidizer.
One commenter noted that there are no specifications for monitoring
system accuracy, calibration frequency, etc. in Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) of
the rule for capture systems. The commenter submitted that the standard
should spell out what monitoring should be done, how to set the
operating parameters (including appropriate averaging time) and specify
reporting for various capture system options as it does for control
equipment options.
At the time of proposal of this NESHAP, we had not developed
criteria for the monitoring of capture systems and proposed some
minimum criteria for facilities to follow to develop monitoring plans
for their site-specific conditions. After proposal of this NESHAP, we
developed criteria to be used for setting operating parameter limits
for monitoring capture systems. These criteria will be included in
implementation materials we are developing for the final metal coil
surface coating rule as an example that facilities may follow in
developing their monitoring plans.
G. Administrative Requirements
One commenter asserted that EPA's conclusion that the coil coating
MACT proposal was not a significant regulatory action subject to Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866 is
wrong because it is in direct conflict with express CAA provisions
requiring the reduction of ozone precursors such as NOX and
with the avowed policies of the Clinton-Gore Administration to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The commenter asserts, in the terms set forth
in the Executive Order, EPA's 98 percent OCE standard creates a
``serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes'' with actions taken or
planned by EPA, by other agencies, and by the President to reduce ozone
concentrations across the country and to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Additionally, the commenter alleges the 98 percent OCE, at a
minimum, raises ``novel legal or policy issues'' regarding whether EPA
has made the correct choice between HAP emissions and NOX
and carbon dioxide emissions. The commenter estimates that establishing
a 98 percent OCE limit instead of their proposed 95 percent OCE will
cause approximately 230 tpy additional NOX and 279,000 tpy
additional carbon dioxide per year to reduce HAP emissions by an
incremental 590 tpy. Accordingly, the commenter asserts that EPA must
submit the coil coating MACT standard to OMB review under the terms of
the Executive Order.
We do not agree that the coil coating NESHAP is a significant
regulatory action subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866. It
does not meet any of the criteria for such a classification, including
the ``novel legal or policy issues'' criterion. The EPA's estimates for
NOX and CO2 emissions increases resulting from
the standard are significantly lower than the commenter's estimates. We
estimate these increases to be about 3 percent above baseline
emissions, while HAP emissions reductions of 53 percent will be
achieved by this standard. Therefore, the final metal coil NESHAP was
not submitted to OMB for review.
The commenter believes that EPA also incorrectly determined that
the coil coating standard would not significantly impact a substantial
number of small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), requires Federal regulatory agencies to determine
whether a proposed or final regulation will have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. According to ``EPA Interim
Guidance for Implementing the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act and Related Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act''
(EPA, 1997f), current Agency policy is to implement the RFA as written;
that is, ``regulatory flexibility analyses as specified by the RFA will
not be required if the Agency certifies that the rule will not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' However, it remains Agency policy that, even when the
Agency makes a certification of ``no significant impact,'' program
offices should assess the impact of every rule on small entities and
minimize any impact to the extent feasible, regardless of the size of
the impact or the number of small entities affected.
In accordance with SBREFA and Agency guidance, a screening analysis
was conducted for the MACT floor and its projected costs to determine
if the rule imposed a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The Agency also calculated the share of annual
compliance cost relative to baseline sales for each company. This
approach is consistent with
[[Page 39807]]
recommended criteria from EPA's Guidance on Implementing SBREFA and RFA
for evaluating the economic impact of a rule on small entities. These
results do not support a claim of significant impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.
V. What Are the Environmental, Energy, Cost, and Economic Impacts?
As explained below, we do not expect any significant adverse
environmental or energy impacts resulting from the final rule. Any
negative economic impacts are also expected to be small. Actual
compliance costs will depend on each source's existing equipment and
the modifications made to comply with the standard. We have estimated
that the installation of PTE and the installation of, or improvement
to, thermal oxidizers at existing facilities could require nationwide
capital costs of approximately $18.1 million and annual costs of about
$7.6 million. Costs could be much lower if facilities choose to use
low-HAP coatings.
A. What Are the HAP Emissions Reductions?
For existing sources in the metal coil coating industry, the
nationwide baseline HAP emissions are estimated to be 2,258 Mg/yr
(2,484 tpy). We estimate that implementation of the final rule will
reduce emissions from these sources by 1,198 Mg/yr (1,318 tpy), or
approximately 53 percent.
Since the emission limits for new and existing sources are the
same, emission reductions for new sources are expected to be similar to
the 53 percent emission reduction estimated for existing sources.
B. What Are the 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 standards. These impacts are exclusive
of the direct organic HAP air emission reductions discussed in the
previous section.
Most of the organic HAP are VOC. Capture and control of HAP that
are presently emitted will result in a decrease in VOC emissions. In
addition, the emission control systems used to reduce HAP emissions
will reduce non-HAP VOC emissions as well. We do not have information
on non-HAP VOC emissions from metal coil coating operations;
consequently, we cannot quantify the reduction of VOC emissions.
However, the percent reduction should be similar to the percent
reduction in HAP emissions (i.e., about 53 percent). 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 will result
in greater electricity consumption. Increases in emissions of nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, as well as
certain HAP, from electric utilities could result. In the metal coil
coating industry, some plants will comply by installing or upgrading
oxidizers. Supplemental fuel, typically natural gas, will be used,
particularly for thermal oxidizers. Combustion of this fuel will result
in additional carbon dioxide emissions and may result in additional
emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. We estimate that if
increases in these emissions occur, they will be small (about three
percent above baseline).
A small number of facilities using waterborne coatings may install
condenser systems to comply with the standard. This would result in the
generation of wastewater streams that may require treatment to remove
the HAP. It also is expected that some metal coil coating facilities
will comply with the proposed standard by substituting non-HAP
materials for HAP presently in use. In some cases, the non-HAP
materials may be VOC, however, in other cases, non-VOC (e.g., water)
materials 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 occur if waste material and waterborne
wash-up materials are discharged to publicly owned treatment works.
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. What Are the 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).
The total additional electrical energy required to meet the
standard is estimated to be 2.3 million kilowatt-hours per year.
Nationwide incremental natural gas usage is expected to increase by
approximately 170 million standard cubic feet per year.
D. What Are the Cost Impacts?
The total nationwide capital and annualized costs (1997 dollars)
attributable to compliance with the final standards have been estimated
for existing sources. These costs are based on model plant analysis of
the least-cost measure using HAP emission controls needed for
facilities to attain one of the compliance options. For existing
facilities, with the exception of facilities applying waterborne
coatings that do not meet the emission rate limit, the compliance costs
represent the incremental costs associated with upgrading existing HAP
emission controls.
Compliance Costs for New Sources. Since the HAP emission limits for
existing and new sources are the same, the incremental costs required
to replace existing HAP emission controls are an indication of the
incremental costs (above baseline level controls) that will be incurred
by new sources to install and operate the level of HAP emission
controls required to achieve the emission limits. For example, for a
small coating line with one application station enclosed by a PTE and a
thermal oxidizer to control HAP emissions, the incremental capital
costs are estimated to be about $184,000, and the annual costs
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs approximately
$73,000. Similarly, for a large coating line with two application
stations enclosed by PTE and two thermal oxidizers, the incremental
capital costs are estimated to be about $392,000 and the annual costs
around $174,000, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
costs. A coating line applying waterborne coatings is estimated to
incur capital costs of around $1,008,000 and annual costs of
approximately $371,000, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting to install and operate a condenser system to control HAP
emissions.
[[Page 39808]]
The incremental costs incurred for coating lines controlled by
thermal incinerators include retrofit factors, and, thus, for new
sources the incremental costs are probably overstated. Nonetheless, the
estimated costs should not deter the construction of new metal coil
coating lines or the entry of new companies into the industry.
Capital Costs for Existing Sources. Capital costs will be incurred
by installing capture and control systems at those facilities presently
without controls and upgrading capture and control systems at existing
facilities that do not meet the final standard. Additionally, the
purchase of monitoring equipment may be needed as a capital investment
to meet the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of
the NESHAP. Total nationwide capital costs are estimated at $18.1
million, based on the use of PTE, thermal oxidizers, solvent recovery
systems, and monitoring equipment. The total nationwide capital costs
with other methods of control are expected to be lower.
Annual Costs at Existing Sources. Total nationwide annual costs of
the final standard have been estimated at approximately $7.6 million
per year with the use of PTE and new or upgraded thermal oxidizers or
solvent recovery systems. These costs include capital recovery over a
15-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. The total
nationwide annual costs with methods of control other than thermal
oxidizers are expected to be lower.
E. What Are the Economic Impacts
The Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) (included in the background
information document (BID), EPA 453/P-00-001) shows that the expected
price increase for coated metal coils would be approximately 0.2
percent as a result of the proposed standards. Therefore, no adverse
impact is expected to occur for those industries that consume coated
metal coils such as building and construction, appliances, automotive
parts, and other consumer products.
The distribution of costs across metal coil coating facilities is
slanted toward the lower impact levels with many facilities incurring
no costs or only those related to initial performance testing and
annually recurring monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The EIA
indicates that these regulatory costs are expected to represent less
than 1 percent of the value of coating services, which should not cause
producers to cease or alter their current operations. Hence, no firms
or facilities are at risk of closure because of the proposed standards.
For more information, consult the docket for this project.
IV. What Are the Administrative Requirements?
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to review by 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 obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
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 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 rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this rule, the EPA did consult with State and local officials to enable
them to provide timely input in the development of this rule.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal
governments own or operate metal coil coating operations. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.
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
[[Page 39809]]
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. Today's rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance
and not on health or safety risks and because it is not ``economically
significant.''
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 to 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 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 rule does not impose any enforceable duties
on State, local, or tribal governments, i.e., they own or operate no
sources subject to this rule and, therefore, are not required to
purchase control systems to meet the requirements of this rule.
Regarding the private sector, EPA believes the rule will affect
approximately 90 existing facilities nationwide. The EPA projects that
annual economic effects will be $7.6 million. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with States to
enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of this rule.
In addition, the EPA has determined that this 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
rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (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 rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business according to
Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards by NAICS code of the
owning entity (in this case, ranging from 100-1,000 employees; see
table below); (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.
In accordance with the RFA and SBREFA, EPA conducted an assessment
of the standard on small businesses within the metal coil coating
industry. Based on SBA size definitions and reported sales and
employment data, EPA identified 19 of the 49 companies owning metal
coil coating facilities as small businesses. Although small businesses
represent almost 39 percent of the companies within the source
category, they are expected to incur only 8.5 percent of the total
industry compliance costs of approximately $6.0 million. The average
annual compliance cost share of sales for small businesses is less than
0.2 percent with 7 of the 19 small businesses not expected to incur any
additional costs because they are permitted as synthetic minor HAP
emission sources. After considering the economic impacts of today's
rule on small entities, we determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless tried to limit its
impact on small entities. For example, the requirements of the rule
only apply to major sources as defined in 40 CFR part 63 and a title V
or part 70 permit application can be used in lieu of an initial
notification under certain conditions. Also, during the background
information development phase of the rulemaking, numerous stakeholder
meetings were held at which input was solicited from small entities.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq. An ICR document has been prepared by EPA (ICR No.
1957.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at the
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email 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.
[[Page 39810]]
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 public burden of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
this collection is estimated to average 281 hours per year per coil
coating facility for each year after the date of promulgation of the
rule including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting costs also include the startup costs associated with initial
performance tests and associated notifications and reports required to
demonstrate initial compliance; emission rate limit monthly compliance
determinations; semiannual reports when someone does not follow a plan
for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions; quarterly and semiannual
reports on excess emissions; maintenance inspections; notices; and
recordkeeping. The total annualized costs associated with monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting have been estimated at $784,179 which
include the estimated annualized capital costs of $232,076.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the 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. EPA, 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 June 10, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by June 10, 2002.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB,
with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following standards in this rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,
2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 24, 25, 25A, 204, 204A-F, and 311. Consistent with
the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus
standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G,
204, 204A through 204F, and 311. The search and review results have
been documented and are placed in the docket (docket No. A-97-47) for
this rule.
The three voluntary consensus standards described below were
identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the
purposes of this rule.
The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10,
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in this rule for its manual
method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide
content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10 is an
acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
The two voluntary consensus standards, ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved
1998) ``Standard Test Method for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or
Pigmented Coatings'' and ASTM D6093-97 ``Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer,'' are cited in this rule as acceptable
alternatives to EPA Method 24 to determine the volume solids content of
coatings. Currently, EPA Method 24 does not have a procedure for
determining the volume of solids in coatings. These standards augment
the procedures in Method 24, which currently states that volume solids
content be calculated from the coating manufacturer's formulation.
Six voluntary 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. Five
voluntary consensus standards: ASTM D1979-91, ASTM D3432-89, ASTM
D4747-87, ASTM D4827-93, and ASTM PS9-94 are incorporated by reference
in EPA Method 311.
In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA proposes to
use in this rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures
identified 11 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined
that nine of these 11 standards identified for measuring emissions of
the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in this rule were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this
rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this
purpose. The reasons for this determination for the nine methods are
discussed below.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D3154-00, ``Standard Method
for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),'' is impractical as
an alternative to EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, and 4 for the purposes
of this rulemaking since the standard appears to lack in quality
control and quality assurance requirements. Specifically, ASTM D3154-00
does not include the
[[Page 39811]]
following: (1) Proof that openings of standard pitot tube have not been
plugged during the test; (2) if differential pressure gauges other than
inclined manometers (e.g., magnehelic gauges) are used, their
calibration must be checked after each test series; and (3) the
frequency and validity range for calibration of the temperature
sensors.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D3464-96 (2001), ``Standard
Test Method Average Velocity in a Duct Using a Thermal Anemometer,'' is
impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 for the purposes of this
rulemaking primarily because applicability specifications are not
clearly defined, e.g., range of gas composition, temperature limits.
Also, the lack of supporting quality assurance data for the calibration
procedures and specifications, and certain variability issues that are
not adequately addressed by the standard limit EPA's ability to make a
definitive comparison of the method in these areas.
The voluntary consensus standard ISO 10780:1994, ``Stationary
Source Emissions-Measurement of Velocity and Volume Flowrate of Gas
Streams in Ducts,'' is impractical as an alternative to EPA Method 2 in
this rulemaking. The standard recommends the use of an L-shaped pitot,
which historically has not been recommended by EPA. The EPA specifies
the S-type design which has large openings that are less likely to plug
up with dust.
Two voluntary consensus standards, EN 12619:1999 ``Stationary
Source Emissions-Determination of the Mass Concentration of Total
Gaseous Organic Carbon at Low Concentrations in Flue Gases--Continuous
Flame Ionization Detector Method'' and ISO 14965: 2000(E) ``Air
Quality-Determination of Total Nonmethane Organic Compounds-Cryogenic
Preconcentration and Direct Flame Ionization Method,'' are impractical
alternatives to EPA Method 25 and 25A for the purposes of this
rulemaking because the standards do not apply to solvent process vapors
in concentrations greater than 40 ppm (EN 12619) and 10 ppm carbon (ISO
14965). Methods whose upper limits are this low are too limited to be
useful in measuring source emissions, which are expected to be much
higher.
The voluntary consensus standard, CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1986),
``Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide,
Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed
Combustion Flue Gas Streams,'' is unacceptable as a substitute for EPA
Method 3A since it does not include quantitative specifications for
measurement system performance, most notably the calibration procedures
and instrument performance characteristics. The instrument performance
characteristics that are provided are nonmandatory and also do not
provide the same level of quality assurance as the EPA methods. For
example, the zero and span/calibration drift is only checked weekly,
whereas the EPA methods requires drift checks after each run.
Two very similar standards, ASTM D5835-95, ``Standard Practice for
Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas
Concentration,'' and ISO 10396:1993, ``Stationary Source Emissions:
Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations,'' are
impractical alternatives to EPA Method 3A for the purposes of this
rulemaking because they lack in detail and quality assurance/quality
control requirements. Specifically, these two standards do not include
the following: (1) Sensitivity of the method; (2) acceptable levels of
analyzer calibration error; (3) acceptable levels of sampling system
bias; (4) zero drift and calibration drift limits, time span, and
required testing frequency; (5) a method to test the interference
response of the analyzer; (6) procedures to determine the minimum
sampling time per run and minimum measurement time; and (7)
specifications for data recorders, in terms of resolution (all types)
and recording intervals (digital and analog recorders, only).
The voluntary consensus standard ISO 12039:2001, ``Stationary
Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and
Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' is not acceptable as an alternative to EPA
Method 3A. This ISO standard is similar to EPA Method 3A, but is
missing some key features. In terms of sampling, the hardware required
by ISO 12039:2001 does not include a 3-way calibration valve assembly
or equivalent to block the sample gas flow while calibration gases are
introduced. In its calibration procedures, ISO 12039:2001 only
specifies a two-point calibration while EPA Method 3A specifies a
three-point calibration. Also, ISO 12039:2001 does not specify
performance criteria for calibration error, calibration drift, or
sampling system bias tests as in the EPA method, although checks of
these quality control features are required by the ISO standard.
Two of the 11 voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the
purposes of this rule because they are under development by a voluntary
consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by Velocity
Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); and ASME/BSR MFC 12M,
``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary
Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2.
Section 63.5160 to subpart SSSS of this standard list the EPA
testing methods included in the regulation. Under Sec. 63.7(f) of
Subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for
permission to use alternative test methods in place of any of the EPA
testing methods.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq. as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 15, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63
of the Code of Federal Regulations is 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. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text and adding new paragraphs (b)(24) and (25) and (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(b) The following materials are available for purchase from at
least one of the following addresses: American
[[Page 39812]]
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post
Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or ProQuest, 300
North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
* * * * *
(24) ASTM D2697-86(1998) (Reapproved 1998), Standard Test Method
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR
approved for Sec. 63.5160(c).
(25) ASTM D6093-97, Standard Test Method for Percent Volume
Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium Gas
Pycnometer, IBR approved for Sec. 63.5160(c).
* * * * *
(j) The following material is available for purchase from at least
one of the following addresses: ASME International, Orders/Inquiries,
P.O. Box 2300, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2300; or Global Engineering
Documents, Sales Department, 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO
80112: ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses, IBR
approved for Sec. 63.5160(d)(1)(iii).
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart SSSS to read as follows:
Subpart SSSS--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Surface Coating of Metal Coil
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.5080 What is in this subpart?
63.5090 Does this subpart apply to me?
63.5100 Which of my emissions sources are affected by this subpart?
63.5110 What special definitions are used in this subpart?
Emission Standards and Compliance Dates
63.5120 What emission standards must I meet?
63.5121 What operating limits must I meet?
63.5130 When must I comply?
General Requirements for Compliance with the Emission Standards and for
Monitoring and Performance Tests
63.5140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the
standards?
63.5150 If I use a control device to comply with the emission
standards, what monitoring must I do?
63.5160 What performance tests must I complete?
Requirements for Showing Compliance
63.5170 How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards?
Reporting and Recordkeeping
63.5180 What reports must I submit?
63.5190 What records must I maintain?
Delegation of Authority
63.5200 What authorities may be delegated to the States?
63.5201-63.5209 [Reserved]
Tables to Subpart SSSS of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63. Operating Limits if Using Add-on
Control Devices and Capture System
Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63. Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart SSSS
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.5080 What is in this subpart?
This subpart describes the actions you must take to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) if you own or operate a
facility that performs metal coil surface coating operations and is a
major source of HAP. This subpart establishes emission standards and
states what you must do to comply. Certain requirements apply to all
who must comply with the subpart; others depend on the means you use to
comply with an emission standard.
Sec. 63.5090 Does this subpart apply to me?
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each facility that is a
major source of HAP, as defined in Sec. 63.2, at which a coil coating
line is operated, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) This subpart does not apply to any coil coating line that meets
the criteria of paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) A coil coating line that is part of research or laboratory
equipment.
(2) A coil coating line on which at least 85 percent of the metal
coil coated, based on surface area, is less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006
inch) thick, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) If you operate a coating line subject to subpart JJJJ of this
part that also meets the criteria in either paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of
this section, and you choose to comply with the requirements of this
subpart, then such compliance constitutes compliance with subpart JJJJ.
The coating line for which you choose this option is, therefore,
included in the affected source for this subpart as defined in
Sec. 63.5110 and shall not be included in the affected source for
subpart JJJJ as defined in Sec. 63.3300.
(1) The coating line is used to coat metal coil of thicknesses both
less than and greater than or equal to 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch)
thick, regardless of the percentage of surface area of each thickness
coated.
(2) The coating line is used to coat only metal coil that is less
than 0.15 millimeter (0.006 inch) thick and the coating line is
controlled by a common control device that also receives organic HAP
emissions from a coil coating line that is subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
(d) Each coil coating line that does not comply with the provisions
of this subpart because it meets the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, that for any rolling 12-month period fails to meet the
criteria in paragraph (b)(2) would from that point forward become
subject to the provisions of this subpart. After becoming subject to
the provisions of this subpart, the coil coating line would no longer
be eligible to use the criteria of paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
even if in subsequent 12-month periods at least 85 percent of the metal
coil coated, based on surface area, is less than 0.15 millimeter (0.006
inch) thick.
Sec. 63.5100 Which of my emissions sources are affected by this
subpart?
The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of
all of the coil coating lines at your facility.
Sec. 63.5110 What special definitions are used in this subpart?
All terms used in this subpart that are not defined in this section
have the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act (CAA) and in
subpart A of this part.
Always-controlled work station means a work station associated with
a curing oven from which the curing oven exhaust is delivered to a
control device with no provision for the oven exhaust to bypass the
control device. Sampling lines for analyzers and relief valves needed
for safety purposes are not considered bypass lines.
Capture efficiency means the fraction of all organic HAP emissions
generated by a process that is delivered to a control device, expressed
as a percentage.
Capture system means a hood, enclosed room, or other means of
collecting organic HAP emissions and conveying them 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 means material applied onto or impregnated into a substrate
for decorative, protective, or functional purposes. Such materials
include, but are not limited to, paints, varnishes, sealants, inks,
adhesives, maskants, and temporary coatings. Decorative, protective, or
functional materials that consist only of solvents, protective oils,
acids, bases, or any combination of these substances are not considered
coatings for the purposes of this subpart.
Coating material means the coating and other products (e.g., a
catalyst and resin in multi-component coatings) combined to make a
single material at
[[Page 39813]]
the coating facility that is applied to metal coil. For the purposes of
this subpart, an organic solvent that is used to thin a coating prior
to application to the metal coil is considered a coating material.
Coil coating line means a process and the collection of equipment
used to apply an organic coating to the surface of metal coil. A coil
coating line includes a web unwind or feed section, a series of one or
more work stations, any associated curing oven, wet section, and quench
station. A coil coating line does not include ancillary operations such
as mixing/thinning, cleaning, wastewater treatment, and storage of
coating material.
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.
Curing oven means the device that uses heat or radiation to dry or
cure the coating material applied to the metal coil.
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.
Existing affected source means an affected source the construction
of which commenced on or before July 18, 2000, and it has not
subsequently undergone reconstruction as defined in Sec. 63.2.
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.
Flexible packaging means any package or part of a package the shape
of which can be readily changed. Flexible packaging includes but is not
limited to bags, pouches, labels, liners and wraps utilizing paper,
plastic, film, aluminum foil, metalized or coated paper or film, or any
combination of these materials.
HAP applied means the organic HAP content of all coating materials
applied to a substrate by a coil coating line.
Intermittently-controllable work station means a work station
associated with a curing oven with provisions for the curing oven
exhaust to be delivered to a control device or diverted from a control
device through a bypass line, 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.
Metal coil means a continuous metal strip that is at least 0.15
millimeter (0.006 inch) thick, which is packaged in a roll or coil
prior to coating. After coating, it may or may not be rewound into a
roll or coil. Metal coil does not include metal webs that are coated
for use in flexible packaging.
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 curing oven, may be delivered to a control
device.
New affected source means an affected source the construction or
reconstruction of which commenced after July 18, 2000.
Overall organic HAP control efficiency means the total efficiency
of a control system, determined either by:
(1) The product of the capture efficiency as determined in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.5160(e) and the control
device efficiency as determined in accordance with the requirements of
Sec. 63.5160(a)(1)(i) and (ii) or Sec. 63.5160(d); or
(2) A liquid-liquid material balance in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.5170(e)(1).
Permanent total enclosure (PTE) means a permanently installed
enclosure that meets the criteria of Method 204 of appendix M, 40 CFR
part 51 for a PTE, and that directs all the exhaust gases from the
enclosure to a control device.
Protective oil means an organic material that is applied to metal
for the purpose of providing lubrication or protection from corrosion
without forming a solid film. This definition of protective oil
includes but is not limited to lubricating oils, evaporative oils
(including those that evaporate completely), and extrusion oils.
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.
Temporary total enclosure (TTE) means an enclosure constructed for
the purpose of measuring the capture efficiency of pollutants emitted
from a given source, as defined in Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51,
appendix M.
Work station means a unit on a coil coating line where coating
material is deposited onto the metal coil substrate.
Emission Standards and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.5120 What emission standards must I meet?
(a) Each coil coating affected source must limit organic HAP
emissions to the level specified in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of
this section:
(1) No more than 2 percent of the organic HAP applied for each
month during each 12-month compliance period (98 percent reduction); or
(2) No more than 0.046 kilogram (kg) of organic HAP per liter of
solids applied during each 12-month compliance period; or
(3) If you use an oxidizer to control organic HAP emissions,
operate the oxidizer such that an outlet organic HAP concentration of
no greater than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) on a dry basis is
achieved and the efficiency of the capture system is 100 percent.
(b) You must demonstrate compliance with one of these standards by
following the applicable procedures in Sec. 63.5170.
Sec. 63.5121 What operating limits must I meet?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for any
coil coating line for which you use an add-on control device, unless
you use a solvent recovery system and conduct a liquid-liquid material
balance according to Sec. 63.5170(e)(1), you must meet the applicable
operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart. You must
establish the operating limits during the
[[Page 39814]]
performance test according to the requirements in Sec. 63.5160(d)(3).
You must meet the operating limits at all times after you establish
them.
(b) If you use an add-on control device other than those listed in
Table 1 to this subpart, or wish to monitor an alternative parameter
and comply with a different operating limit, you must apply to the
Administrator for approval of alternative monitoring under
Sec. 63.8(f).
Sec. 63.5130 When must I comply?
(a) For an existing affected source, the compliance date is 3 years
after June 10, 2002.
(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 by June 10, 2002, whichever is later.
(c) Affected sources which have undergone reconstruction are
subject to the requirements for new affected sources.
(d) The initial compliance period begins on the applicable
compliance date specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and
ends on the last day of the 12th month following the compliance date.
If the compliance date falls on any day other than the first day of a
month, then the initial compliance period extends through that month
plus the next 12 months.
(e) For the purpose of demonstrating continuous compliance, a
compliance period consists of 12 months. Each month after the end of
the initial compliance period described in paragraph (d) of this
section is the end of a compliance period consisting of that month and
the preceding 11 months.
General Requirements for Compliance with the Emission Standards and for
Monitoring and Performance Tests
Sec. 63.5140 What general requirements must I meet to comply with the
standards?
(a) You must be in compliance with the standards in this subpart at
all times, except during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction
of any capture system and control device used to comply with this
subpart. If you are complying with the emission standards of this
subpart without the use of a capture system and control device, you
must be in compliance with the standards at all times, including
periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) Table 2 of this subpart provides cross references to subpart A
of this part, indicating the applicability of the General Provisions
requirements to this subpart.
Sec. 63.5150 If I use a control device to comply with the emission
standards, what monitoring must I do?
Table 1 to Sec. 63.5150.--Control Device Monitoring Requirements Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a coil coating line
and have the following: Then you must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Control device................. Monitor control device operating
parameters (Sec. 63.5150(a)(3)).
2. Capture system................. Monitor capture system operating
parameters (Sec. 63.5150(a)(4)).
3. Intermittently controllable Monitor parameters related to
work station. possible exhaust flow through any
bypass to a control device (Sec.
63.5150(a)(1)).
4. Continuous emission monitors... Operate continuous emission monitors
and perform a quarterly audit (Sec.
63.5150(a)(2)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) To demonstrate continuing compliance with the standards, you
must monitor and inspect each capture system and each control device
required to comply with Sec. 63.5120 following the date on which the
initial performance test of the capture system and control device is
completed. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Bypass monitoring. If you operate coil coating lines with
intermittently-controllable work stations, you must follow at least one
of the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section
for each curing oven associated with these work stations to monitor for
potential bypass of the control device:
(i) 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 curing oven is directed to the control
device or is 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. The 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.
(ii) 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 when the control device is in operation; a visual
inspection of the seal or closure mechanism will 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) Automatic shutdown system. Use an automatic shutdown system in
which the coil 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 shutdown system must be inspected at least
once every month to verify that it will detect diversions of flow and
shut down operations.
(2) Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). If you are
demonstrating continuous compliance with the standards in
Sec. 63.5120(a)(1) or (2) through continuous emission monitoring of a
control device, you must install, calibrate, operate, and maintain
continuous emission monitors to measure the total organic volatile
matter concentration at both the control device inlet and outlet, and
you must continuously monitor flow rate. If you are demonstrating
continuous compliance with the outlet organic HAP concentration limit
in Sec. 63.5120(a)(3), you must install, calibrate, operate, and
maintain a continuous emission monitor to measure the total organic
volatile matter concentration at the control device outlet.
(i) All CEMS must comply with performance specification 8 or 9 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as appropriate for the detection principle
you choose.
[[Page 39815]]
The requirements of 40 CFR part 60, procedure 1, appendix F 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.
(ii) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS and each flow
rate monitor must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation
(sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute
period. Information which must be determined for recordkeeping
purposes, as required by Sec. 63.5190(a)(1)(i) includes:
(A) The hourly average of all recorded readings;
(B) The daily average of all recorded readings for each operating
day; and
(C) The monthly average for each month during the semiannual
reporting period.
(3) Temperature monitoring of oxidizers. If you are complying with
the requirements of the standards in Sec. 63.5120 through the use of an
oxidizer and demonstrating continuous compliance through monitoring of
an oxidizer operating parameter, you must comply with paragraphs
(a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate temperature
monitoring equipment according to manufacturer's specifications. The
calibration of the chart recorder, data logger, or temperature
indicator must be verified every 3 months; or the chart recorder, data
logger, or temperature indicator must be replaced. You must replace the
equipment either if you choose not to perform the calibration, or if
the equipment cannot be calibrated properly. Each temperature
monitoring device must be equipped with a continuous recorder. The
device must have an accuracy of 1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in degrees Celsius, or 1 deg.
Celsius, whichever is greater.
(ii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit established
according to Sec. 63.5160(d)(3)(i), you must install the thermocouple
or temperature sensor in the combustion chamber at a location in the
combustion zone.
(iii) For a catalytic oxidizer, if you are demonstrating continuous
compliance with the operating limit established according to
Sec. 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), then you must install the
thermocouples or temperature sensors in the vent stream at the nearest
feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed. Calculate
the temperature difference across the catalyst. If you are
demonstrating continuous compliance with the operating limit
established according to Sec. 63.5160(d)(3)(ii)(C) and (D), then you
must install the thermocouple or temperature sensor in the vent stream
at the nearest feasible point to the inlet of the catalyst bed.
(4) Capture system monitoring. If you are complying with the
requirements of the standards in Sec. 63.5120 through the use of a
capture system and control device, you must develop a capture system
monitoring plan containing the information specified in paragraphs
(a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section. You must monitor the capture system
in accordance with paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section. You must make
the monitoring plan available for inspection by the permitting
authority upon request.
(i) The monitoring plan must identify the operating parameter to be
monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency measured during the
initial compliance test is maintained, explain why this parameter is
appropriate for demonstrating ongoing compliance, and identify the
specific monitoring procedures.
(ii) The plan also must specify operating limits at the capture
system operating parameter value, or range of values, that demonstrates
compliance with the standards in Sec. 63.5120. The operating limits
must represent the conditions indicative of proper operation and
maintenance of the capture system.
(iii) You must conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan.
(b) Any deviation from the required operating parameters which are
monitored in accordance with paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section,
unless otherwise excused, will be considered a deviation from the
operating limit.
Sec. 63.5160 What performance tests must I complete?
Table 1 to Sec. 63.5160.--Required Performance Testing Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you control HAP on your coil coating
line by: You must:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Limiting HAP or Volatile matter Determine the HAP or volatile
content of coatings. matter and solids content of
coating materials according to
the procedures in Sec.
63.5160(b) and (c).
2. Using a capture system and add-on Conduct a performance test for
control device. each capture and control
system to determine: (1) the
destruction or removal
efficiency of each control
device according to Sec.
63.5160(d), and (2) the
capture efficiency of each
capture system according to
Sec. 63.5160(e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) If you use a control device to comply with the requirements of
Sec. 63.5120, you are not required to conduct a performance test to
demonstrate compliance if one or more of the criteria in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (3) of this section are met:
(1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission
monitors for determining total organic volatile matter concentration,
and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance with the
requirements of this subpart; and the continuous emission monitors are
used to demonstrate continuous compliance in accordance with
Sec. 63.5150(a)(2); or
(2) You have received a waiver of performance testing under
Sec. 63.7(h); or
(3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you choose
to comply by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
(b) Organic HAP content. You must determine the organic HAP weight
fraction of each coating material applied by following one of the
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section:
(1) Method 311. You may test the material in accordance with Method
311 of appendix A of this part. The Method 311 determination may be
performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided
to you. The organic HAP content must be calculated according to the
criteria and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Count only those organic HAP that are measured to be present at
greater than or equal to 0.1 weight percent for Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) and greater than or equal to 1.0 weight percent for
other organic HAP compounds.
[[Page 39816]]
(ii) Express the weight fraction of each organic HAP you count
according to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section as a value truncated
to four places after the decimal point (for example, 0.3791).
(iii) Calculate the total weight fraction of organic HAP in the
tested material by summing the counted individual organic HAP weight
fractions and truncating the result to three places after the decimal
point (for example, 0.763).
(2) Method 24. For coatings, you may determine the total volatile
matter content as weight fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use
it as a substitute for organic HAP, using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. The Method 24 determination may be performed by the
manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you.
(3) Alternative method. You may use an alternative test method for
determining the organic HAP weight fraction once the Administrator has
approved it. You must follow the procedure in Sec. 63.7(f) to submit an
alternative test method for approval.
(4) Formulation data. You may use formulation data provided that
the information represents each organic HAP present at a level equal to
or greater than 0.1 percent for OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified
in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) and equal to or greater than 1.0 percent for
other organic HAP compounds in any raw material used, weighted by the
mass fraction of each raw material used in the material. Formulation
data may be provided to you by the manufacturer of the coating
material. In the event of any inconsistency between test data obtained
with the test methods specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section and formulation data, the test data will govern.
(c) Solids content. You must determine the solids content of each
coating material applied. You may determine the volume solids content
using ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998) or ASTM D6093-97 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14), or an EPA approved alternative method. The
ASTM D2697-86 (Reapproved 1998) or ASTM D6093-97 determination may be
performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results provided
to you. Alternatively, you may rely on formulation data provided by
material providers to determine the volume solids.
(d) Control device destruction or removal efficiency. If you are
using an add-on control device, such as an oxidizer, to comply with the
standard in Sec. 63.5120, you must conduct a performance test to
establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device
or the outlet HAP concentration achieved by the oxidizer, according to
the methods and procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this
section. During the performance test, you must establish the operating
limits required by Sec. 63.5121 according to paragraph (d)(3) of this
section.
(1) An initial performance test to establish the destruction or
removal efficiency of the control device must be conducted such that
control device inlet and outlet testing is conducted simultaneously. To
establish the outlet organic HAP concentration achieved by the
oxidizer, only oxidizer outlet testing must be conducted. The data must
be reduced in accordance with the test methods and procedures in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (ix).
(i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is 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,
is used to determine gas volumetric flow rate.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, used for
gas analysis to determine dry molecular weight. You may also use as an
alternative to Method 3B, the manual method for measuring the oxygen,
carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas, ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(iv) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to determine
stack gas moisture.
(v) Methods for determining gas volumetric flow rate, dry molecular
weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as applicable, during
each test run, as specified in paragraph (d)(1)(vii) of this section.
(vi) Method 25 or 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is used to
determine total gaseous non-methane organic matter concentration. Use
the same test method for both the inlet and outlet measurements, which
must be conducted simultaneously. You must submit notification of the
intended test method to the Administrator for approval along with
notification of the performance test required under Sec. 63.7 (b). You
must use Method 25A if any of the conditions described in paragraphs
(d)(1)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section apply to the control device.
(A) The control device is not an oxidizer.
(B) The control device is an oxidizer, but an exhaust gas volatile
organic matter concentration of 50 ppmv or less is required to comply
with the standards in Sec. 63.5120; or
(C) The control device is an oxidizer, but the volatile organic
matter concentration at the inlet to the control system and the
required level of control are such that they result in exhaust gas
volatile organic matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less; or
(D) The control device is an oxidizer, but because of the high
efficiency of the control device, the anticipated volatile organic
matter concentration at the control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less,
regardless of inlet concentration.
(vii) Each performance test must consist of three separate runs,
except as provided by Sec. 63.7(e)(3); each run must be 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 matter concentrations and mass flow
rates, the average of the results of all runs will apply. If you are
demonstrating initial compliance with the outlet organic HAP
concentration limit in Sec. 63.5120(a)(3), only the average outlet
volatile organic matter concentration must be determined.
(viii) If you are determining the control device destruction or
removal efficiency, for each run, determine the volatile organic matter
mass flow rates using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.000
Where:
Mf=total organic volatile matter mass flow rate, kg/per
hour (h).
Cc=concentration of organic compounds as carbon in the
vent gas, as determined by Method 25 or Method 25A, ppmv, dry basis.
Qsd=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 (dscm)/h.
0.0416=conversion factor for molar volume, kg-moles per cubic meter
(mol/m\3\) (@ 293 Kelvin (K) and 760 millimeters of mercury (mmHg)).
(ix) For each run, determine the control device destruction or
removal efficiency, DRE, using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.001
Where:
DRE=organic emissions destruction or removal efficiency of the add-
on control device, percent.
Mfi=organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the inlet
to the control device, kg/h.
Mfo=organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the outlet
of the control device, kg/h.
(x) The control device destruction or removal efficiency is
determined as the
[[Page 39817]]
average of the efficiencies determined in the three test runs and
calculated in Equation 2 of this section.
(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) Operating limits. If you are using a capture system and add-on
control device other than a solvent recovery system for which you
conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to comply with the
requirements in Sec. 63.5120, you must establish the applicable
operating limits required by Sec. 63.5121. These operating limits apply
to each capture system and to each add-on emission control device that
is not monitored by CEMS, and you must establish the operating limits
during the performance test required by paragraph (d) of this section
according to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of
this section.
(i) Thermal oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a thermal
oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs
(d)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
combustion temperature at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs. You must monitor the temperature in the firebox of
the thermal oxidizer or immediately downstream of the firebox before
any substantial heat exchange occurs.
(B) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate
and record the average combustion temperature maintained during the
performance test. This average combustion temperature is the minimum
operating limit for your thermal oxidizer.
(ii) Catalytic oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a
catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to either
paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) or paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(C) and (D) of
this section.
(A) During the performance test, you must monitor and record the
temperature just before the catalyst bed and the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed at least once every 15 minutes during each of
the three test runs.
(B) Use the data collected during the performance test to calculate
and record the average temperature just before the catalyst bed and the
average temperature difference across the catalyst bed maintained
during the performance test. These are the minimum operating limits for
your catalytic oxidizer.
(C) As an alternative to monitoring the temperature difference
across the catalyst bed, you may monitor the temperature at the inlet
to the catalyst bed and implement a site-specific inspection and
maintenance plan for your catalytic oxidizer as specified in paragraph
(d)(3)(ii)(D) of this section. During the performance test, you must
monitor and record the temperature just before the catalyst bed at
least once every 15 minutes during each of the three test runs. Use the
data collected during the performance test to calculate and record the
average temperature just before the catalyst bed during the performance
test. This is the minimum operating limit for your catalytic oxidizer.
(D) You must develop and implement an inspection and maintenance
plan for your catalytic oxidizer(s) for which you elect to monitor
according to paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(C) of this section. The plan must
address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs
(d)(3)(ii)(D)(1 (3) of this section.
(1) Annual sampling and analysis of the catalyst activity (i.e.,
conversion efficiency) following the manufacturer's or catalyst
supplier's recommended procedures.
(2) Monthly inspection of the oxidizer system including the burner
assembly and fuel supply lines for problems and,
(3) Annual internal and monthly external visual inspection of the
catalyst bed to check for channeling, abrasion, and settling. If
problems are found, you must take corrective action consistent with the
manufacturer's recommendations and conduct a new performance test to
determine destruction efficiency according to Sec. 63.5160.
(iii) Other types of control devices. If you use a control device
other than an oxidizer or a solvent recovery system for which you
choose to comply by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance,
or wish to monitor an alternative parameter and comply with a different
operating limit, you must apply to the Administrator for approval of
alternative monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f).
(e) Capture efficiency. If you are required to determine capture
efficiency to meet the requirements of Sec. 63.5170(e)(2), (f)(1)
through (2), (h)(2) through (4), or (i)(2) through (3), you must
determine capture efficiency using the procedures in paragraph (e)(1),
(2), or (3) of this section, as applicable.
(1) For an enclosure that meets the criteria for a PTE, you may
assume it achieves 100 percent capture efficiency. You must confirm
that your capture system is a PTE by demonstrating that it meets the
requirements of section 6 of EPA Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, appendix
M (or an EPA approved alternative method), 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 with temporary total enclosures that are
specified in Method 204A through F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M. You
may exclude never-controlled work stations from such capture efficiency
determinations.
(3) As an alternative to the procedures specified in paragraphs
(e)(1) and (2) of this section, if you are required to conduct a
capture efficiency test, 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 to subpart KK of this part. You may exclude never-controlled
work stations from such capture efficiency determinations.
Requirements for Showing Compliance
Sec. 63.5170 How do I demonstrate compliance with the standards?
You must include all coating materials (as defined in Sec. 63.5110)
used in the affected source when determining compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.5120. To make this determination,
you must use at least one of the four compliance options listed in
Table 1 of this section. You may apply any of the compliance options to
an individual coil coating line, or to multiple lines as a group, or to
the entire affected source. You may use different compliance options
for different coil coating lines, or at different times on the same
line. However, you may not use different compliance options at the same
time on the same coil coating line. If you switch between compliance
options for any coil coating line or group of lines, you must document
this switch as required by Sec. 63.5190(a), and you must report it in
the next semiannual compliance report required in Sec. 63.5180.
[[Page 39818]]
Table 1 to Sec. 63.5170.--Compliance Demonstration Requirements Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you choose to demonstrate
compliance by: Then you must demonstrate that:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Use of ``as purchased'' a. Each coating material used during
compliant coatings. the 12-month compliance period does
not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter
solids, as purchased. Paragraph (a)
of this section.
2. Use of ``as applied'' compliant a. Each coating material used does
coatings. not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per liter
solids on a rolling 12-month
average as applied basis,
determined monthly. Paragraphs
(b)(1) of this section; or
b. Average of all coating materials
used does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP
per liter solids on a rolling 12-
month average as applied basis,
determined monthly. Paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
3. Use of a capture system and Overall organic HAP control
control device. efficiency is at least 98 percent
on a monthly basis for individual
or groups of coil coating lines; or
overall organic HAP control
efficiency is at least 98 percent
during initial performance test and
operating limits are achieved
continuously for individual coil
coating lines; or oxidizer outlet
HAP concentration is no greater
than 20 ppmv and there is 100
percent capture efficiency during
initial performance test and
operating limits are achieved
continuously for individual coil
coating lines. Paragraph (c) of
this section.
4. Use of a combination of Average equivalent emission rate
compliant coatings and control does not exceed 0.046 kg HAP per
devices and maintaining an liter solids on a rolling 12-month
acceptable equivalent emission average as applied basis,
rate. determined monthly. Paragraph (d)
of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) As-purchased compliant coatings. If you elect to use coatings
that individually meet the organic HAP emission limit in
Sec. 63.5120(a)(2) as-purchased, to which you will not add HAP during
distribution or application, you must demonstrate that each coating
material applied during the 12-month compliance period contains no more
than 0.046 kg HAP per liter of solids on an as-purchased basis.
(1) Determine the organic HAP content for each coating material in
accordance with Sec. 63.5160(b) and the volume solids content in
accordance with Sec. 63.5160(c).
(2) Combine these results using Equation 1 of this section and
compare the result to the organic HAP emission limit in
Sec. 63.5120(a)(2) to demonstrate that each coating material contains
no more organic HAP than the limit.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.002
Where:
Hsiap = as-purchased, organic HAP to solids ratio of
coating material, i, kg organic HAP/liter solids applied.
Chi = organic HAP content of coating material, i,
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
Di = density of coating material, i, kg/l.
Vsi = volume fraction of solids in coating, i, l/l.
(b) As-applied compliant coatings. If you choose to use ``as-
applied'' compliant coatings, you must demonstrate that the average of
each coating material applied during the 12-month compliance period
contains no more than 0.046 kg of organic HAP per liter of solids
applied in accordance with (b)(1) of this section, or demonstrate that
the average of all coating materials applied during the 12-month
compliance period contain no more than 0.046 kg of organic HAP per
liter of solids applied in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(1) To demonstrate that the average organic HAP content on the
basis of solids applied for each coating material applied,
HSi yr, is less than 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids applied
for the 12-month compliance period, use Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.003
Where:
Hsi yr = average for the 12-month compliance period, as-
applied, organic HAP to solids ratio of material, i, kg organic HAP/
liter solids applied.
Vi = volume of coating material, i, l.
Di = density of coating material, i, kg/l.
Cahi = monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of solids-containing coating material, i, expressed as a weight
fraction, kilogram (kg)/kg.
Vj = volume of solvent, j, l.
Dj = density of solvent, j, kg/l.
Chij = organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to
coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
Vsi = volume fraction of solids in coating, i, l/l.
y = identifier for months.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
(2) To demonstrte that the average organic HAP content on the basis
of solids applied, HS yr, of all coating materials applied
is less than 0.046 kg HAP per liter solids applied for the 12-month
compliance period, use Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.004
[[Page 39819]]
Where:
HS yr = average for the 12-month compliance period, as-
applied, organic HAP to solids ratio of all materials applied, kg
organic HAP/liter solids applied.
Vi = volume of coating material, i, l.
Di = density of coating material, i, kg/l.
Cahi = monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of solids-containing coating material, i, expressed as a weight
fraction, kilogram (kg)/kg.
Vj = volume of solvent, j, l.
Dj = density of solvent, j, kg/l.
Chij = organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to
coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
Vsi = volume fraction of solids in coating, i, l/l.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
y = identifier for months.
(c) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than the
allowable limit. If you use one or more capture systems and one or more
control devices and demonstrate an average overall organic HAP control
efficiency of at least 98 percent for each month to comply with
Sec. 63.5120(a)(1); or operate a capture system and oxidizer so that
the capture efficiency is 100 percent and the oxidizer outlet HAP
concentration is no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis to comply with
Sec. 63.5120(a)(3), you must follow one of the procedures in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4) of this section. Alternatively, you may demonstrate
compliance for an individual coil coating line by operating its capture
system and control device and continuous parameter monitoring system
according to the procedures in paragraph (i) of this section.
(1) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure to limit
organic HAP emissions to the level specified in Sec. 63.5120(a)(1) or
(2) and has only always-controlled work stations, then you must
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (e) of this
section when emissions from the affected source are controlled by one
or more solvent recovery devices.
(2) If the affected source uses one compliance procedure to limit
organic HAP emissions to the level specified in Sec. 63.5120(a)(1) or
(2) and has only always-controlled work stations, then you must
demonstrate compliance with the provisions of paragraph (f) of this
section when emissions are controlled by one or more oxidizers.
(3) If the affected source operates both solvent recovery and
oxidizer control devices, one or more never-controlled work stations,
or one or more intermittently-controllable work stations, or uses more
than one compliance procedure, then you must demonstrate compliance
with the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section.
(4) The method of limiting organic HAP emissions to the level
specified in Sec. 63.5120(a)(3) is the installation and operation of a
PTE around each work station and associated curing oven in the coating
line and the ventilation of all organic HAP emissions from each PTE to
an oxidizer with an outlet organic HAP concentration of no greater than
20 ppmv on a dry basis. An enclosure that meets the requirements in
Sec. 63.5160(e)(1) is considered a PTE. Initial compliance of the
oxidizer with the outlet organic HAP concentration limit is
demonstrated either through continuous emission monitoring according to
paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section or through performance tests using
the procedure in Sec. 63.5160(d). If this method is selected, you must
meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section to
demonstrate continuing achievement of 100 percent capture of organic
HAP emissions and either paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or paragraph (c)(4)(iii)
of this section, respectively, to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the oxidizer outlet organic HAP concentration limit through
continuous emission monitoring or continuous operating parameter
monitoring:
(i) Whenever a work station is operated, continuously monitor the
capture system operating parameter established in accordance with
Sec. 63.5150(a)(4).
(ii) To demonstrate that the value of the exhaust gas organic HAP
concentration at the outlet of the oxidizer is no greater than 20 ppmv,
on a dry basis, install, calibrate, operate, and maintain CEMS
according to the requirements of Sec. 63.5150(a)(2).
(iii) To demonstrate continuous compliance with operating limits
established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(3), whenever a work
station is operated, continuously monitor the applicable oxidizer
operating parameter.
(d) Capture and control to achieve the emission rate limit. If you
use one or more capture systems and one or more control devices and
limit the organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.046 kg organic
HAP emitted per liter of solids applied on a 12-month average as-
applied basis, then you must follow one of the procedures in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) If you use one or more solvent recovery devices, you must
demonstrate compliance with the provisions in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(2) If you use one or more oxidizers, you must demonstrate
compliance with the provisions in paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) If you use both solvent recovery devices and oxidizers, or
operate one or more never-controlled work stations or one or more
intermittently controllable work stations, you must demonstrate
compliance with the provisions in paragraph (g) of this section.
(e) Use of solvent recovery to demonstrate compliance. If you use
one or more solvent recovery devices to control emissions from always-
controlled work stations, you must show compliance by following the
procedures in either paragraph (e)(1) or (2) of this section:
(1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a liquid-liquid
material balance for each month as specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i)
through (vi) of this section and use Equations 4 through 6 of this
section to convert the data to units of this standard. All
determinations of quantity of coating and composition of coating must
be made at a time and location in the process after all ingredients
(including any dilution solvent) have been added to the coating, or
appropriate adjustments must be made to account for any ingredients
added after the amount of coating has been determined.
(i) Measure the mass of each coating material applied on the work
station or group of work stations controlled by one or more solvent
recovery devices during the month.
(ii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate
based on solids applied, determine the organic HAP content of each
coating material applied during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.5160(b).
(iii) Determine the volatile matter content of each coating
material applied during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.5160(c).
(iv) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate
based on solids applied, determine the solids content of each coating
material applied during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.5160(c).
(v) For each solvent recovery device used to comply with
Sec. 63.5120(a), 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 initially certified by
the manufacturer to be accurate to within 2.0 percent.
(vi) For each solvent recovery device used to comply with
Sec. 63.5120(a),
[[Page 39820]]
measure the amount of volatile matter recovered for the month.
(vii) Recovery efficiency, Rv. Calculate the volatile
organic matter collection and recovery efficiency, Rv, using
Equation 4 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.005
Where:
Rv = organic volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, percent.
Mkvr = mass of volatile matter recovered in a month by
solvent recovery device, k, kg.
Mi = mass of coating material, i, applied in a month, kg.
Cvi = volatile matter content of coating material, i,
expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
Mj = mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other
non-solids-containing coating material (excluding H2O),
j, applied in a month, kg.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
s = number of solvent recovery devices used to comply with the
standard of Sec. 63.5120 of this subpart, in the facility.
(viii) Organic HAP emitted, He. Calculate the mass of
organic HAP emitted during the month, He, using Equation 5
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.006
Where:
He = total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Rv = organic volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, percent.
Chi = organic HAP content of coating material, i,
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = mass of coating material, i, applied in a month, kg.
Chij = organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to
coating material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or
other non-solids-containing coating material, j, added to solids-
containing coating material, i, in a month, kg.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
(ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-
month compliance period, LANNUAL. Calculate the organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-month compliance
period, LANNUAL, using Equation 6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.007
Where:
LANNUAL = mass organic HAP emitted per volume of solids
applied for the 12-month compliance period, kg/liter.
He = total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Csi = solids content of coating material, i, expressed as
liter of solids/kg of material.
Mi = mass of coating material, i, applied in a month, kg.
y = identifier for months.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
(x) Compare actual performance to performance required by
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with
Sec. 63.5120(a) if it meets the requirement in either paragraph
(e)(1)(x)(A) or (B) of this section:
(A) The average volatile organic matter collection and recovery
efficiency, Rv, is 98 percent or greater each month of the
12-month compliance period; or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the
12-month compliance period, LANNUAL, is 0.046 kg organic HAP
per liter solids applied or less.
(2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance.
Use continuous emission monitors to demonstrate recovery efficiency,
conduct an initial performance test of capture efficiency and
volumetric flow rate, and continuously monitor a site specific
operating parameter to ensure that capture efficiency and volumetric
flow rate are maintained following the procedures in paragraphs
(e)(2)(i) through (xi) of this section:
(i) Control device destruction or removal efficiency, DRE. For each
control device used to comply with Sec. 63.5120(a), continuously
monitor the gas stream entering and exiting the control device to
determine the total volatile organic 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 volatile organic matter mass flow rate in grams per second can be
calculated using Equation 1 of Sec. 63.5160, and the percent
destruction or removal efficiency, DRE, of the control device can be
calculated for each month using Equation 2 of Sec. 63.5160.
(ii) Determine the percent capture efficiency, CE, for each work
station in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(e).
(iii) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a work station is
operated, continuously monitor the operating parameter established in
accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(4).
(iv) Control efficiency, R. Calculate the overall organic HAP
control efficiency, R, achieved for each month using Equation 7 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.008
[[Page 39821]]
Where:
R=overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
DREk=organic volatile matter destruction or removal
efficiency of control device, k, percent.
CEA=organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the
capture system for work station, A, percent.
MAi=mass of coating material, i, applied on work station,
A, in a month, kg.
Cvi=volatile matter content of coating material, i,
expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
MAj=mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other
non-solids-containing coating material (including H2O),
j, applied on work station, A, in a month, kg.
Mi=mass of coating material, i, applied in a month, kg.
Mj=mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other
non-solids-containing coating material (excluding H2O),
j, applied in a month, kg.
w=number of always-controlled work stations in the facility.
p=number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q=number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
(v) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate
based on solids applied, measure the mass of each coating material
applied on each work station during the month.
(vi) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate
based on solids applied, determine the organic HAP content of each
coating material applied during the month in accordance with
Sec. 63.5160(b).
(vii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission
rate based on solids applied, determine the solids content of each
coating material applied during the month in accordance with
Sec. 63.5160(c).
(viii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission
rate based on solids applied, calculate the organic HAP emitted during
the month, He, for each month using Equation 8 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.009
Where:
He=total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
DREk=organic volatile matter destruction or removal
efficiency of control device, k, percent.
CEA=organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the
capture system for work station, A, percent.
Chi=organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed
as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
MAi=mass of coating material, i, applied on work station,
A, in a month, kg.
Chij=organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to coating
material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
MAij=mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other
non-solids-containing coating material, j, added to solids-
containing coating material, i, applied on work station, A, in a
month, kg.
w=number of always-controlled work stations in the facility.
p=number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q=number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
(ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-
month compliance period, LANNUAL. Calculate the organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-month compliance
period, LANNUAL, using Equation 6 of this section.
(x) Compare actual performance to performance required by
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with
Sec. 63.5120(a) if each 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. 63.5150
for each 3-hour period; and
(A) The overall organic HAP control efficiency, R, is 98 percent or
greater for each; or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the
12-month compliance period, LANNUAL, is 0.046 kg organic HAP
per liter solids applied or less.
(f) Use of oxidation to demonstrate compliance. If you use one or
more oxidizers to control emissions from always controlled work
stations, you must follow the procedures in either paragraph (f)(1) or
(2) of this section:
(1) Continuous monitoring of capture system and control device
operating parameters. 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 (f)(1)(i) through (xi) of this section:
(i) For each oxidizer used to comply with Sec. 63.5120(a),
determine the oxidizer destruction or removal efficiency, DRE, using
the procedure in Sec. 63.5160(d).
(ii) Whenever a work station is operated, continuously monitor the
operating parameter established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(3).
(iii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency, CE, for each
work station in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(e).
(iv) Whenever a work station is operated, continuously monitor the
operating parameter established in accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(4).
(v) Calculate the overall organic HAP control efficiency, R,
achieved using Equation 7 of this section.
(vi) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate
based on solids applied, measure the mass of each coating material
applied on each work station during the month.
(vii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission
rate based on solids applied, determine the organic HAP content of each
coating material applied during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.5160(b).
(viii) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission
rate based on solids applied, determine the solids content of each
coating material applied during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.5160(c).
(ix) Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month,
He, for each month:
(A) For each work station and its associated oxidizer, use Equation
8 of this section.
(B) For periods when the oxidizer has not operated within its
established operating limit, the control device efficiency is
determined to be zero.
(x) Organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied for the 12-
month compliance period, LANNUAL. If demonstrating
compliance with the organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied
for the 12-month compliance period, calculate the organic HAP emission
rate based on solids applied, LANNUAL, for the 12-month
compliance period using Equation 6 of this section.
(xi) Compare actual performance to performance required by
compliance
[[Page 39822]]
option. The affected source is in compliance with Sec. 63.5120(a) if
each oxidizer is operated such that the average operating parameter
value is greater than the operating parameter value established in
Sec. 63.5150(a)(3) for each 3-hour period, and each capture system
operating parameter average value is greater than or less than (as
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in
Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) for each 3-hour period; and the requirement in
either paragraph (f)(1)(xi)(A) or (B) of this section is met.
(A) The overall organic HAP control efficiency, R, is 98 percent or
greater for each; or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied,
LANNUAL, is 0.046 kg organic HAP per liter solids applied or
less for the 12-month compliance period.
(2) Continuous emission monitoring of control device performance.
Use continuous emission monitors, conduct an initial performance test
of capture efficiency, and continuously monitor a site specific
operating parameter to ensure that capture efficiency is maintained.
Compliance must be demonstrated in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of
this section.
(g) Combination of capture and control. You must demonstrate
compliance according to the procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through (8)
of this section if both solvent recovery and oxidizer control devices,
one or more never controlled coil coating stations, or one or more
intermittently controllable coil coating stations are operated; or more
than one compliance procedure is used.
(1) Solvent recovery system using liquid/liquid material balance
compliance demonstration. For each solvent recovery system used to
control one or more work stations for which you choose to comply by
means of a liquid-liquid material balance, you must determine the
organic HAP emissions each month of the 12-month compliance period for
those work stations controlled by that solvent recovery system
according to either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section:
(i) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) and
(e)(1)(v) through (viii) of this section if the work stations
controlled by that solvent recovery system are only always-controlled
work stations; or
(ii) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(1)(ii) through (iii),
(e)(1)(v) through (vi), and (h) of this section if the work stations
controlled by that solvent recovery system include one or more never-
controlled or intermittently-controllable work stations.
(2) Solvent recovery system using performance test and continuous
monitoring compliance demonstration. For each solvent recovery system
used to control one or more coil coating stations for which you choose
to comply by means of an initial test of capture efficiency, continuous
emission monitoring of the control device, and continuous monitoring of
a capture system operating parameter, each month of the 12-month
compliance period you must meet the requirements of paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent
recovery system, monitor an operating parameter established in
Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) to ensure that capture system efficiency is
maintained; and
(ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those work stations
served by each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent
recovery system according to either paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of
this section:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) and
(e)(2)(v) through (viii) of this section if the work stations served by
that capture system are only always-controlled coil coating stations;
or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii),
(e)(2)(v) through (vii), and (h) of this section if the work stations
served by that capture system include one or more never-controlled or
intermittently-controllable work stations.
(3) Oxidizer using performance test and continuous monitoring of
operating parameters compliance demonstration. For each oxidizer used
to control emissions from one or more work stations for which you
choose to demonstrate compliance through performance tests of capture
efficiency, control device efficiency, and continuing compliance
through continuous monitoring of capture system and control device
operating parameters, each month of the 12-month compliance period you
must meet the requirements of paragraphs (g)(3)(i) through (iii) of
this section:
(i) Monitor an operating parameter established in
Sec. 63.5150(a)(3) to ensure that control device destruction or removal
efficiency is maintained; and
(ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer,
monitor an operating parameter established in Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) to
ensure capture efficiency; and
(iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those work stations
served by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer
according to either paragraph (g)(3)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v) and (ix) of
this section if the work stations served by that capture system are
only always-controlled work stations; or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (v), (ix), and
(h) of this section if the work stations served by that capture system
include one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controllable
work stations.
(4) Oxidizer using continuous emission monitoring compliance
demonstration. For each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or
more work stations for which you choose to demonstrate compliance
through an initial capture efficiency test, continuous emission
monitoring of the control device, and continuous monitoring of a
capture system operating parameter, each month of the 12-month
compliance period you must meet the requirements in paragraphs
(g)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer,
monitor an operating parameter established in Sec. 63.5150(a)(4) to
ensure capture efficiency; and
(ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those work stations
served by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer
according to either paragraph (g)(4)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) and
(e)(2)(v) through (viii) of this section if the work stations served by
that capture system are only always-controlled work stations; or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii),
(e)(2)(v) through (vii), and (h) of this section if the work stations
served by that capture system include one or more never-controlled or
intermittently-controllable work stations.
(5) Uncontrolled work stations. For uncontrolled work stations,
each month of the 12-month compliance period you must determine the
organic HAP applied on those work stations using Equation 9 of this
section. The organic HAP emitted from an uncontrolled work station is
equal to the organic HAP applied on that work station:
[[Page 39823]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.010
Where:
Hm=facility total monthly organic HAP applied on
uncontrolled coil coating stations, kg.
Chi=organic HAP content of coating material, i, expressed
as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
MAi=mass of coating material, i, applied on work station,
A, in a month, kg.
Chij=organic HAP content of solvent, j, added to coating
material, i, expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
MAij=mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other
non-solids-containing coating material, j, added to solids-
containing coating material, i, applied on work station, A, in a
month, kg.
x=number of uncontrolled work stations in the facility.
p=number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q=number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
(6) If demonstrating compliance with the organic HAP emission rate
based on solids applied, each month of the 12-month compliance period
you must determine the solids content of each coating material applied
during the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.5160(c).
(7) Organic HAP emitted. You must determine the organic HAP
emissions for the affected source for each 12-month compliance period
by summing all monthly organic HAP emissions calculated according to
paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2)(ii), (g)(3)(iii), (g)(4)(ii), and (g)(5) of
this section.
(8) Compare actual performance to performance required by
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with
Sec. 63.5120(a) for the 12-month compliance period if all operating
parameters required to be monitored under paragraphs (g)(2) through (4)
of this section were maintained at the values established in
Sec. 63.5150; and it meets the requirement in either paragraph
(g)(8)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
was not more than 0.046 kg HAP per liter of solids applied for the 12-
month compliance period; or
(ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
was not more than 2 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied by
the affected source each month. You must determine the total mass of
organic HAP applied by the affected source in each month of the 12-
month compliance period using Equation 9 of this section.
(h) Organic HAP emissions from intermittently-controllable or
never-controlled coil coating stations. If you have been expressly
referenced to this paragraph by paragraphs (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2)(ii)(B),
(g)(3)(iii)(B), or (g)(4)(ii)(B) of this section for calculation
procedures to determine organic HAP emissions, you must for your
intermittently-controllable or never-controlled work stations meet the
requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (6) of this section:
(1) Determine the sum of the mass of all solids-containing coating
materials which are applied on intermittently-controllable work
stations in bypass mode, and the mass of all solids-containing coating
materials which are applied on never-controlled coil coating stations
during each month of the 12-month compliance period,
MBi.
(2) Determine the sum of the mass of all solvents, thinners,
reducers, diluents, and other nonsolids-containing coating materials
which are applied on intermittently-controllable work stations in
bypass mode, and the mass of all solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents
and other nonsolids-containing coating materials which are applied on
never-controlled work stations during each month of the 12-month
compliance period, MBj.
(3) Determine the sum of the mass of all solids-containing coating
materials which are applied on intermittently-controllable work
stations in controlled mode, and the mass of all solids-containing
coating materials which are applied on always-controlled work stations
during each month of the 12-month compliance period,
MCi.
(4) Determine the sum of the mass of all solvents, thinners,
reducers, diluents, and other nonsolids-containing coating materials
which are applied on intermittently-controllable work stations in
controlled mode, and the mass of all solvents, thinners, reducers,
diluents, and other nonsolids-containing coating materials which are
applied on always-controlled work stations during each month of the 12-
month compliance period, MCj.
(5) Liquid-liquid material balance calculation of HAP emitted. For
each work station or group of work stations for which you use the
provisions of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, you must calculate
the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 10 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.011
Where:
He = total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Mci= sum of the mass of solids-containing coating
material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work stations
operating in controlled mode and the mass of solids-containing
coating material, i, applied on always-controlled work stations, in
a month, kg.
Chi = organic HAP content of coating material, i,
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
Mcj = sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer,
diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied
on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in controlled
mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other
non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on always-
controlled work stations in a month, kg.
Chj = organic HAP content of solvent, j, expressed as a
weight fraction, kg/kg.
Mkvr = mass of volatile matter recovered in a month by
solvent recovery device, k, kg.
Cvi = volatile matter content of coating material, i,
expressed as a weight fraction, kg/kg.
[[Page 39824]]
MBi = sum of the mass of solids-containing coating
material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work stations
operating in bypass mode and the mass of solids-containing coating
material, i, applied on never-controlled work stations, in a month,
kg.
MBj = sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer,
diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied
on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in bypass
mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other
non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on never-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
s = number of solvent recovery devices used to comply with the
standard of Sec. 63.5120 of this subpart, in the facility.
(6) Control efficiency calculation of HAP emitted. For each work
station or group of work stations for which you use the provisions of
paragraphs (g)(2)(ii)(B), (g)(3)(iii)(B), or (g)(4)(ii)(B) of this
section, you must calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month,
He, using Equation 11 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10JN02.012
Where:
He = total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Mci = sum of the mass of solids-containing coating
material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work stations
operating in controlled mode and the mass of solids-containing
coating material, i, applied on always-controlled work stations, in
a month, kg.
Chi = organic HAP content of coating material, i,
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
Mcj = sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer,
diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied
on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in controlled
mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other
non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on always-
controlled work stations in a month, kg.
Chj = organic HAP content of solvent, j, expressed as a
weight fraction, kg/kg.
DREk = organic volatile matter destruction or removal
efficiency of control device, k, percent.
CEA = organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the
capture system for work station, A, percent.
MBi = sum of the mass of solids-containing coating
material, i, applied on intermittently-controllable work stations
operating in bypass mode and the mass of solids-containing coating
material, i, applied on never-controlled work stations, in a month,
kg.
MBj = sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer,
diluent, or other non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied
on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in bypass
mode and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other
non-solids-containing coating material, j, applied on never-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
wi = number of intermittently-controllable work stations
in the facility.
p = number of different coating materials applied in a month.
q = number of different solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, or
other non-solids-containing coating materials applied in a month.
(i) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures
using a CPMS for a coil coating line. If you use an add-on control
device, to demonstrate initial compliance for each capture system and
each control device through performance tests and continuing compliance
through continuous monitoring of capture system and control device
operating parameters, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs
(i)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Conduct an initial performance test to determine the control
device destruction or removal efficiency, DRE, using the applicable
test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.5160(d).
(2) Determine the emission capture efficiency, CE, in accordance
with Sec. 63.5160(e).
(3) Whenever a coil coating line is operated, continuously monitor
the operating parameters established according to Sec. 63.5150(a)(3)
and (4) to ensure capture and control efficiency.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Sec. 63.5180 What reports must I submit?
(a) Submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b) through (i) of
this section to the EPA Regional Office that serves the State or
territory in which the affected source is located and to the delegated
State agency:
(b) You must submit an initial notification required in
Sec. 63.9(b).
(1) Submit an initial notification for an existing source no later
than 2 years after June 10, 2002.
(2) Submit an initial notification for a new or reconstructed
source as required by Sec. 63.9(b).
(3) For the purpose of this subpart, a title V 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 the EPA.
(4) Submit a title V permit application used in lieu of the initial
notification required under Sec. 63.9(b) by the same due dates as those
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section for the initial
notifications.
(c) You must submit a Notification of Performance Test as specified
in Secs. 63.7 and 63.9(e) if you are complying with the emission
standard using a control device. This notification and the site-
specific test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c)(2) must identify the
operating parameter to be monitored to ensure that the capture
efficiency measured during the performance test is maintained. You may
consider the operating parameter identified in the site-specific test
plan to be approved unless explicitly disapproved, or unless comments
received from the Administrator require monitoring of an alternate
parameter.
(d) You must submit a Notification of Compliance Status as
specified in Sec. 63.9(h). You must submit the Notification of
Compliance Status no later than 30 calendar days following the end of
the initial 12-month compliance period described in Sec. 63.5130.
(e) 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 standards and you have not obtained a waiver from the
performance test requirement.
(f) You must submit start-up, shutdown, and malfunction reports as
specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5) if you use a control device to comply
with this subpart.
(1) If your actions during a start-up, shutdown, or malfunction of
an affected source (including actions taken to correct a malfunction)
are not completely consistent with the
[[Page 39825]]
procedures specified in the source's start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3), you must state such
information in the report. The start-up, shutdown, or malfunction
report will consist of a letter containing the name, title, and
signature of the responsible official who is certifying its accuracy,
that will 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 (g) of this section.
(g) You must submit semi-annual compliance reports containing the
information specified in paragraphs (g)(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. 63.5130(a) and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.5130(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
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.5130(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 part 71, and the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 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 (g)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(2) The semi-annual compliance report must contain the following
information:
(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. The reporting period is the 6-month period ending on
June 30 or December 31. Note that the information reported for each of
the 6 months in the reporting period will be based on the last 12
months of data prior to the date of each monthly calculation.
(iv) Identification of the compliance option or options specified
in Table 1 to Sec. 63.5170 that you used on each coating operation
during the reporting period. If you switched between compliance options
during the reporting period, you must report the beginning dates you
used each option.
(v) A statement that there were no deviations from the standards
during the reporting period, and that no CEMS were inoperative,
inactive, malfunctioning, out-of-control, repaired, or adjusted.
(h) You must submit, for each deviation occurring at an affected
source where you are not using CEMS to comply with the standards in
this subpart, the semi-annual compliance report containing the
information in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section and
the information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(3) Information on the number, duration, and cause for monitor
downtime incidents (including unknown cause other than downtime
associated with zero and span and other daily calibration checks, if
applicable).
(i) You must submit, for each deviation occurring at an affected
source where you are using CEMS to comply with the standards in this
subpart, the semi-annual compliance report containing the information
in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, and the
information in paragraphs (i)(1) through (12) of this section:
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date and time that each CEMS was inoperative, except for
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date and time that each CEMS was out-of-control, including
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) 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.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) 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.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CEMS downtime during the
reporting period, and the total duration of CEMS downtime as a percent
of the total source operating time during that reporting period.
(8) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS 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.
(9) A brief description of the metal coil coating line.
(10) The monitoring equipment manufacturer(s) and model number(s).
(11) The date of the latest CEMS certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in CEMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
Sec. 63.5190 What records must I maintain?
(a) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section in accordance with Sec. 63.10(b)(1):
(1) Records of the coating lines on which you used each compliance
option and the time periods (beginning and ending dates and times) you
used each option.
(2) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of all measurements
needed to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, including:
(i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with
Sec. 63.5150(a)(2);
(ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in
accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(1), (3), and (4);
(iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(b);
(iv) Volatile matter and solids content data for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.5160(c);
(v) Overall control efficiency determination or alternative outlet
HAP concentration using capture efficiency tests and control device
destruction or removal efficiency tests in accordance with
Sec. 63.5160(d), (e), and (f); and
[[Page 39826]]
(vi) Material usage, HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and solids
usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in accordance with
Sec. 63.5170(a), (b), and (d);
(3) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(3); and
(4) Additional records specified in Sec. 63.10(c) for each
continuous monitoring system operated by the owner or operator in
accordance with Sec. 63.5150(a)(2).
(b) Maintain records of all liquid-liquid material balances that
are performed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.5170.
Delegation of Authority
Sec. 63.5200 What authorities may be delegated to the States?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the EPA, or
a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If
the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to
find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal
agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the EPA Administrator and not transferred to
the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) Authority which will not be delegated to States, local, or
tribal agencies:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the emission limitations in
Sec. 63.5120;
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.5160;
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.5150; and
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Secs. 63.5180 and 63.5190.
Secs. 63.5201--63.5209 [Reserved]
Tables to Subpart SSSS of Part 63
If you are required to comply with operating limits by
Sec. 63.5121, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in
the following table:
Table 1 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63. Operating Limits if Using Add-on
Control Devices and Capture System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you must
You must meet the demonstrate
following continuous
For the following device . . . operating limit . compliance with
. . the operating
limit by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. thermal oxidizer............. a. the average i. collecting the
combustion combustion
temperature in temperature data
any 3-hour period according to Sec.
must not fall 63.5150(a)(3);
below the ii. reducing the
combustion data to 3-hour
temperature limit block averages;
established and
according to Sec. iii. maintaining
63.5160(d)(3)(i). the 3-hour
average
combustion
temperature at or
above the
temperature
limit.
2. catalytic oxidizer........... a. the average i. collecting the
temperature temperature data
measured just according to Sec.
before the 63.5150(a)(3);
catalyst bed in ii. reducing the
any 3-hour period data to 3-hour
must not fall block averages;
below the limit and
established iii. maintaining
according to Sec. the 3-hour
63.5160(d)(3)(ii average
); and either temperature
before the
catalyst bed at
or above the
temperature
limit.
b. ensure that the i. collecting the
average temperature data
temperature according to Sec.
difference across 63.5150(a)(3);
the catalyst bed ii. reducing the
in any 3-hour data to 3-hour
period does not block averages;
fall below the and
temperature iii. maintaining
difference limit the 3-hour
established average
according to Sec. temperature
63.5160(d)(3)(ii difference at or
); or above the
temperature
difference limit.
c. develop and maintaining an up-
implement an to-date
inspection and inspection and
maintenance plan maintenance plan,
according to Sec. records of annual
63.5160(d)(3)(ii catalyst activity
). checks, records
of monthly
inspections of
the oxidizer
system, and
records of the
annual internal
inspections of
the catalyst bed.
If a problem is
discovered during
a monthly or
annual inspection
required by Sec.
63.5160(d)(3)(ii)
, you must take
corrective action
as soon as
practicable
consistent with
the
manufacturer's
recommendations.
3. emission capture system...... develop a conducting
monitoring plan monitoring
that identifies according to the
operating plan Sec.
parameter to be 63.5150(a)(4).
monitored and
specifies
operating limits
according to Sec.
63.5150(a)(4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements
according to the following table:
Table 2 to Subpart SSSS of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart SSSS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
General provisions reference subpart SSSS 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.
[[Page 39827]]
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14).......... Yes...............
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)................ No................ Subpart SSSS
specifies
applicability.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)-(3)............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)................ Yes...............
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)................ Yes...............
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 SSSS.
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............... Only total HAP
emissions in
terms of tons per
year are required
for Sec.
63.5(d)(1)(ii)(H)
.
Sec. 63.5(e)................... Yes...............
Sec. 63.5(f)................... Yes...............
Sec. 63.6(a)................... Yes...............
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5)............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................ No................ Reserved.
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 in Sec.
63.6(e)(3)
pertaining to
startups,
shutdowns,
malfunctions, and
CEMS only apply
if an add-on
control system is
used.
Sec. 63.6(f)................... Yes...............
Sec. 63.6(g)................... Yes...............
Sec. 63.6(h)................... No................ Subpart SSSS 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............... With the exception
of Sec.
63.7(a)(2)(vii)
and (viii), which
are reserved.
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............... Provisions only
apply if an add-
on control system
is used.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ No................
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................ No................ Subpart SSSS does
not require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)................ Yes............... Provisions only
apply if CEMS are
used.
Sec. 63.8(c)(7)-(8)............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.8(d)-(e)............... Yes............... Provisions only
apply if CEMS are
used.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ No................ Section 63.8(f)(6)
provisions are
not applicable
because subpart
SSSS does not
require CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)(1)-(4)............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.8(g)(5)................ No................
Sec. 63.9(a)................... Yes...............
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)................ Yes...............
Sec. 63.9(b)(2)................ Yes............... With the exception
that Sec.
63.5180(b)(1)
provides 2 years
after the
proposal date for
submittal of the
initial
notification.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)-(5)............ Yes...............
Sec. 63.9(c)-(e)............... Yes...............
Sec. 63.9(f)................... No................ Subpart SSSS does
not require
opacity and
visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.9(g)................... No................ Provisions for
COMS are not
applicable.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3)............ Yes...............
[[Page 39828]]
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............... Provisions
pertaining to
startups,
shutdowns,
malfunctions, and
maintenance of
air pollution
control equipment
and to CEMS do
not apply unless
an add-on control
system is used.
Also, paragraphs
(b)(2)(vi), (x),
(xi), and (xiii)
do not apply.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)............... No................
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(4)........... No................ Reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(5)-(8)........... No................
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)............... No................ Reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(15)......... No................
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)........... Yes...............
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............... No................ Subpart SSSS does
not require
opacity and
visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)-(5)........... Yes...............
Sec. 63.10(e).................. No................
Sec. 63.10(f).................. Yes...............
Sec. 63.11..................... Yes...............
Sec. 63.12..................... Yes...............
Sec. 63.13..................... Yes...............
Sec. 63.14..................... Yes............... Subpart SSSS
includes
provisions for
alternative ASTM
and ASME test
methods that are
incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15..................... Yes...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-12772 Filed 6-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P