[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 132 (Thursday, July 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41276-41319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05854]
[[Page 41275]]
Vol. 85
Thursday,
No. 132
July 9, 2020
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 132 / Thursday, July 9, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 41276]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416; FRL-10006-74-OAR]
RIN 20660-AU22
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Paper and Other Web Coating (POWC) source
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). The Agency is finalizing the proposed
determination that risks due to emissions of air toxics are acceptable
from this source category and that the current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health. Further, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified no new cost-effective
controls under the technology review that would achieve significant
further emissions reductions, and, thus, is finalizing the proposed
determination that no revisions to the standards are necessary based on
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies. In
addition, the Agency is taking final action addressing startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These final amendments address
emissions during SSM events, add a compliance demonstration equation
that accounts for retained volatiles in the coated web; add repeat
testing and electronic reporting requirements; and make technical and
editorial changes. The EPA is making these amendments to improve the
effectiveness of the NESHAP, and although these amendments are not
expected to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), they
will improve monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2020. The incorporation
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 9, 2020.
The IBR of certain other publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of December 4, 2002.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST),
Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is
(202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-3158; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881;
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Mr. John Cox, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2221A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564-1395; and email address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The EPA uses multiple acronyms
and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HI hazard index
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDF portable document format
POWC paper and other web coating
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
URE unit risk estimate
U.S.C. United States Code
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VOC volatile organic compound(s)
Background information. On September 19, 2019, the EPA proposed
determinations regarding the POWC NESHAP RTR and proposed revisions to
the NESHAP to address emissions during SSM events and improve
monitoring, compliance, and implementation. In this action, the EPA is
finalizing the proposed RTR determinations and additional revisions for
the rule. The Agency summarizes the more significant comments we
received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and
the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416. A ``track
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
[[Page 41277]]
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the POWC source category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
C. What changes did we propose for the POWC source category in
our September 19, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the POWC source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the POWC source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the POWC source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the POWC Source Category
B. Technology Review for the POWC Source Category
C. Revisions to the SSM Provisions for the POWC Source Category
D. Method For Determining Volatile Organic Matter Retained in
the Coated Web
E. Periodic Performance Testing
F. Electronic Reporting
G. Temperature Sensor Validation
H. Operating Parameter Clarification
I. IBR Under 1 CFR part 51 for the POWC Source Category
J. Technical and Editorial Changes
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper and Other Web Coating............... 322220, 322121, 326113,
326112, 325992, 327993
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/paper-and-other-web-coating-national-emission-standards-hazardous-0.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by September 8, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, the Agency must identify categories of sources emitting one or
more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate
technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those
that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of
10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of
HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
[[Page 41278]]
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors 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 five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, the Agency must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). The EPA may
establish standards 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.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, the EPA must review the technology-based standards and revise
them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, the EPA must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 49382 (September 19, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (DC Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the POWC source category and how does the NESHAP regulate
HAP emissions From the source category?
The EPA promulgated the POWC NESHAP on December 4, 2002 (67 FR
72330). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. The
POWC source category includes new and existing facilities that coat
paper and other web substrates that are major sources of HAP emissions.
For purposes of the regulation, a web is defined as a continuous
substrate that is capable of being rolled at any point during the
coating process. Further, a web coating line is any number of work
stations, of which one or more applies a continuous layer of coating
material along the entire width of a continuous web substrate or any
portion of the width of the web substrate, and any associated curing/
drying equipment between an unwind (or feed) station and a rewind (or
cutting) station. The source category covered by this NESHAP currently
includes 168 facilities.
Web coating operations covered by other NESHAP (i.e., Printing and
Publishing, 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK; Magnetic Tape, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart EE; Metal Coil Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSS; Fabric
Coating, 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO), and research and development
lines are excluded from the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ. In addition, specific process exclusions include lithography,
screen printing, letterpress, and narrow web flexographic printing.
Facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP utilize low-solvent coatings,
add-on controls, or a combination of both to meet the organic HAP
emission limits, as described in the preamble to the proposed rule (84
FR 49385, September 19, 2019). The NESHAP also includes various
operating limits, initial and continuous compliance requirements, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the POWC source category.
The EPA reviewed these requirements and are updating them as part of
this action in conjunction with finalizing the RTR for this source
category
C. What changes did we propose for the POWC source category in our
September 19, 2019, proposal?
On September 19, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the POWC NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ,
that took into consideration the RTR analyses. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the technology review did not identify
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
were widely applicable to the industry that would significantly reduce
HAP emissions, and, therefore, the Agency did not propose any changes
to the NESHAP based on the technology review. Further, as discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule, the risk analysis indicated no
changes to the NESHAP are necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable
level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. In addition to and
separate from the proposed determinations based on our RTR analyses,
the EPA proposed the following:
Revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP to ensure
that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions that
exempted sources from the requirement to comply with otherwise
applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards during periods of SSM;
a new compliance calculation to account for retained
volatile organic content retained in the coated web;
new periodic air emissions testing requirements for
facilities that use non-recovery control devices;
new reporting provisions requiring affected sources to
electronically submit initial notifications, notification of compliance
status, semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and
performance evaluation reports;
new temperature sensor validation requirements;
operating parameter clarifications;
[[Page 41279]]
IBR of several test methods; and
technical and editorial changes to remove the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens reference,
clarify compliance demonstration options, clarify the definition of
coating materials, add a web coating line usage threshold, add a
printing activity exemption, clarify testing requirements, change
applicability of sources using only non-HAP coatings, clarify oxidizer
temperature monitoring compliance, and revise compliance report content
requirements.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action is finalizing the EPA's determinations pursuant to the
RTR provisions of CAA section 112 for the POWC source category. This
action is also finalizing other changes to the NESHAP, including
revisions to the SSM requirements; a compliance calculation to account
for retained volatile organic content retained in the coated web;
periodic testing requirements for add-on control devices; electronic
submittal of initial notifications, notification of compliance status,
semiannual compliance reports, performance test reports, and
performance evaluation reports; temperature sensor validation
requirements; operating parameter clarifications; IBR of several test
methods; and various technical and editorial changes.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
POWC source category?
The EPA proposed no changes to the POWC NESHAP based on the risk
review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA is finalizing
the proposed determination that risks from the source category are
acceptable, considering all of the health information and factors
evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. The Agency
is also finalizing the proposed determination that revisions to the
current standards are not necessary to reduce risk to an acceptable
level, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
or to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received no new
data or other information during the public comment period that
affected the proposed determinations. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing
the proposed determination and making no revisions to the NESHAP based
on the analyses conducted under CAA section 112(f), and we are
readopting the standards.
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the POWC source category?
In the proposed rule, the EPA proposed to determine that there are
no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category. The
EPA received no new data or other information during the public comment
period that affected our proposed determinations. Therefore, the EPA is
finalizing the proposed determination and making no revisions to the
MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?
The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM. The EPA is finalizing the amendments, as
proposed, with minor clarifications with this rulemaking. In its 2008
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the
Court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of
the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As detailed in
section IV.D of the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382,
September 19, 2019), the amended POWC NESHAP requires that the
standards apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.3320(b)), consistent with
the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008). In addition to eliminating the SSM exemption, the EPA has
removed the requirement for sources to develop and maintain an SSM
plan, as well as certain recordkeeping and reporting provisions related
to the SSM exemption.
The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed without
setting a separate standard for startup and shutdown as discussed in
the preamble to the proposed rule in section IV.D. Further, the EPA is
not finalizing standards for malfunctions. As discussed in the
September 19, 2019, proposal, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, although the
EPA has the discretion to set standards for malfunctions where
feasible. For this action, it is unlikely that a malfunction would
result in a violation of the standards, and no comments were submitted
that would suggest otherwise. Refer to section IV.D of the preamble to
the proposed rule for further discussion of the EPA's rationale for the
decision not to set standards for malfunctions, as well as a discussion
of the actions a source could take in the unlikely event that a source
fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a
result of a malfunction event.
As explained in more detail below, the EPA is finalizing revisions
to the General Provisions table to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, to
eliminate requirements that include rule language providing an
exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing our
proposal to eliminate language related to SSM that treats periods of
startup and shutdown the same as periods of malfunction, as explained
further below. Finally, the EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments
to revise the reporting and recordkeeping requirements as they relate
to malfunctions, as further described below. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, these revisions are consistent with the
requirement in 40 CFR 63.3320(b) that the standards apply at all times.
Refer to sections IV.C of this preamble for a detailed discussion of
these amendments.
D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
Other changes that have been made to the regulation include
incorporation of a compliance calculation to account for retained
volatile organic content retained in the coated web; periodic
performance testing requirements; electronic submittal of initial
notifications, notification of compliance status, semiannual compliance
reports, performance test reports, and performance evaluation reports;
temperature sensor validation requirements; operating parameter
clarifications; IBR of several test methods; and various technical and
editorial changes. The EPA's analyses and changes related to these
issues are discussed below.
Other changes to the NESHAP that do not fall into the categories in
the previous section include:
Method for determining volatile organic matter retained in
the coated web. The EPA is finalizing the addition of an equation to
account for volatile organic matter retained in the coated
[[Page 41280]]
web as discussed in section IV.D of this preamble.
Periodic performance testing. The EPA is finalizing a
periodic testing requirement for non-recovery add-on control devices to
ensure continued compliance, as discussed in section IV.E of this
preamble.
Electronic reporting. The EPA is finalizing amendments to
the reporting requirements to require electronic reporting for initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, semiannual
compliance reports, performance test reports, and performance
evaluation reports, as discussed in section IV.F of this preamble.
Temperature sensor validation. The EPA is finalizing
amendments to remove the temperature sensor calibration requirement and
replace it with validation requirements to ensure continued compliance,
as discussed in section IV.G of this preamble.
Operating parameter clarification. The EPA is finalizing,
as proposed, an operating parameter clarification, as discussed in
section IV.H of this preamble.
IBR under 1 CFR part 51. The EPA is finalizing the IBR of
several test methods, as discussed in section IV.I of this preamble.
Technical and editorial changes. The EPA is finalizing
technical and editorial changes, as discussed in section IV.J of this
preamble.
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are
effective on July 9, 2020.\2\ The compliance date for affected existing
facilities is 365 days after the effective date of the final rule, with
the exception of electronic reporting of semiannual reports. Affected
source owners and operators that commence construction or
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, must comply with all
requirements of the subpart, including the amendments being finalized
with this action (except for the electronic reporting of semiannual
reports), no later than the effective date of the final rule or upon
startup, whichever is later. All affected sources must use the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) reporting
template for semiannual reports for the subsequent semiannual reporting
period after the form has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. All
affected existing facilities must meet the current requirements of 40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ until the applicable compliance date of the
amended rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This final action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is the
promulgation date as specified in CAA section 112(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed
a compliance period of 180 days for existing sources because the
amendments would impact ongoing compliance requirements (84 FR 79406,
September 19, 2019). Two significant amendments, the removal of the SSM
exemption and the addition of electronic reporting, were determined to
require additional time for changing reporting and recordkeeping
systems. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA's
experience with similar industries that are required to convert
reporting mechanisms; install necessary hardware and software; become
familiar with the process of submitting performance test results
electronically through the EPA's CEDRI; test these new electronic
submission capabilities; reliably employ electronic reporting; and
convert logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting
parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more
typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete
these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows
that owners or operators of this sort of regulated facility generally
requires a time period of 180 days to read and understand the amended
rule requirements; evaluate their operations to ensure that they can
meet the standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in
the rule, and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter
monitoring and recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update
their operations to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA
recognizes the confusion that multiple compliance dates for individual
requirements would create and the additional burden such an assortment
of dates would impose.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA solicited comment on
whether the 180-day compliance period was reasonable and specifically
requested sources provide information regarding the specific actions
they would need to undertake to comply with the amended rule. The EPA
also noted that information provided in response to this request for
comment could result in changes to the proposed compliance date (84 FR
49406, September 19, 2019). Comments were provided suggesting that 180
days was not enough time to comply with the proposed changes and that a
minimum of 365 days was needed. Commenters noted that tasks that would
need to be completed during the compliance period were: Develop site-
specific implementation plan for changes to add-on control device
requirements; review startup and shutdown procedures; reprogram
electronic systems and automated alarms consistent with the removal of
the SSM provisions; revise the oxidizer temperature operating limit;
rework recordkeeping and reporting procedures and systems to match the
new CEDRI form; develop and communicate guidance to ensure consistent
implementation across a company's facilities; prepare permit
applications; acquire new permits; and develop and provide training for
facility staff on the amended requirements.
The EPA reviewed the information provided by commenters regarding
tasks needed to be completed during the compliance period and agrees
that 180 days is not sufficient time, particularly for implementing the
changes to add-on control device requirements and for reworking
recordkeeping and reporting procedures to comply with the amendments,
including the removal of the SSM exemption. This source category needs
additional time for these changes because of the complexity of the
compliance calculations and the potential for a large variety of
products to be produced on the same equipment (which requires multiple
startup and shutdown events on a regular basis). From our assessment of
the time frame needed for compliance with the entirety of the revised
requirements and considering the public comments received, the EPA
considers a period of 365 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable for the POWC source category, and, thus, the EPA is
finalizing that existing affected sources must be in compliance with
all of the POWC NESHAP amended requirements within 365 days of the
effective date.
Additionally, comments were received from multiple commenters
requesting more time to develop and train on the CEDRI semiannual
reporting template. The Agency agrees with the commenters that more
time is needed to accurately develop the template and to train facility
staff on its use. As such, the EPA is finalizing that the electronic
reporting template is not required to be used for semiannual reports
until it has been available in CEDRI for 1 year. To prevent two
separate reports for one semiannual reporting period, the Agency is
finalizing that the reporting template should be used for the first
full semiannual reporting period after the template has been available
in CEDRI for 1 year. For example, if the template
[[Page 41281]]
becomes available in CEDRI on March 13, 2020, it would be used
beginning with the report submitted for the July 2021-December 2021
reporting period.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the POWC source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what the EPA
proposed and what the EPA is finalizing for the issue, a summary of key
comments and responses, and the EPA's rationale for the final decisions
and amendments. For all comments not discussed in this preamble,
comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment
summary and response document available in the docket (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
A. Residual Risk Review for the POWC Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the POWC
source category?
A residual risk analysis was conducted for the POWC source
category. Details of the risk analysis can be found in section IV of
the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019).
The results of the risk analyses, and decisions on risk acceptability
and ample margin of safety, as well as the results of the environmental
risk screening assessment, are summarized here.
For the POWC source category risk assessment conducted prior to
proposal, the EPA estimated risks based on actual and allowable
emissions from POWC surface coating operations. The risk results for
the POWC source category indicate that both the actual and allowable
inhalation cancer risks to the individual most exposed are at least 14
times below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million
(i.e., 1-in-10 thousand). The residual risk assessment for the POWC
source category \3\ estimated cancer incidence rate at 0.005 cases per
year based on actual emissions. Approximately 4,300 people are exposed
to a cancer risk equal to or above 1-in-1 million from the source
category based upon actual emissions from 11 facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Coating
Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maximum chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard index
(TOSHI) due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for actual and
allowable emissions. The results of the acute screening analysis show
that acute risks are below a level of concern for the source category
considering the conservative assumptions used that err on the side of
overestimating acute risk.
Multipathway screen values are below a level of concern for both
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic persistent and bioaccumulative HAP as
well as emissions of lead compounds. Maximum cancer and noncancer risks
due to ingestion exposures using health-protective risk screening
assumptions are below the presumptive limit of acceptability. The
maximum estimated excess cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million and the
maximum noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) for mercury is less than 1 based
upon the Tier 1 farmer/fisher exposure scenario.
The risk assessment for the POWC source category is contained in
the report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web
Coating Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
2. How did the risk review change for the POWC source category?
Neither the risk assessment nor the Agency's determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects for the POWC source category have changed since
the proposal was published on September 19, 2019. Therefore, the EPA is
finalizing the risk review as proposed with no changes (84 FR 49398,
September 19, 2019).
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
Comments were received regarding the risk assessment inputs the EPA
used to conduct the POWC source category risk assessment. First,
commenters noted that the acute emissions multipliers should be less
than the value of 10 that the EPA used in its source category acute
risk assessment. The EPA agrees with the commenters that an acute
hourly multiplier of 10 likely over-estimates the emissions for this
source category, however, we did not reanalyze acute risk for this
final rulemaking because the risk values were already deemed acceptable
using the multiplier of 10 for the proposal and would have been further
reduced with a lower multiplier. Second, commenters noted that the
EPA's risk assessment was ``very conservative and likely overstates
both annual and short-term HAP emission rates'' because it used
allowable emissions as actual emissions where no other data were
available. The commenters are correct in their assessment that the EPA
used allowable emissions as actual emissions when no other data were
available to ensure that the risk analysis did not underestimate the
risk posed by the source category. Because risk was acceptable using
this conservative approach and would have been reduced further if
actual emissions data had been available, the results of this approach
further supports the EPA's conclusion.
Additionally, comments were received regarding the risk assessment
methods the EPA used to conduct the POWC source category risk
assessment. Two commenters stated that the formaldehyde health value
used in the risk assessment was not based on the best available
science, and that the EPA should have used the value from the Chemical
Industry Institute of Technology (CIIT) biologically-based dose-
response model. We disagree with the commenters that the EPA should
have used the CIIT formaldehyde value because the EPA has a tiered
prioritized list of appropriate health benchmark values for use in the
residual risk assessment, and in general, the hierarchy places greater
weight on the EPA-derived health benchmarks than those from other
organizations. Even though the commenters claim the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) value the EPA used was too high (i.e., the
value over-estimated risk), the EPA proposed, and is finalizing, that
the risks from formaldehyde from this source category are acceptable.
Comments were also received supporting the EPA's use of the 99th
percentile concentration for modeling acute risk. Overall, the EPA
received no comments or new information demonstrating a need for the
Agency to reanalyze risk for the final rulemaking, and, therefore, the
risk assessment conducted for the proposed rule was used to support the
Agency's conclusions for the final rule.
Additionally, the EPA received several comments supporting our
conclusions relating to risk acceptability and that additional
emissions reductions are not necessary to provide an ample margin of
safety. One commenter opposed our acceptability determination because
the EPA did not consider risk from emission sources from other source
categories. The EPA has the discretion to conduct a facility-wide risk
assessment which factors in emissions from process equipment outside of
the source category. The Agency examines facility-wide risks to provide
additional context for the source category risks. The development of
facility-wide risk estimates provides
[[Page 41282]]
additional information about the potential cumulative risks in the
vicinity of the source category emission units as one means of
informing potential risk-based decisions about the source category in
question. The Agency recognizes that, because these risk estimates were
derived from facility-wide emission estimates which have not generally
been subjected to the same level of engineering review as the source
category emission estimates, they may be less certain than our risk
estimates for the source category in question, but they remain
important for providing context as long as their uncertainty is taken
into consideration in the process.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the residual risk review
and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket,
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual risk (MIR) of
`approximately 1-in-10 thousand''' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989). The EPA weighs all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum
TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of noncancer risks,
the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed
population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposal, the EPA determined that the risks from the
POWC source category are acceptable, and the current standards provide
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent an
adverse environmental effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section
112(f)(2), the EPA is finalizing the residual risk review as proposed.
B. Technology Review for the POWC Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the POWC
source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA proposed to conclude
that no revisions to the current MACT standards for the POWC source
category are necessary (84 FR 49382, September 19, 2019). As described
in section III.B of the preamble to the proposed rule, the technology
review focused on identifying developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for reduction of HAP emissions from POWC
facilities. In conducting the technology review, the EPA searched for
and reviewed information on practices, processes, and control
technologies that were not considered during the development of the
POWC NESHAP. The review included a search of the Reasonably Available
Control Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse database, reviews of title
V permits for POWC facilities, site visits to facilities with POWC
operations, and a review of relevant literature. We did not identify
any developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
were widely applicable to the industry and would significantly reduce
HAP emissions, and, therefore, the EPA did not propose any changes to
the NESHAP based on the technology review. For more details on the
technology review, see the Technology Review Analysis for the Paper and
Other Web Coating Source Category memorandum, in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0086).
2. How did the technology review change for the POWC source category?
No new information was received to change the Agency's conclusions
with respect to the technology review since the proposal was published
on September 19, 2019. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the proposed
determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are necessary pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
The EPA received no comments that identified improved control
technology, work practices, operational procedures, process changes, or
pollution prevention approaches to reduce emissions in the category
since promulgation of the current NESHAP. The EPA received multiple
supportive comments on the proposed technology review. For detailed
comment summaries regarding the technology review and the corresponding
responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final
Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
The technology review did not identify any changes in practices,
processes, or control technologies that would reduce emissions in this
category. The EPA did not identify any control equipment not previously
identified; improvements to existing controls; work practices, process
changes, or operational procedures not previously considered; or any
new pollution prevention alternatives for this source category. We
evaluated all of the comments on the technology review and determined
that no changes to the review are needed, therefore, the EPA is
finalizing the determination that no revisions to the NESHAP are
necessary pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Additional details of our
technology review can be found in the memorandum titled Technology
Review Analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating Source Category, in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0416-0086).
C. Revisions to the SSM Provisions for the POWC Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to SSM provisions for the POWC source
category?
The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to remove provisions
related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More information concerning the
elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 49399-49402, September 19, 2019).
2. How did the revisions to the SSM provisions change for the POWC
source category?
The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no
changes.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
The EPA received several comments related to the proposed removal
of the
[[Page 41283]]
SSM provisions. One commenter believed that the EPA is not required to
change the regulation to require sources to meet the emission standards
at all times, including periods of SSM. The EPA disagrees with the
commenter's assertion. The EPA believes the Sierra Club decision
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019) held that emission limitations
under CAA section 112 must apply continuously and meet minimum
stringency requirements, even during periods of SSM. Consistent with
this reading, the EPA proposed to remove the SSM exemption, and is
finalizing the removal with this action. Other commenters were
generally supportive of the SSM exemption removal and noted that it
would likely have minimal impacts on regulated facilities. For detailed
comment summaries regarding the removal of the SSM exemption and the
corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the revisions to the SSM provisions?
The rationale for each of the amendments the EPA is finalizing to
address SSM is in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49399-49402,
September 19, 2019). After evaluation of the comments received, the
EPA's rationale for revisions to the SSM provisions has not changed
since proposal and we are finalizing the approach for removing the SSM
provisions as proposed.
D. Method for Determining Volatile Organic Matter Retained in the
Coated Web
1. What did we propose?
A portion of the HAP in coatings applied to paper and other web
substrates may be retained in the web instead of being volatilized as
air emissions. The existing NESHAP allows for the accounting of HAP
retained in the coated web in 40 CFR 63.3360(g), but stakeholders
indicated the requirement to ``develop a testing protocol to determine
the mass of volatile matter retained . . . and submit this protocol to
the Administrator for approval'' was vague and unworkable. As discussed
in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49402, September 19, 2019),
to provide clarity and reduce regulatory burden, the EPA proposed to
incorporate the utilization of an emission factor to account for
volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. As discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA proposed new language to allow
facilities to account for retained volatile organics in their
compliance demonstration calculations without requiring the submittal
of an alternative monitoring request to the EPA under the provisions of
40 CFR 63.8(f).
2. What changed since proposal?
Two changes have been made to the proposed provisions for
determining volatile organic matter retained in the coated web. First,
the EPA has clarified that ``retained in the web'' means ``retained in
the coated web or otherwise not emitted.'' Second, the EPA has added
additional flexibility to allow any EPA-approved method, manufacturer's
emissions test data, or mass balance approach using modified EPA Method
24 to be used to develop the emission factor.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
The EPA received comments from four commenters supporting the
addition of the emission factor approach for determining the amount of
volatile matter retained in the web. Commenters suggested that the EPA
clarify that ``retained in the web'' means ``retained in the coated web
or otherwise not emitted.'' The EPA agrees that this is an appropriate
clarification and has revised the regulatory text accordingly.
The EPA also received comments suggesting that we allow other
methods for developing the emission factor to determine the amount of
volatile organic matter retained. Commenters specifically requested the
ability to use other EPA-approved test methods, manufacturer's
emissions test data, or mass-balance type approaches using modified EPA
Method 24. The EPA agrees that allowing the use of these methods would
provide flexibility and still appropriately characterize emissions from
the web coating process.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the methods used to
determine the volatile organic matter retained in the coated web and
the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach to determining volatile
matter retained in the coated web?
The EPA reviewed the public comments and are finalizing the
proposed method of determining the volatile organic material retained
in the coated web with two changes as a result of public comment. The
EPA is clarifying that ``retained in the web'' means ``retained in the
coated web or otherwise not emitted'' in the regulatory text and is
allowing for additional test methods for use in the development of the
emission factor. Both of these changes provide regulatory clarity and
flexibility, but still appropriately characterize emissions from the
web coating process. The amendments add compliance flexibility and
reduce regulatory burden but do not alter the emission standard. This
approach quantifies emissions in a way that is representative of the
actual emissions from the coating operations instead of assuming that
all coating-HAP is emitted.
E. Periodic Performance Testing
1. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed that facilities that use non-recovery control
devices (e.g., thermal and catalytic oxidizers) must conduct periodic
air emissions performance testing, with the first of the periodic
performance tests to be conducted within 3 years of the effective date
of the revised standards and thereafter every 5 years following the
previous test. The EPA also proposed that facilities using the emission
factor approach to account for volatile matter retained in the web must
conduct periodic performance testing every 5 years to re-establish the
emission factor.
2. What changed since proposal?
The periodic performance testing requirements for catalytic
oxidizers and those for emission factor development have changed since
the September 2019 proposal in response to public comment. For
catalytic oxidizers, commenters suggested that annual catalyst activity
testing would be more indicative of oxidizer operation than 5-year
inlet/outlet emissions testing. The EPA is therefore finalizing that
catalytic oxidizers may do an annual catalyst activity test instead of
the 5-year inlet/outlet emissions testing. The EPA is finalizing
periodic performance testing requirements for thermal oxidizers as
proposed (84 FR 49403, September 19, 2019). The EPA has clarified that
the testing is only required for add-on control devices used to
demonstrate
[[Page 41284]]
compliance with the POWC NESHAP. The EPA is not finalizing the 5-year
requirement to re-establish emission factors used in determining the
amount of volatile organics retained in the coated web for 40 CFR
63.3360(g), but is finalizing a requirement that periodic performance
testing be done if there is a change in coating formulation, operation
conditions, or other change that could reasonably result in increased
emissions since the time of the last test used to establish the
emission factor.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Comments were received both opposing and supporting the proposed 5-
year periodic emissions testing requirements. Commenters that opposed
the requirements noted that oxidizers are not used continuously in the
flexible packaging industry but only when compliant coatings are not
used and stated that testing does not show any evidence of degradation
in thermal oxidizers. Commenters noted that degradation may occur when
a catalytic oxidizer is used to control a process using silicon-
containing coatings, but that a catalyst activity test would be more
appropriate to determine performance. The EPA has reviewed these
comments and is finalizing repeat emissions performance testing for
catalytic oxidizers with the alternative to perform an annual catalyst
activity test. The EPA is finalizing the periodic emissions performance
test requirements for thermal oxidizers, as proposed. Both requirements
can be found in 40 CFR 63.3360(a)(2).
Commenters suggested that periodic performance testing for re-
establishment of emission factors, such as for reactive coatings, is
not necessary in most cases and would be excessively burdensome and
unnecessary, except if the product's formulation or its process
conditions have changed in a way that would increase emissions. The EPA
has reviewed the commenters concerns and agrees that repeat testing to
re-establish emission factors for coatings used in the POWC industry
every 5 years could be burdensome and is not finalizing this
requirement in this action.
Commenters requested clarification that the first periodic
emissions performance test can be conducted within either 3 years of
promulgation of the final amendments or within 60 months of the
previous test, whichever is later, to ensure that any facility that has
recently conducted a performance test will have the full 5 years
between tests. The EPA intended that performance tests recently
performed (within 3 years of promulgation of the final amendments) can
count towards the first periodic testing requirements. Commenters also
requested clarification if state-required volatile organic compound
(VOC) performance testing or HAP performance testing performed for
another MACT can count towards this requirement. The EPA agrees that
both testing for VOC destruction efficiency and HAP destruction
efficiency for another subpart are appropriate substitutions for the
periodic testing requirements in the POWC NESHAP because these tests
will demonstrate ongoing performance of the control device. Both of
these issues have been clarified in 40 CFR 63.3330(a)(2).
Commenters requested clarification that only control devices used
to demonstrate compliance with the POWC NESHAP would need to be tested,
and that VOC tests required by the state permitting authority could be
used to meet the proposed requirements. The EPA agrees with the
commenters that add-on control devices not used to demonstrate
compliance with the POWC NESHAP (i.e., those used to demonstrate
compliance with new source performance standards (NSPS) or state VOC
requirements) are not required to be tested under the POWC NESHAP
amendments. The EPA also agrees that VOC tests required by the state
permitting authority could be used to meet the POWC repeat testing
requirements. The EPA's proposal was not intended to impose duplicative
testing requirements. Regulatory text has been amended throughout the
NESHAP to state that the requirements for add-on control devices are
only for those used to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 63.3320, and
that VOC tests required by state permitting authorities can be used to
meet the repeat performance testing requirements.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the repeat testing
provisions and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the periodic emissions testing requirement?
Although ongoing monitoring of operating parameters is required by
the existing POWC NESHAP, as the control device ages over time, the
destruction efficiency of the control device can be compromised due to
various factors. These factors are discussed in more detail in the
memorandum titled Revised Periodic Testing of Control Devices Used to
Comply with the Paper and Other Web Coating NESHAP, in the docket for
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416). After considering
the comments discussed above and based on the need for vigilance in
maintaining the control device equipment, the EPA is finalizing the
requirement for periodic testing of thermal oxidizers once every 5
years and the alternative of annual catalyst activity tests for
catalytic oxidizers.
F. Electronic Reporting
1. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed amendments to the POWC NESHAP to require owners
and operators of POWC facilities to submit electronic copies of
required performance test reports (40 CFR 63.3400(f)), performance
evaluation reports (40 CFR 63.3400(g)), initial notifications (40 CFR
63.3400(b)), notification of compliance status (40 CFR 63.3400(e)), and
semiannual compliance reports (40 CFR 63.3400(c)) through the EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) using CEDRI. A description of the
electronic data submission process is provided in the proposal (at 84
FR 49403, September 19, 2019) and in the memorandum, Electronic
Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0091. The proposed
amendment replaces the previous rule requirement to submit the
notifications and reports to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in 40 CFR 63.13. This rule requirement does not affect
submittals required by state air agencies as required by 40 CFR 63.13.
For the performance test reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(f), the
amendments proposed required that performance test results collected
using test methods that are supported by the EPA's Electronic Reporting
Tool (ERT) as listed on the ERT website \4\ at the time of the test be
submitted in the format generated through the use of the ERT and that
other performance test results be submitted in portable document format
(PDF) using the attachment module of the ERT. Similarly, performance
evaluation results of continuous monitoring systems (CMS)
[[Page 41285]]
measuring relative accuracy test audit pollutants that are supported by
the ERT at the time of the test must be submitted in the format
generated through the use of the ERT and other performance evaluation
results be submitted in PDF using the attachment module of the ERT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the proposed electronic submittal of initial notifications
required in 40 CFR 63.3400(b), no specific form is available at this
time, therefore, these notifications are required to be submitted in
PDF using the attachment module of the ERT. For electronic submittal of
notifications of compliance status reports required in 40 CFR
63.3400(e), it was proposed that the final semiannual report template
discussed above, would also contain the information required for the
notification of compliance status report.
For semiannual compliance reports required in 40 CFR 63.3400(c),
the amendment proposed required that owners and operators use the final
semiannual report template to submit information to CEDRI. The template
will reside in CEDRI and was proposed to be used on and after 180 days
past finalization of the amendments. The proposed template for these
reports was included in the docket for public comment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See POWC_Electronic_Reporting_Template.xlsx, available at
Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-2018-0416-0165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in the proposal, the EPA identified two broad
circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided.
In both circumstances, the decision to accept the claim of needing
additional time to report is within the discretion of the
Administrator, and reporting should occur as soon as possible. The EPA
provided these potential extensions to protect owners and operators
from noncompliance in cases where they cannot successfully submit a
report by the reporting deadline for reasons outside of their control.
2. What changed since proposal?
The EPA has changed the deadline to use the CEDRI semiannual
reporting template to be 1 year after the template has been available
in CEDRI, instead of the proposed 180 days after date of publication of
the final rule. The EPA has also changed the electronic submittal of
the notification of compliance status to be a PDF instead in the
semiannual reporting template. No other changes have been made to the
proposed requirement for owners and operators of POWC facilities to
submit initial notifications, performance test reports, performance
evaluation reports, and semiannual reports electronically using CEDRI.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
The EPA received one comment supporting the proposed amendment to
require electronic reporting. The commenter, however, believed that the
proposed force majeure language in 40 CFR 63.3400(j) should be removed
so there is no exemption from reporting due to force majeure events. As
explained in detail in the response-to-comments document, 40 CFR
63.3400(j) does not provide an exemption to reporting, only a method
for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. The EPA has
retained the proposed language in 40 CFR 63.3400(j) for the final rule.
Commenters expressed concern about potential inconsistencies
between the POWC electronic reporting requirements and state
requirements of paper copies of reports for VOC and title V compliance.
Commenters asked for clarification that the electronic reporting
requirements replace the POWC title V compliance reporting, including
timing. The Agency does not agree with the commenter's suggestion
concerning potential inconsistencies between state requirements for
paper reporting and federal requirements for VOC and title V permit
compliance. State requirements developed under the state's own
authorities are separate and apart from federal requirements developed
for this rule. As individual federal rules establish applicable
requirements--including electronic reporting--title V programs bundle
those individual requirements, except for adding appropriate periodic
monitoring when necessary, without change. Therefore, title V and the
individual rule's electronic reporting requirements are the same.
Commenters also asked for clarification that the transition to the
new reporting methodology would apply to an entire reporting period
instead of becoming effective in the middle of a reporting period,
resulting in two different reports being prepared. The EPA's intent was
not to require two different reports to be prepared for one reporting
period. The EPA has clarified in this action that the reporting
template should be used at the beginning of the first full reporting
period after the template has been available in CEDRI for 1 year.
Commenters expressed concern regarding the electronic reporting
template and asked for more time to meet with the EPA to develop and
understand the spreadsheet. Commenters also provided feedback on the
spreadsheet. The EPA agrees that more time is needed to develop the
template and to work with stakeholders to understand how to use the
spreadsheet. As such, the EPA is changing the compliance date for using
the spreadsheet template to be 1 year after the final template is
available in CEDRI. The EPA will work with stakeholders to develop the
spreadsheet and to provide training on CEDRI and how to complete the
spreadsheet. Because the EPA intends to work with stakeholders to
update the template in the future, it has not placed an updated version
of the template in the docket for this rulemaking.
For detailed comment summaries regarding electronic reporting and
the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the electronic reporting requirement?
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that owners or
operators of POWC facilities submit electronic copies of initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance test
reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance
reports using CEDRI. The EPA is finalizing that the deadline to use the
CEDRI semiannual reporting template is 1 year after the template has
been available in CEDRI. The EPA is finalizing that the electronic
submittal of the notice of compliance status should be in pdf form
instead of the semiannual reporting template. The EPA is also
finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow facility owners or
operators a process to request extensions for submitting electronic
reports for circumstances beyond the control of the facility (i.e., for
a possible outage in the CDX or CEDRI or for a force majeure event).
The amendments will increase the usefulness of the data contained in
those reports; is in keeping with current trends in data availability
and transparency; will further assist in the protection of public
health and the environment; will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and
[[Page 41286]]
the EPA to assess and determine compliance; and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
For more information on the benefits of electronic reporting, see the
memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416-0165.
G. Temperature Sensor Validation
1. What did we propose?
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49382,
September 19, 2019), at 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(9), the original POWC NESHAP
required facilities to conduct an electronic calibration of the
temperature monitoring device every 3 months or, if calibration could
not be performed, replace the temperature sensor. Facilities subject to
the standard have explained to the EPA that they are not aware of a
temperature sensor manufacturer that provides procedures or protocols
for conducting electronic calibration of temperature sensors.
Facilities have reported that because they cannot calibrate their
temperature sensors, the alternative is to replace them every 3 months.
Industry representatives explained that this is burdensome and
requested that an alternative approach to the current requirement in 40
CFR 63.3350(e)(9) be considered.
The EPA proposed to modify 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow multiple
alternative approaches to temperature sensor validation. The first
alternative allows the use of a National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement device or simulator
to confirm the accuracy of any temperature sensor placed into use for
at least one quarterly period, where the accuracy of the temperature
measurement must be within 2.5 percent of the temperature measured by
the NIST traceable device or 5 degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is
greater. The second alternative allows the temperature sensor
manufacturer to certify the electrical properties of the temperature
sensor. The third alternative codifies the common practice of replacing
temperature sensors quarterly. The fourth alternative allows for the
permanent installation of a redundant temperature sensor as close as
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The redundant sensors
must read within 25 degrees Fahrenheit of each other for thermal and
catalytic oxidizers.
2. What changed since proposal?
Comments were received on the temperature sensor validation
amendments requesting clarification on the requirements. The EPA has
clarified the requirements, as discussed below, in the final
rulemaking.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Commenters identified inconsistencies between 40 CFR 63.8 and the
POWC NESHAP. Specifically, the commenters noted that the proposed
amendments require ``validation'' whereas 40 CFR 63.8 requires
``calibration.'' The EPA proposed to remove the term ``calibration''
from the POWC NESHAP because temperature sensors such as thermocouples
do not typically have calibration procedures. To fix this
inconsistency, the EPA is finalizing changes to Table 2 for the 40 CFR
63.8(c)(3) entry to direct affected sources to 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(10)(iv) for temperature sensor validation procedures in lieu
of calibration requirements. Additionally, the EPA is finalizing
changes to Table 2 for the 40 CFR 63.8(d)(1)-(2) entry to direct
affected sources to 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(5) for continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS) quality control procedures and to the 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) entry to state that it does not apply, because 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(5) specifies the program of corrective action. Commenters
also questioned whether Table 2 requires a notification of performance
evaluation for temperature sensors under 40 CFR 63.8(e)(2). The EPA is
also finalizing changes to Table 2 to clarify notifications are not
required for temperature sensor validations.
Commenters provided background information on thermocouple accuracy
and calibrations and requested that the EPA adopt mechanical
validations as an option to verify temperature sensor operation. These
mechanical validations include visually inspecting the head and wiring
of the device and monitoring the function/non-function of the device.
Commenters explained that this type of validation is appropriate
because thermocouples typically fail instead of drifting and becoming
less accurate. In response to this comment, the EPA added mechanical
validations as an option for verifying temperature sensor operation in
the final rule.
Similarly, commenters requested that the requirement in 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(10)(vi) for quarterly inspection of all components for
integrity and all electrical connections for continuity, oxidization,
and galvanic corrosion be removed. Commenters noted that this
requirement is redundant because electronic monitoring systems are
designed to alert facility personnel if a signal from the temperature
sensor is interrupted. The commenters suggested that the EPA simplify
the requirement to include only a quarterly inspection of thermocouple
components for proper connection and integrity and clarify that any
such inspection only applies to the temperature sensor and not the
entire oxidation system. The EPA did not intend to create redundant
burden with the proposed requirements. The Agency agrees with the
commenter and is requiring in the final rule a quarterly inspection of
the thermocouple components or to continuously operate an electronic
monitoring system designed to notify personnel if the temperature
sensor signal is interrupted at 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(vi).
Commenters supported the proposed options for testing the accuracy
of temperature sensors and requested clarification on whether the use
of dual-sensor thermocouples or the use of multiple sensors in the
oxidizer combustion chamber would meet the proposed requirements. The
Agency has added a new subsection to clarify that these options would
meet the finalized requirements. Additionally, the EPA reviewed the
proposed temperature sensor validation regulatory text and determined
that, as proposed, it was vague and sometimes inconsistent. For
example, the proposed amendments said to validate the temperature
sensor quarterly by following the applicable procedures in the
manufacturer's owner's manual. The EPA received additional information
and found that owner's manuals specified annual inspection procedures.
Also as proposed, facilities would need to quarterly validate by
permanently installing a redundant temperature sensor, which was vague
and confusing to affected sources. The EPA has amended 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(10)(iv) to clarify each option for verifying that a
temperature sensor is operating properly and how frequently to perform
the verification. The EPA is finalizing the following verification
options:
Semiannually compare the temperature sensor to a NIST
traceable temperature measurement device;
annually validate the temperature sensor by following
applicable mechanical and electrical validation procedures in the
manufacturer's owner's manual;
annually request the temperature sensor manufacturer to
certify or re-certify electromotive force;
[[Page 41287]]
annually replace the temperature sensor with a new
certified temperature sensor;
permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as
close as practicable to the process temperature sensor; or
permanently install a temperature sensor with dual sensors
to account for the possibility of failure.
One commenter requested that the required accuracy of 2.5 percent
at 40 CFR part 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(A) apply equally at 40 CFR part
63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(E) instead of 25 degrees Fahrenheit. The commenter
was not aware of any reason to specify different levels of accuracy
between the proposed validation methods. With this final action, the
EPA has changed the 25 degrees Fahrenheit requirement in 40 CFR
63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(E) to be 2.5 percent to be consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(iv)(A).
Commenters also requested that the requirement to calibrate the
chart recorder or data logger in section 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(10)(i) be
removed because it is not feasible to calibrate either device, and most
facilities now use an electronic signal to record temperature data for
compliance purposes, not a chart recorder. The EPA agrees and has
removed this statement from the regulatory text.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the temperature sensor
validation requirements and corresponding responses, see the memorandum
in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the temperature senor calibration requirement?
The EPA proposed modifications to 40 CFR 63.3350(e) to allow
multiple alternative approaches to temperature sensor calibration to
address concerns raised by affected facilities prior to proposal. After
reviewing the public comments received, the Agency is clarifying the
requirements in this final rulemaking, as discussed above. These
amendments ensure that the temperature sensors are operating properly
to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission standards.
H. Operating Parameter Clarification
1. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed to clarify language in 40 CFR 63.3370 which
previously implied all deviations in operating parameters result in
non-compliance with the standard. Specifically, the EPA proposed at 40
CFR 63.3370(k)(5) to clarify that each 3-hour average operating
parameter that is outside of the operating limit range established
during a performance test should be assumed to have zero control and
all HAP must be assumed to be emitted for that period in the monthly
compliance calculation.
2. What changed since proposal?
The EPA is finalizing the clarification that a deviation from a 3-
hour average operating parameter is not a deviation of the standard,
unless the emission limitations for the month in which the deviation
occurred are exceeded. Based on public comment, the EPA has also added
the option in 40 CFR 63.3370(k)(5) for a facility to develop a control
destruction efficiency curve for use in determining compliance instead
of assuming zero control for all deviations. The EPA has also added
minor clarifications as discussed below.
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Commenters supported the EPA's proposed clarification that
deviations in operating parameters are not automatically indicative of
non-compliance with the POWC standard. Commenters also stated that a
deviation from a 3-hour operating limit does not indicate non-
compliance because the standard is based on a monthly average. The EPA
agrees that the intent of the clarification was for operating
parameters of add-on control devices only, as the requirement was
placed in 40 CFR 63.3370(k)(5) which only applies to add-on control
devices and not coating lines using compliant coatings.
Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's proposal that each 3-
hour average operating parameter that is outside of the operating limit
range established during a performance test should be assumed to have
``zero control.'' Commenters asserted that there was no scientific
basis for this assumption and indicated that if a performance test
performed well above the minimum required destruction efficiency,
dropping below the established temperature may have no effect on the
destruction efficiency. Commenters recommended that the EPA allow
facilities to develop a control curve based on test data or engineering
data that documents the level of control achieved at temperatures lower
than the performance test established temperature. The EPA has
considered the commenters' suggestion and have added the option to
develop a control curve for add-on control devices at 40 CFR
63.3360(e)(4). Facilities must work with their permitting authority to
develop the control curve.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the operating parameter
clarification and responses, see the memorandum in the docket, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web
Coating (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on September 19,
2019 Proposal.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the operating parameter clarification?
Operating parameters were established in the original POWC NESHAP
to aid in determining compliance, but operating parameters were not
intended to constitute a violation of the emission standard. For
example, one 3-hour average regenerative thermal oxidizer firebox
temperature below the setpoint established during the stack test would
not necessarily indicate a violation of the POWC emission standard for
the month, but it is a deviation of the operating parameter limit. The
EPA is finalizing, as proposed, language to clarify this distinction
with minor changes based on public comment.
I. IBR Under 1 CFR Part 51 for the POWC NESHAP
1. What did we propose?
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA proposed to
incorporate by reference the following voluntary consensus standards
(VCS) into 40 CFR 63.14:
ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method
for Volatile Content of Coatings, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, IBR approved
for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(d).
ASTM D6093-97, (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent
[[Page 41288]]
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using a Helium
Gas Pycnometer, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their Admixtures,
IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.3360(c).
ASTM D1963-85 (Reapproved 1996), Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related
Materials at 25/25[deg]C (Withdrawn 2004), IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.3360(c).
2. What changed since proposal?
No changes to the proposed IBR were made since publication of the
proposal (84 FR 49405, September 19, 2019).
3. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
No comments were received on the proposed IBR of the standards into
40 CFR 63.14.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the IBR under 1 CFR part 51?
In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
finalizing, as proposed, the IBR of the documents listed in section
IV.I.1 of this preamble.
J. Technical and Editorial Changes
1. Removal of OSHA-Defined Carcinogens Reference
a. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed to amend sections 40 CFR 63.3360(c)(1)(i) and (3),
which describe how to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations using the compliant material option, to remove references
to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). The
reference to OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) is intended to specify which compounds must be included
in calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they
are present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass. The Agency proposed to
remove this reference because 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) has been amended
and no longer readily defines which compounds are carcinogens. The EPA
proposed to replace the references to OSHA-defined carcinogens and 29
CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) with a list (in proposed new Table 3 to Subpart
JJJJ of Part 63--List of Hazardous Air Pollutants That Must Be Counted
Relative to Determining Coating HAP Content if Present at 0.1 Percent
or More By Mass) of those organic HAP that must be included in
calculating total organic HAP content of a coating material if they are
present at 0.1 percent or greater by mass.
b. What changed since proposal?
The EPA has changed the approach for the removal of the reference
to 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) based on public comment. The EPA is not
finalizing the proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, and is
finalizing a reference to appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 where 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) was previously referenced.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Multiple commenters asked that the EPA delete the proposed Table 3
to 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, and modify the proposed methodology
for determining the HAP content of coatings. Commenters pointed out
that 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4) was not a list, but a list of references
for manufacturers and importers to use to classify chemicals.
Commenters asked that the POWC NESHAP reference the current OSHA Safety
Data Sheets (SDS) rule (29 CFR 1910.1200) instead of adding a static
list in the form of the proposed Table 3 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ. The EPA agrees the commenters' suggestion is a more-streamlined
solution for updating the OSHA reference and is not finalizing the
table in the final rule and has added the reference to appendix A to 29
CFR 1910.1200.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the OSHA-defined
carcinogens reference and the corresponding responses, see the
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
The EPA has reviewed the comments received regarding the removal of
the OSHA-defined carcinogens language and agrees that appendix A to 29
CFR 1910.1200 is an appropriate replacement for the outdated 29 CFR
1910.1200(d)(4) reference. Given that the OSHA language that the POWC
proposal sought to replace is in appendix A, for the final POWC
amendment the EPA is finalizing the regulatory text at 40 CFR
63.3360(c)(1)(i) to be as follows:
(i) Include each organic HAP determined to be present at greater
than or equal to 0.1 mass percent for Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4
of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and greater than or equal to 1.0 mass
percent for other organic HAP compounds.
2. Clarification of Compliance Demonstration Options
a. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed an introductory paragraph and a new subsection to
clarify the compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 63.3370. As
originally promulgated, it was not clear that compliance can be
demonstrated based on individual web coating lines, groups of web
coating lines, or all of the web coating lines located at an affected
facility. An introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370 was proposed to
clarify the intent that compliance can be demonstrated across the web
coating lines in a facility by grouping them or treating them
individually or a combination of both. Additionally, a new subsection
40 CFR 63.3370(r) was proposed to clarify that compliance with the
subpart can be demonstrated using a mass-balance approach. While the
compliance calculations included in 40 CFR 63.3370(b)-(p) are thorough,
there are instances where variables in the equations are not needed,
resulting in confusion by the regulated facilities and the regulating
agencies as to what is required to demonstrate compliance. The mass-
balance approach proposed in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) clarifies the original
intent of the rule.
b. What changed since proposal?
The EPA received comments suggesting minor edits to the proposed
language regarding the mass-balance compliance demonstration approach
and has incorporated these edits, as appropriate, as discussed below.
No changes were made to the introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.3370
and the EPA is finalizing this section, as proposed, in this action.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Commenters expressed support for the proposed clarification that
compliance can be demonstrated across multiple lines. Commenters also
felt that this clarification reduces the potential for inconsistent
regulatory interpretations by sources and permitting agencies and makes
the POWC NESHAP consistent with other coating rules. The EPA
acknowledges the commenters' support and is finalizing the
clarification, as proposed.
[[Page 41289]]
Commenters noted that the EPA incorrectly stated procedures for
demonstrating compliance by mass-balance at 40 CFR 63.3370(r)(1)--the
mass of HAP emitted during the month should be divided by the mass
applied according to any of the procedures listed in 40 CFR
63.3320(b)(1)-(3). Commenters also suggested additional regulatory text
revisions to be consistent with proposed edits to other sections. The
EPA has reviewed these comments and agrees with the commenters
suggested edits to correct the mass-balance calculation and has done so
in this rulemaking.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the clarification of the
compliance demonstration options and the corresponding responses, see
the memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart
JJJJ) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response
to Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
The EPA proposed, and is finalizing, amendments to the regulatory
text to clarify that compliance can be demonstrated based on individual
web coating lines, groups of web coating lines, or all of the web
coating lines located at an affected facility. The EPA is finalizing
corrections to the mass balance calculation. Additionally, the EPA
proposed, and is finalizing, a new subsection in 40 CFR 63.3370(r) to
clarify the intent of the rule as a mass-balance approach of
demonstrating compliance. The clarification to the compliance
demonstration options were made to help reduce confusion among
regulated entities and regulating authorities.
3. Clarification of Coating Materials Definition
a. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed to revise the coating material definition in 40
CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-liquid
materials. Additionally, the EPA proposed to revise the web coating
line definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-
liquid.
b. What changed since proposal?
The EPA has clarified in the definition of coating materials to
include hot melt adhesives and other hot melt materials.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Commenters supported the EPA's proposed clarifications to the
definition of coating materials and further suggested that the EPA
revise the definition to ensure that it is not incorrectly interpreted
to exclude hot melt adhesives or coatings. The EPA agrees with the
commenters and hot melt materials are included in the revised
regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.3310 to reflect this.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the coating materials
definition and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, revisions to the coating
material definition in 40 CFR 63.3310 to clarify that coating materials
are liquid or semi-liquid materials and revisions to the web coating
line definition to clarify that coating materials are liquid or semi-
liquid. The EPA is also finalizing the clarification that hot melt
materials are included in the definition and that vapor deposition and
dry abrasive materials deposited onto a coated surface area are
excluded from the definition. These revisions will improve regulatory
clarity by confirming that the weight of solid materials should not be
accounted for in the compliance demonstration calculations, and that
vapor-deposition coating is not covered by this subpart.
4. Addition of Web Coating Line Usage Threshold
a. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed to add a usage threshold to 40 CFR 63.3300(h),
similar to that in 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO, that requires a web
coating line that coats both paper and another substrate, such as
fabric, to comply with the subpart that corresponds to the predominate
activity conducted. The EPA proposed to define predominant activity to
be 90 percent of the mass of substrate coated during the compliance
period. For example, a web coating line that coats 90 percent or more
of a paper substrate, and 10 percent or less of a fabric substrate,
would be subject to this subpart and not 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.
b. What changed since proposal?
Since proposal, the EPA has clarified that the predominant activity
should be determined on a calendar year basis.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Commenters supported usage thresholds for converting lines that
coat both paper and another substrate. Commenters noted that the usage
of the term ``affected source'' in the proposal appears to be
inconsistent with the example because the POWC NESHAP is the collection
of all web coating lines. Additionally, commenters thought the term
compliance period could be interpreted to require a facility performing
different types of coating to determine which NESHAP applies on a
monthly basis. Commenters requested that the EPA clarify these issues.
The EPA agrees with the commenters and have edited the regulatory text
to clarify that predominant activity must be determined on a calendar
year basis.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the web coating line
threshold and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
The EPA reviewed the public comments and added clarifying language
to the proposed usage threshold. This language was added to promote
regulatory certainty and reduce burden from sources that could be
subject to multiple NESHAP.
5. Addition of Printing Activity Exemption
a. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed to add a printing activity exemption to 40 CFR
63.3300(i) which allows for modified web coating lines already subject
to this subpart to continue to demonstrate compliance with this
subpart, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart KK (Printing and Publishing NESHAP).
b. What changed since proposal?
The EPA has clarified the language in the printing activity
exemption to allow for existing and modified lines to be
[[Page 41290]]
subject to the POWC NESHAP in lieu of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Multiple commenters supported the EPA's proposed printing activity
exemption to allow for modified POWC lines already subject to the POWC
NESHAP to continue to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart JJJJ in lieu of demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart KK. Commenters suggested that this exemption also apply to
existing sources as well as modified sources (e.g., for POWC web
coating lines that already have a product and packaging rotogravure
print station and/or a wide-web flexographic print station). The
commenter noted that, as written, if during a single month the line
exceeds 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied at the print
station, the line applicability would permanently change to the
Printing and Publishing NESHAP. The EPA agrees with the commenters and
has clarified the regulatory text in this action, as appropriate.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the printing activity
exemption and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the
docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper
and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
In this rulemaking, the EPA is finalizing a printing activity
exemption to 40 CFR 63.3300(i) which allows for modified and existing
web coating lines already subject to this subpart to continue to
demonstrate compliance with this subpart, in lieu of demonstrating
compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK (i.e., the Printing and
Publishing NESHAP). This exemption will reduce regulatory burden
without resulting in increased emissions.
6. Clarification of Testing Requirements
a. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed to remove the ``by compound'' statement in 40 CFR
63.3320(b)(4) to clarify that the standard is 20 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) for the total of organic HAP emitted, not 20 ppmv for
each individual HAP emitted. This is consistent with the test methods
used in this subpart, which test for total HAP concentration.
b. What changed since proposal?
The EPA is finalizing the removal of ``by compound'' in 40 CFR
63.3220(b)(4) to clarify that the 20 ppmv standard applies to the total
of organic HAP emitted, not to each individual HAP. As part of our
review, the EPA found four additional instances of ``by compound'' in
40 CFR 63.3370(a)(5), (f), (f)(3), and (f)(3)(iii) that also needed to
be removed.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Commenters supported the EPA's proposal to remove ``by compound''
in 40 CFR 63.3220(b)(4) to clarify that the 20 ppmv standard applies to
the total of organic HAP emitted, not to each individual HAP.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
The removal of ``by compound'' makes the POWC NESHAP consistent
with the test methods referenced in the subpart, as they test for total
HAP concentration, not individual HAP compounds.
7. Applicability to Sources Using Only Non-HAP Coatings
a. What did we propose?
The EPA requested comment on changing the applicability of the POWC
NESHAP to exclude sources that only use non-HAP coatings but are
located at a major source to reduce regulatory burden. As identified
during the development of the risk modeling input file and discussed in
section III.C of the preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 49406,
September 19, 2019), some facilities that utilize only non-HAP coatings
are subject to the POWC NESHAP because they perform web coating
operations and are a major source because of non-POWC source category
emissions. For example, a non-HAP coating line used to produce paper
towel cores may be located at an integrated pulp and paper facility
that is a major source because of emissions from the pulping
operations. This facility would be required to comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ, even though the coatings
used contain no HAP, and, therefore, no HAP are emitted from the web
coating lines.
b. What changed since proposal?
The EPA received supportive comments regarding the change of
applicability to sources using only non-HAP coatings. The Agency has
reviewed the public comments and, instead of changing the applicability
of the subpart, is finalizing an exemption for reporting requirements
for these sources.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Commenters supported the EPA's proposal to reduce regulatory burden
by excluding sources that are located at a major source of HAP but do
not use coatings that contain HAP for the POWC emission sources.
Commenters stated that the change will reduce regulatory burden without
increasing emissions and could incentivize sources to convert to non-
HAP coatings to avoid applicability of the POWC NESHAP, resulting in
emissions reductions. Commenters further suggested that the exclusion
is a logical step under the EPA's efforts to reduce regulatory burden
and is similar in key aspects to the rulemaking to rescind the EPA's
``once in, always in'' policy. Commenters suggested that the EPA
clarify that all of the subject coating lines at the facility must use
non-HAP coatings to qualify for the exclusion. The EPA has reviewed
these comments and has added regulatory text exempting sources that
only use non-HAP coatings on all of the subject web coating lines at
the facility from on-going compliance reporting requirements.
For detailed comment summaries regarding applicability to sources
only using non-HAP coatings and the corresponding responses, see the
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
The EPA requested comment on changing the applicability of sources
using only non-HAP coatings and received comments supporting the
change. The EPA is finalizing an exemption to on-going reporting
requirements for these sources as it will reduce regulatory burden
without increasing emissions.
8. Oxidizer Temperature Monitoring
a. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed to add language to recognize that thermal
oxidizers can demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the
3-hour average firebox temperature does not drop lower
[[Page 41291]]
than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the average combustion temperature
established during the performance test to promote consistency between
the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart RR) and the POWC NESHAP, as well as to account
for temperature swings due to startup and/or shutdown of web coating
lines.
b. What changed since proposal?
The EPA has made minor clarifications to the regulatory text to
promote consistency throughout the subpart and has added similar
language for catalytic oxidizers.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Commenters were supportive of the EPA's proposed language for
thermal oxidizers and requested that it be included for catalytic
oxidizers as well. Additionally, commenters noted that the Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS allows for
setting the minimum temperature drop across the catalyst bed at 80
percent of the average temperature difference during the most recent
performance test and requested that this language be added to promote
consistency between the two rules. The Agency has reviewed the
commenters suggestions and agree that it is appropriate to add the
temperature language for catalytic oxidizers. To ensure complete
combustion, the EPA also added a requirement that the catalyst's
minimum temperature must always be 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the
catalyst's ignition temperature.
Commenters also suggested edits to promote consistency throughout
the subpart as it relates to the temperature language. The EPA has
reviewed these suggestions and made edits to the regulatory text in
this action, as appropriate.
For detailed comment summaries regarding the oxidizer temperature
monitoring requirements and the corresponding responses, see the
memorandum in the docket, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to
Public Comments on September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
The EPA proposed to add language to recognize that thermal
oxidizers can demonstrate compliance with the standard as long as the
3-hour average firebox temperature does not drop lower than 50 degrees
Fahrenheit below the average combustion temperature established during
the performance test to promote consistency between the Pressure
Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS and the POWC
NESHAP, as well as to account for temperature swings due to startup
and/or shutdown of web coating lines. After reviewing the public
comments, the EPA has added the same requirements to catalytic
oxidizers. In addition, the EPA has added language similar to that in
the Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations NSPS
to allow for setting the minimum temperature drop across the catalyst
bed at 80 percent of the average temperature difference during the most
recent performance test. To ensure complete combustion, the EPA also
added a requirement that the catalyst's minimum temperature must always
be 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition temperature.
9. Compliance Report Content
a. What did we propose?
The EPA proposed new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2)
that would require facilities to record data for failures to meet an
applicable standard, estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant
over any emission limit and a description of the method used, and
document any actions taken to minimize emissions.
b. What changed since proposal?
The EPA has revised the compliance report content requirements in
40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) to clarify what should be reported.
c. What are the key comments and what are our responses?
Commenters noted that the new reporting requirements should be
eliminated because they go beyond the General Provisions at 40 CFR
63.10 and, because compliance is determined monthly, short deviations
are not likely to cause excess emissions. Commenters further noted that
the proposed additions are not relevant to a rule where compliance is
not demonstrated on a short-term basis. The EPA has reviewed the
commenters concerns and agree that the language is not appropriate for
40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ. The EPA has revised the requirements in
40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2) to clarify what is required to be reported and has
also revised the requirements in 40 CFR 63.3410(c) to clarify what
records should be maintained.
Additionally, while the EPA was reviewing the report content
requirements, it became clear that the requirements were confusing as
to what should be reported for facilities using compliant coatings
versus facilities using add-on controls. The EPA has clarified that 40
CFR 63.3400(c)(2)(v) applies to facilities using only compliant
coatings (i.e., those that do not use a CMS). The EPA also clarified
that 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2)(vi) applies to facilities that have add-on
control devices (i.e., those that use a CPMS or a continuous emission
monitoring system). These amendments should improve regulatory clarity.
For detailed comment summaries regarding compliance report content
and the corresponding responses, see the memorandum in the docket,
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and
Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments--Response to Public Comments on
September 19, 2019 Proposal.
d. What is the rationale for our final approach?
The EPA proposed new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 63.3400(c)(2)
that would require facilities to record data for failures to meet an
applicable standard, estimate the quantity of each regulated pollutant
over any emission limit and a description of the method used, and
document any actions taken to minimize emissions to be consistent with
recent RTR rulemakings. After reviewing the comments received during
the public comment period, as well as the regulatory language, it was
determined that these requirements were not appropriate for 40 CFR part
63, subpart JJJJ because compliance is demonstrated on a monthly basis
and therefore these requirements are not being finalized. In response
to comments, amendments were added to the compliance report contents
section to clarify what should be reported and by whom.
10. Other Amendments
The following additional changes were proposed that address
technical and editorial corrections:
Revised the references to the other NESHAP in 40 CFR
63.3300 to clarify the appropriate subparts;
revised 40 CFR 3350(c) to clarify that bypass valves on
always-controlled work stations should be monitored;
revised 40 CFR 63.3350(e)(4) to clarify 3-hour averages
should be block averages, consistent with the requirements in Table 1
to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63;
[[Page 41292]]
revised the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR
63.3360 to clarify what constitutes representative conditions;
revised the recordkeeping requirements section in 40 CFR
63.3410 to include the requirement to show continuous compliance after
effective date of regulation;
revised the terminology in the delegation of authority
section in 40 CFR 63.3420 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90;
revised the General Provisions applicability table (Table
2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63) to provide more detail and to make it
align with those sections of the General Provisions that have been
amended or reserved over time; and
renumbered the equations throughout the subpart for
regulatory clarity.
No comments were received on these other amendments and, therefore,
the EPA is finalizing them as proposed.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
The POWC source category includes any facility that is located at a
major source and is engaged in the coating of paper, plastic film,
metallic foil, and other web surfaces. All the coating lines at a
subject facility are defined as one affected source. Any new source
means any affected source for which construction or reconstruction was
commenced after the date the EPA first proposed regulations
establishing a NESHAP applicable to the source (i.e., for the POWC
source category, September 13, 2000). An existing source means any
source other than a new source. Generally, an additional line at an
existing facility is considered part of the existing affected source.
New affected sources are new lines installed at new facilities or at a
facility with no prior POWC operations.
There are currently 168 facilities in the United States that are
subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA is aware of one new affected source
that is under construction that will be subject to the POWC NESHAP in
the future. The EPA is not aware of any other facilities that are under
construction or are planned to be constructed which would be considered
``new facilities'' under the POWC NESHAP.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
At the current level of control, estimated emissions of total HAP
are approximately 3,870 tpy. Compared to pre-MACT levels, this
represents a significant reduction of HAP for the category. When the
POWC NESHAP was finalized in 2002, the EPA estimated the annual
baseline HAP emissions from the source category to be approximately
42,000 tpy (67 FR 72331, December 4, 2002).
The amendments will require all 168 major sources with equipment
subject to the POWC NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption.
Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by requiring
facilities to meet the applicable standard during SSM periods; however,
the EPA is unable to quantify the specific emission reductions
associated with eliminating the exemption. The requirement for repeat
performance testing once every 5 years for thermal oxidizers and the
alternative of annual catalyst activity testing for catalytic oxidizers
will ensure that the control device is operating correctly and may
reduce emissions, but no method for accurately estimating such
emissions reduction is available.
Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this final rule. The EPA expects
no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this
rulemaking.
For further information, see the memorandum titled Revised Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for
this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
C. What are the cost impacts?
Startup and shutdown are considered normal operations for most
facilities subject to the POWC NESHAP. The EPA does not believe
removing the SSM exemption will result in additional incurred costs.
As discussed in detail in the memorandum titled Revised Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Regulatory Options for the Paper
and Other Web Coatings Risk and Technology Review, it is estimated that
65 oxidizers will have to perform repeat performance testing. Fifty
eight of these 65 are thermal oxidizers, and 3 are catalytic oxidizers.
For costing purposes, it was assumed that repeat emissions performance
testing will be performed every 5 years on the thermal oxidizers, and
annual catalyst activity testing will be conducted on the catalytic
oxidizers. The estimated cost for an inlet-outlet EPA Method 25A
performance test (with electronic reporting of results) is $28,000 per
test and the estimated cost for annual catalyst activity testing is
$1,000, for an estimated nationwide cost of $1,750,000 (2018$) every 5
years. The electronic reporting requirement is not expected to require
any additional labor hours to prepare, compared to the paper semi-
annual compliance reports that are already prepared. Therefore, the
costs associated with the electronic reporting requirement are zero.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. To
assess the potential impact, the largest cost expected to be
experienced in any one year is compared to the total sales for the
ultimate owner of the affected facilities to estimate the total burden
for each facility.
For the final revisions to the POWC NESHAP, the 168 affected
facilities are owned by 91 different parent companies, and the total
costs associated with the final requirements range from less than
0.000001 to 3 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These
costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact,
regardless of whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed
by the firms.
The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected entities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Twenty-
nine of the facilities potentially affected by the final revisions to
the POWC NESHAP are small entities. However, the costs associated with
the final requirements for the affected small entities range from
0.0003 to 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner; there
is one facility with costs of 1.4 percent and one facility with costs
of 3 percent of annual sales revenues per ultimate owner. Therefore,
there are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of
small entities from these final amendments.
E. What are the benefits?
Because these final amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because we did
not estimate emission reductions associated with the
[[Page 41293]]
final revisions, the EPA did not estimate any benefits from reducing
emissions.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, the EPA evaluated
the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk from the POWC
source category across different social, demographic, and economic
groups within the populations living near facilities identified as
having the highest risks.\6\ The methodology and the results of the
demographic analysis are presented in a technical report, Risk and
Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Paper and Other Web Coating Facilities, available in the
docket for this action (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0088).
These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the population living
within 50 km of the facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living 2 times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis
indicate that emissions from the source category expose approximately
4,300 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is
exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The specific
demographic results indicate that the percentage of the population
potentially impacted by emissions is greater than its corresponding
national percentage for the white population (86 percent for the source
category compared to 62 percent nationwide) and for the below-poverty-
level population (17 percent compared to 14 percent nationwide).
The risks due to HAP emissions from this source category are low
for all populations. Furthermore, the EPA does not expect this final
rule to achieve significant reductions in HAP emissions. Therefore, the
EPA concludes that this final rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. However, this
final rule will provide additional benefits to these demographic groups
by improving the monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the
NESHAP.
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
The results of the POWC source category demographic analysis indicate
that emissions from the source category expose approximately 4,300
people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no one is
exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The distribution
of the population with risks above 1-in-1 million is 20 percent for
ages 0 to 17, 62 percent for ages 18 to 64, and 17 percent for ages 65
and up. Children ages 0 to 17 constitute 23 percent of the population
nationwide. Therefore, the analysis shows that actual emissions from 40
CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ facilities have a slightly smaller impact on
children ages 0 to 17. This action's health and risk assessments are
contained in sections III and IV of the preamble to the proposed rule
and further documented in the risk report titled Residual Risk
Assessment for the Paper and Other Web Source Category in Support of
the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, which can be found in
the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1951.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0511. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The POWC NESHAP applies to existing facilities and new POWC
facilities. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance tests,
performance evaluation reports, and periodic reports by the owners/
operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any malfunction in
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ.
Respondents/affected entities: POWC facilities.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart JJJJ).
Estimated number of respondents: 170.
Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
Total estimated burden: 17,300 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $2,735,000 (per year), includes $765,000
annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to
[[Page 41294]]
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action and the
annualized costs associated with the final requirements in this action
for the affected small entities are described in section V.D above.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health risks or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk
to children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of this preamble and further documented in the risk
report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Paper and Other Web
Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Final
Rule, which can be found in the docket for this action (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416).
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA is finalizing the
following six VCS as alternatives to EPA Method 24 and is incorporating
them by reference for the first time in the finalized amendments:
ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, ``Standard Test Method
for Volatile Content of Coatings.'' This test method describes a
procedure used for the determination of the weight percent volatile
content of solvent-borne and waterborne coatings.
ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), ``Standard Test Method
for Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.'' This
test method is applicable to the determination of the volume of
nonvolatile matter in coatings.
ASTM D3960-98, ``Standard Practice for Determining
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related
Coatings.'' This test method is used for the measurement of the VOC
content of solvent borne and waterborne paints and related coatings.
This method is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 because the
regulation allows for the use of VOC content as a surrogate for HAP.
ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), ``Standard Test Method
for Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings
Using a Helium Gas Pycnometer.'' This test method is used for the
determination of the percent volume nonvolatile matter in clear and
pigmented coatings.
ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), ``Standard Test Methods
for Specific Gravity of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures.'' This test method is used for the determination of the
specific gravity of halogenated organic solvents and solvent
admixtures.
ASTM D1963-85 (Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Test Method
for Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related
Materials at 25[deg] C.'' This test method is used for the
determination of the specific gravity of drying oils, varnishes, alkyd
resins, fatty acids, and related materials. This method is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 24 for density only and may not be
valid for all coatings and is valid at the designated temperature (25
degrees Celsius). This standard was withdrawn in 2004 with no
replacement; there is no later version.
These standards are reasonably available from the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org/.
While the EPA has identified another 19 VCS as being potentially
applicable to this NESHAP, we have decided not to use these VCS in this
rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other important
technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating, in the
docket for this rule for the reasons for these determinations (Docket
ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0416-0068).
The revised regulatory text references ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 (40
CFR 63.3360) and ASTM D5087-02 (40 CFR 63.3165). These standards were
previously approved for this section. That approval continues without
change.
Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is
[[Page 41295]]
contained in section V.F of this preamble and the technical report,
Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Paper and Other Web Coating Facilities, which
is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0416).
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. 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 procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 11, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is amended
as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(49) through (114) as (h)(51) through
(116) and paragraphs (h)(18) through (48) as (h)(19) through (49),
respectively;
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (h)(18) and (50); and
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(21), (26), (30), and
(80).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(18) ASTM D1963-85 (Reapproved 1996), Standard Test Method for
Specific Gravity of Drying Oils, Varnishes, Resins, and Related
Materials at 25/25[deg]C, approved November 29, 1985, IBR approved for
Sec. 63.3360(c).
* * * * *
(21) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), Standard Test Methods for
Specific Gravity and Density of Halogenated Organic Solvents and Their
Admixtures, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.3360(c), 63.3951(c), 63.4141(b) and (c), 63.4551(c), and 63.4741(a).
* * * * *
(26) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, Standard Test Method for
Volatile Content of Coatings, approved June 1, 2015, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.3151(a), 63.3360(c), 63.3961(j), 63.4141(a) and (b),
63.4161(h), 63.4321(e), 63.4341(e), 63.4351(d), 63.4541(a), 63.4561(j),
appendix A to subpart PPPP, 63.4741(a), 63.4941(a) and (b), and
63.4961(j).
* * * * *
(30) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), Standard Test Method for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings, approved July
1, 2014, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.3161(f), 63.3360(c),
63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a) and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
(50) ASTM 3960-98, Standard Practice for Determining Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Content of Paints and Related Coatings, approved
November 10, 1998, IBR approved for Sec. 63.3360(c).
* * * * *
(80) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), Standard Test Method for
Percent Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings Using
a Helium Gas Pycnometer, approved December 1, 2016, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.3161(f), 63.3360(c), 63.3941(b), 63.4141(b), 63.4741(a)
and (b), and 63.4941(b).
* * * * *
Subpart JJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Paper and Other Web Coating
0
3. Section 63.3300 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) and
(f); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (h) through (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3300 Which of my emission sources are affected by this
subpart?
The affected source subject to this subpart is the collection of
all web coating lines at your facility. This includes web coating lines
engaged in the coating of metal webs that are used in flexible
packaging, and web coating lines engaged in the coating of fabric
substrates for use in pressure sensitive tape and abrasive materials.
Web coating lines specified in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this
section are not part of the affected source of this subpart.
(a) Any web coating line that is stand-alone equipment under
subpart KK of this part (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which the
owner or operator includes in the affected source under subpart KK.
(b) Any web coating line that is a product and packaging
rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press under subpart KK of this
part (NESHAP for the Printing and Publishing Industry) which is
included in the affected source under subpart KK.
* * * * *
(d) Any web coating line subject to subpart EE of this part (NESHAP
for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations).
(e) Any web coating line subject to subpart SSSS of this part
(NESHAP for Surface Coating of Metal Coil).
(f) Any web coating line subject to subpart OOOO of this part
(NESHAP for the Printing, Coating, and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other
Textiles). This includes any web coating line that coats both a paper
or other web substrate and a fabric or other textile substrate, except
for a fabric substrate used for pressure sensitive tape and abrasive
materials.
* * * * *
(h) Any web coating line that coats both paper or a web, and
another substrate such as fabric, may comply with the subpart of this
part that applies to the predominant activity conducted on the affected
source. Predominant activity for this subpart is 90 percent of the mass
of substrate coated during the compliance period. For example, a web
coating line that coats 90 percent or more of a paper substrate, and 10
percent or less of a fabric or other textile substrate, would be
subject to this subpart and not subpart OOOO of this part. You may use
data for any reasonable time period of at least one year in determining
the relative amount of coating activity, as long as they are expected
to represent the way the source will continue to operate in the future.
You must demonstrate and document the predominant activity annually.
(i) Any web coating line subject to this part that is modified to
include printing activities, may continue to demonstrate compliance
with this part, in lieu of demonstrating compliance with subpart KK of
this part. Any web coating line with product and packaging rotogravure
print station(s) and/or a wide-web flexographic print station(s) that
is subject to this subpart may elect to continue demonstrating
compliance with this subpart in lieu of subpart KK of this part, if the
mass of the materials applied to the line's print station(s) in
[[Page 41296]]
a month ever exceed 5 percent of the total mass of materials applied
onto the line during the same period.
(j) If all of the subject web coating lines at your facility
utilize non-HAP coatings, you can become exempt from the reporting
requirements of this subpart, provided you submit a one-time report as
required in Sec. 63.3370(s) to your permitting authority documenting
the use of only non-HAP coatings.
0
4. Section 63.3310 is amended by revising the definitions of ``coating
material(s)'' and ``web coating line'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3310 What definitions are used in this subpart?
* * * * *
Coating material(s) means all liquid or semi-liquid materials
(including the solids fraction of those materials as applied), such as
inks, varnishes, adhesives (including hot melt adhesives or other hot
melt materials), primers, solvents, reducers, and other materials
applied to a substrate via a web coating line. Materials used to form a
substrate or applied via vapor deposition, and dry abrasive materials
deposited on top of a coated web, are not considered coating materials.
* * * * *
Web coating line means any number of work stations, of which one or
more applies a continuous layer of liquid or semi-liquid coating
material across the entire width or any portion of the width of a web
substrate, and any associated curing/drying equipment between an unwind
or feed station and a rewind or cutting station.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.3320 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) introductory
text and (b)(4) to read as follows:
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3320 What emission standards must I meet?
* * * * *
(b) You must limit organic HAP emissions to the level specified in
paragraph (b)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section for all periods of
operation, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
* * * * *
(4) 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.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 63.3321 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.3321 What operating limits must I meet?
(a) For any web coating line or group of web coating lines for
which you use add-on control devices to demonstrate compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320, unless you use a solvent recovery
system and conduct a liquid-liquid material balance, you must meet the
operating limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart or according to
paragraph (b) of this section. These operating limits apply to emission
capture systems and control devices used to demonstrate compliance with
this subpart, and you must establish the operating limits during the
performance test according to the requirements in Sec. 63.3360(e)(3).
You must meet the operating limits at all times after you establish
them.
* * * * *
0
7. Section 63.3330 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3330 When must I comply?
(a) For affected sources which commenced construction or
reconstruction prior to September 19, 2019, you must comply as follows:
(1) Before July 9, 2021, the affected coating operation(s) must be
in compliance with the applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3320 at
all times, except during periods of SSM. On and after July 9, 2021, the
affected coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the applicable
emission limit in Sec. 63.3320 at all times, including periods of SSM.
(2) A periodic emissions performance test must be performed by July
9, 2023, or within 60 months of the previous test, whichever is later,
and subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter, as required in
Sec. 63.3360. Performance testing for HAP or VOC destruction
efficiency required by state agencies can be used to meet this
requirement.
(3) After July 9, 2021, you must electronically submit initial
notifications, notifications of compliance status, performance
evaluation reports, and performance test reports, as required in Sec.
63.3400. Semiannual compliance reports must be submitted electronically
for the first full semiannual compliance period after the template has
been available in the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI) for 1 year.
(b) For new affected sources which commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 19, 2019, you must comply as indicated
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. Existing affected
sources which have undergone reconstruction as defined in Sec. 63.2
are subject to the requirements for new affected sources. The costs
associated with the purchase and installation of air pollution control
equipment are not considered in determining whether the existing
affected source has been reconstructed. Additionally, the costs of
retrofitting and replacing of equipment that is installed specifically
to comply with this subpart are not considered reconstruction costs.
(1) The coating operation(s) must be in compliance with the
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.3320 at all times, including
periods of SSM, starting July 9, 2020, or immediately upon startup,
whichever is later.
(2) You must complete any initial performance test required in
Sec. 63.3360 within the time limits specified in Sec. 63.7(a)(2), and
subsequent tests no later than 60 months thereafter.
(3) You must electronically submit initial notifications,
notifications of compliance status, performance evaluation reports, and
performance test reports as required in Sec. 63.3400 starting July 9,
2020, or immediately upon startup, whichever is later. Semiannual
compliance reports must be submitted electronically for the first full
semiannual compliance period after the template has been available in
CEDRI for 1 year.
0
8. Section 63.3340 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3340 What general requirements must I meet to comply with
the standards?
(a) Before July 9, 2021, for each existing source for which
construction or reconstruction commenced on or before September 19,
2019, you must be in compliance with the emission limits and operating
limits in this subpart at all times, except during periods of SSM. On
and after July 9, 2021, for each such source you must be in compliance
with the emission limits and operating limits in this subpart at all
times. For new and reconstructed sources for which construction or
reconstruction commenced after September 19, 2019, you must be in
compliance with the emission limits and operating limits in this
subpart at all times, starting July 9, 2020, or immediately upon
startup, whichever is later.
(b) For affected sources as of September 19, 2019, before July 9,
2021, you must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including all air pollution control and monitoring equipment you use
for purposes of complying with this subpart, according to the
provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). On
[[Page 41297]]
and after July 9, 2021, for such sources and on July 9, 2020, or
immediately upon startup, whichever is later, for new or reconstructed
affected sources, you must always operate and maintain your affected
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a
source is operating in compliance with operation and maintenance
requirements will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
(c) You must conduct each performance test required by Sec.
63.3360 according to the requirements in Sec. 63.3360(e)(2) and under
the conditions in this section unless you obtain a waiver of the
performance test according to the provisions in Sec. 63.7(h).
(1) Representative coating operation operating conditions. You must
conduct the performance test under representative operating conditions
for the coating operation. Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown, and nonoperation do not constitute representative conditions.
You may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction.
You must record the process information that is necessary to document
operating conditions during the test and explain why the conditions
represent normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(2) Representative emission capture system and add-on control
device operating conditions. You must conduct the performance test when
the emission capture system and add-on control device are operating at
a representative flow rate, and the add-on control device is operating
at a representative inlet concentration. Representative conditions
exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record
information that is necessary to document emission capture system and
add-on control device operating conditions during the test and explain
why the conditions represent normal operation.
(d) Table 2 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part that apply if you are subject to subpart JJJJ.
0
9. Section 63.3350 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (c) introductory text, (d)(1)(iii), (e)
introductory text, and (e)(2) and (4);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(5) through (10) as paragraphs (e)(6)
through (11);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (e)(5); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (e)(10).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.3350 If I use a control device to comply with the emission
standards, what monitoring must I do?
* * * * *
(b) Following the date on which the initial or periodic performance
test of a control device is completed to demonstrate continuing
compliance with the standards, you must monitor and inspect each
capture system and each control device used to comply with Sec.
63.3320. You must install and operate the monitoring equipment as
specified in paragraphs (c) and (f) of this section.
(c) Bypass and coating use monitoring. If you own or operate web
coating lines with intermittently-controlled work stations, you must
monitor bypasses of the control device and the mass of each coating
material applied at the work station during any such bypass. If using a
control device for complying with the requirements of this subpart, you
must demonstrate that any coating material applied on a never-
controlled work station or an intermittently-controlled work station
operated in bypass mode is allowed in your compliance demonstration
according to Sec. 63.3370(o) and (p). The bypass monitoring must be
conducted using at least one of the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) of this section for each work station and associated dryer.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the
hours when the process is operated. Invalid or missing data should be
reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report.
* * * * *
(e) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). If you are using
a control device to comply with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320, you must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in
paragraphs (e)(10) and (11) and (f) of this section according to the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (9) of this section. You must
install, operate, and maintain each CPMS specified in paragraph (c) of
this section according to paragraphs (e)(5) through (8) of this
section.
* * * * *
(2) You must have valid data from at least 90 percent of the hours
when the process operated.
* * * * *
(4) You must determine the block 3-hour average of all recorded
readings for each operating period. To calculate the average for each
3-hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the
hourly averages for that period using only average values that are
based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control periods).
(5) Except for temperature sensors, you must develop a quality
control program that must contain, at a minimum, a written protocol
that describes the procedures for each of the operations in Sec.
63.3350(e)(5)(i) through (vi). The owner or operator shall keep these
written procedures on record for the life of the affected source or
until the affected source is no longer subject to the provisions of
this part, to be made available for inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator. If the performance evaluation plan is revised, the owner
or operator shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the
performance evaluation plan on record to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years
after each revision to the plan. For temperature sensors, you must
follow the requirements in Sec. 63.3350(e)(10).
(i) Initial and any subsequent calibration of the continuous
monitoring system (CMS);
(ii) Determination and adjustment of the calibration drift of the
CMS;
(iii) Preventative maintenance of the CMS, including spare parts
inventory;
(iv) Data recording, calculations, and reporting;
(v) Accuracy audit procedures, including sampling and analysis
methods; and
(vi) Program of corrective action for a malfunctioning CMS.
* * * * *
(10) Oxidizer. If you are using an oxidizer to comply with the
emission standards of this subpart, you must comply with paragraphs
(e)(10)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Install, maintain, and operate temperature monitoring equipment
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
[[Page 41298]]
(ii) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, install,
operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a
continuous recorder. The device must be capable of monitoring
temperature with an accuracy of 1 percent of the
temperature being monitored in degrees Fahrenheit or 1.8
degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is greater. The temperature sensor must
be installed in the combustion chamber at a location in the combustion
zone.
(iii) For a catalytic oxidizer, install, operate, and maintain a
temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder. The
device must be capable of monitoring temperature with an accuracy of
1 percent of the temperature being monitored in degrees
Fahrenheit or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, whichever is greater.
The temperature sensor must be installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the inlet and outlet of the catalyst bed.
Calculate the temperature rise across the catalyst.
(iv) For temperature sensors, you must develop a quality control
program that must contain, at a minimum, a written protocol that
describes the procedures for verifying that the temperature sensor is
operating properly using at least one of the methods in paragraph
(e)(10)(iv)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of this section. The owner
or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life
of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer
subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator:
(A) Semiannually, compare measured readings to a National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable temperature measurement
device or simulate a typical operating temperature using a NIST
traceable temperature simulation device. When the temperature
measurement device method is used, the sensor of the calibrated device
must be placed as close as practicable to the process sensor, and both
devices must be subjected to the same environmental conditions. The
accuracy of the temperature measured must be 2.5 percent of the
temperature measured by the NIST traceable device or 5 degrees
Fahrenheit whichever is greater.
(B) Annually validate the temperature sensor by following
applicable mechanical and electrical validation procedures in the
manufacturer owner's manual.
(C) Annually request the temperature sensor manufacturer to certify
or re-certify electromotive force (electrical properties) of the
thermocouple.
(D) Annually replace the temperature sensor with a new certified
temperature sensor in lieu of validation.
(E) Permanently install a redundant temperature sensor as close as
practicable to the process temperature sensor. The sensors must yield a
reading within 2.5 percent of each other for thermal oxidizers and
catalytic oxidizers.
(F) Permanently install a temperature sensor with dual sensors to
account for the possibility of failure.
(v) Conduct the validation checks in paragraph (e)(10)(iv)(A), (B),
or (C) of this section any time the temperature sensor exceeds the
manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature range or install
a new temperature sensor.
(vi) At least quarterly, inspect temperature sensor components for
proper connection and integrity or continuously operate an electronic
monitoring system designed to notify personnel if the signal from the
temperature sensor is interrupted.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.3360 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(1)(i), and (c)(2) through (4),
(d)(1) through (3), and (e)(1) through (3);
0
b. Adding paragraph (e)(4); and
0
c. Revising the paragraphs (f) introductory text and (g).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.3360 What performance tests must I conduct?
(a) The performance test methods you must conduct are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you control organic HAP on any
individual web coating line or any
group of web coating lines to You must:
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits in Sec. 63.3320 by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Limiting organic HAP or volatile Determine the organic HAP or
matter content of coatings. volatile matter and coating
solids content of coating
materials according to
procedures in paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section. If
applicable, determine the mass
of volatile matter retained in
the coated web or otherwise
not emitted to the atmosphere
according to paragraph (g) of
this section.
(2) Using a capture and control system. (i) Initially, conduct a
performance test for each
capture and control system to
determine: The destruction or
removal efficiency of each
control device other than
solvent recovery according to
Sec. 63.3360(e), and the
capture efficiency of each
capture system according to
Sec. 63.3360(f). If
applicable, determine the mass
of volatile matter retained in
the coated web or otherwise
not emitted to the atmosphere
according to Sec.
63.3360(g).
(ii) Perform a periodic test
once every 5 years for each
thermal oxidizer to determine
the destruction or removal
efficiency according to Sec.
63.3360(e). If applicable,
determine the mass of volatile
matter retained in the coated
web or otherwise not emitted
to the atmosphere according to
Sec. 63.3360(g).
(iii) Either perform a periodic
test once every 5 years for
each catalytic oxidizer to
determine the destruction or
removal efficiency according
to Sec. 63.3360(e) OR
perform a catalyst activity
test annually on each
catalytic oxidizer to ensure
that the catalyst is
performing properly according
to Sec.
63.3360(e)(3)(ii)(D)(1). If
applicable, determine the mass
of volatile matter retained in
the coated web or otherwise
not emitted to the atmosphere
according to Sec.
63.3360(g).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Control Device. If you are using a control device to comply
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320, you are not required to
conduct a performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or more of
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section are met.
(1) The control device is equipped with continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) for determining inlet and outlet total
organic volatile matter concentration and meeting the requirements of
Performance Specification 6, 8, or 9 in Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60
and capture efficiency
[[Page 41299]]
has been determined in accordance with the requirements of this subpart
such that an overall organic HAP control efficiency can be calculated,
and the CEMS are used to demonstrate continuous compliance in
accordance with Sec. 63.3350; or
(2) You have met the requirements of Sec. 63.7(h) (for waiver of
performance testing); or
(3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and you comply
by means of a monthly liquid-liquid material balance.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Include each organic HAP determined to be present at greater
than or equal to 0.1 mass percent for Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4
of appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and greater than or equal to 1.0 mass
percent for other organic HAP compounds.
* * * * *
(2) Method 24. For coatings, determine the volatile organic content
as mass fraction of nonaqueous volatile matter and use it as a
substitute for organic HAP using Method 24 of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR
part 60. The Method 24 determination may be performed by the
manufacturer of the coating and the results provided to you. One of the
voluntary consensus standards in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (v) of
this section may be used as an alternative to using Method 24.
(i) ASTM D1963-85 (Reapproved 1996), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14);
(ii) ASTM D2111-10 (Reapproved 2015), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14);
(iii) ASTM D2369-10 (Reapproved 2015)\e\, (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 63.14);
(iv) ASTM D2697-03 (Reapproved 2014), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14); and
(v) ASTM D6093-97 (Reapproved 2016), (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 63.14).
(3) Formulation data. You may use formulation data to determine the
organic HAP mass fraction of a coating material. Formulation data may
be provided to the owner or operator by the manufacturer of the
material. In the event of an inconsistency between Method 311 (appendix
A to this part) test data and a facility's formulation data, and the
Method 311 test value is higher, the Method 311 data will govern.
Formulation data may be used provided that the information represents
all organic HAP present at a level equal to or greater than 0.1 percent
for OSHA-defined carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix
A to 29 CFR 1910.1200 and equal to or greater than 1.0 percent for
other organic HAP compounds in any raw material used.
(4) As-applied organic HAP mass fraction. If the as-purchased
coating material is applied to the web without any solvent or other
material added, then the as-applied organic HAP mass fraction is equal
to the as-purchased organic HAP mass fraction. Otherwise, the as-
applied organic HAP mass fraction must be calculated using Equation 4
of Sec. 63.3370.
(d) * * *
(1) Method 24. You may determine the volatile organic and coating
solids mass fraction of each coating applied using Method 24 (appendix
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60). The Method 24 determination may be performed by
the manufacturer of the material and the results provided to you. When
using volatile organic compound content as a surrogate for HAP, you may
also use ASTM D3960-98, (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14) as
an alternative to Method 24. If these values cannot be determined using
either of these methods, you must submit an alternative technique for
determining their values for approval by the Administrator.
(2) Formulation data. You may determine the volatile organic
content and coating solids content of a coating material based on
formulation data and may rely on volatile organic content data provided
by the manufacturer of the material. In the event of any inconsistency
between the formulation data and the results of Method 24 of appendix
A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 and the Method 24 results are higher, the results
of Method 24 will govern.
(3) As-applied volatile organic content and coating solids content.
If the as-purchased coating material is applied to the web without any
solvent or other material added, then the as-applied volatile organic
content is equal to the as-purchased volatile content and the as-
applied coating solids content is equal to the as-purchased coating
solids content. Otherwise, the as-applied volatile organic content must
be calculated using Equation 5 to Sec. 63.3370(c)(4) and the as-
applied coating solids content must be calculated using Equation 6 to
Sec. 63.3370(d).
(e) * * *
(1) Initial performance test. An initial performance test to
establish the destruction or removal efficiency of the control device
used to comply with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320 must be
conducted such that control device inlet and outlet testing is
conducted simultaneously, and the data are reduced in accordance with
the test methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (ix) of
this section. You must conduct three test runs as specified in Sec.
63.7(e)(3), and each test run must last at least 1 hour.
(i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used
for sample and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2F of appendix A-1 to 40 CFR part 60,
or Method 2G of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to
determine gas volumetric flow rate.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-2 to 40 CFR part 60 must be
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
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14).
(iv) Method 4 of appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60 must be used to
determine stack gas moisture.
(v) Methods for determining the gas volumetric flow rate, dry
molecular weight, and stack gas moisture must be performed, as
applicable, during each test run.
(vi) Method 25 or 25A of appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part 60 must be
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
notice 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 (e)(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 emission standards in Sec. 63.3320; 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
[[Page 41300]]
control device exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of inlet
concentration.
(vii) Except as provided in Sec. 63.7(e)(3), each performance test
must consist of three separate runs with each run conducted for at
least 1 hour under the conditions that exist when the affected source
is operating under normal operating conditions. For the purpose of
determining volatile organic compound concentrations and mass flow
rates, the average of the results of all the runs will apply.
(viii) Volatile organic matter mass flow rates must be determined
for each run specified in paragraph (e)(1)(vii) of this section using
Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.023
Where:
Mf = Total organic volatile matter mass flow rate,
kilograms (kg)/hour (h).
Qsd = Volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting
the control device, as determined according to paragraph (e)(1)(ii)
of this section, dry standard cubic meters (dscm)/h.
Cc = Concentration of organic compounds as carbon, ppmv.
12.0 = Molecular weight of carbon.
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, emission control device destruction or removal
efficiency must be determined using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.000
Where:
E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the 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 average of the efficiencies determined in the test
runs and calculated in Equation 2.
(2) Process information. You must record such process information
as may be necessary to determine the conditions in existence at the
time of the performance test. Representative conditions exclude periods
of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during
periods of malfunction. You must record the process information that is
necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include
in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent
normal operation. Upon request, you shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(3) Operating limits. If you are using one or more add-on control
device other than a solvent recovery system for which you conduct a
liquid-liquid material balance to comply with the emission standards in
Sec. 63.3320, you must establish the applicable operating limits
required by Sec. 63.3321. These operating limits apply to each add-on
emission control device, and you must establish the operating limits
during the performance test required by paragraph (e) of this section
according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) Thermal oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a thermal
oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to paragraphs
(e)(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. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion temperature no
more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit lower than this average combustion
temperature.
(ii) Catalytic oxidizer. If your add-on control device is a
catalytic oxidizer, establish the operating limits according to
paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) or paragraphs (e)(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. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion
temperature no more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit lower than this average
combustion temperature or maintain the 3-hour average temperature
difference across the catalyst bed at no less than 80 percent of this
average temperature differential, provided that the minimum temperature
is always 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition
temperature.
(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
(e)(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. Maintain the 3-hour average combustion temperature no more than
50 degrees Fahrenheit lower than this average combustion temperature.
(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 (e)(3)(ii)(C) of this section. The plan must
address, at a minimum, the elements specified in paragraphs
(e)(3)(ii)(D)(1) through (3) of this section.
[[Page 41301]]
(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 in accordance with this section.
(4) Control Destruction Efficiency Curve Development. If you are
using one or more add-on control devices other than a solvent recovery
system for which you conduct a liquid-liquid material balance to comply
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320, you may establish a
control destruction efficiency curve for use in estimating emissions
that occur during deviations of the 3-hour operating parameters. This
curve can be generated using test data or manufacturer's data that
specifically documents the level of control at varying temperatures for
your control device.
(f) Capture efficiency. If you demonstrate compliance by meeting
the requirements of Sec. 63.3370(f), (g), (h), (i), (j)(2), (l),
(o)(2) or (3), or (q), you must determine capture efficiency using the
procedures in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, as
applicable.
* * * * *
(g) Volatile matter retained in the coated web or otherwise not
emitted to the atmosphere. You may choose to take into account the mass
of volatile matter retained in the coated web after curing or drying or
otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere when determining compliance
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320. If you choose this
option, you must develop a site- and product-specific emission factor
(EF) and determine the amount of volatile matter retained in the coated
web or otherwise not emitted using Equation 3 to Sec. 63.3360(g)(1).
The EF must be developed by conducting a performance test using an
approved EPA test method, or alternative approved by the Administrator
by obtaining the average of a three-run test. You may additionally use
manufacturer's emissions test data (as long as it replicates the
facility's coating formulation and operating conditions), or a mass-
balance type approach using a modified Method 24 (including ASTM D5403-
93 for radiation-cureable coatings). The EF should equal the proportion
of the mass of volatile organics emitted to the mass of volatile
organics in the coating materials evaluated. You may use the EF in your
compliance calculations only for periods that the work station(s) was
(were) used to make the product, or a similar product, corresponding to
that produced during the performance test. You must develop a separate
EF for each group of different products that you choose to utilize an
EF for calculating emissions by conducting a separate performance test
for that group of products. You must conduct a periodic performance
test to re-establish the EF if there is a change in coating
formulation, operating conditions, or other change that could
reasonably be expected to increase emissions since the time of the last
test that was used to establish the EF.
(1) Calculate the mass of volatile organics retained in the coated
web or otherwise not emitted for the month from each group of similar
products using Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.018
Where:
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
EFi = Volatile organic matter site- and product-specific
emission factor (three-run average determined from performance
testing, evaluated as proportion of mass volatile organics emitted
to mass of volatile organics in the coatings used during the
performance test).
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
11. Section 63.3370 is amended by:
0
a. Adding introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i) and (ii), (c)(3) and
(4), and (d);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (e) through (p) as paragraphs (f) through
(q);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (e);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (f) through (m) and (o)
though (q); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (r) and (s).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3370 How do I demonstrate compliance with the emission
standards?
You must demonstrate compliance each month with the emission
limitations in Sec. 63.3320(b)(1) through (4). For each monthly
demonstration, you may apply any combination of the emission
limitations to each of your web coating lines individually, to each of
one or more groupings of your lines (including a single grouping
encompassing all lines of your affected source), or to any combination
of individual and grouped lines, so long as each web coating line is
included in the compliance demonstration for the month (i.e., you are
not required to apply the same emission limitation to each of the
individual lines or groups of lines). You may change the emission
limitation that you apply each month to your individual or grouped
lines, and you may change line groupings for your monthly compliance
demonstration.
(a) A summary of how you must demonstrate compliance follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you choose to demonstrate Then you must To accomplish
compliance by: demonstrate that: this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Use of ``as-purchased'' (i) Each coating Follow the
compliant coating materials. material used at an procedures set
existing affected out in Sec.
source does not 63.3370(b).
exceed 0.04 kg
organic HAP per kg
coating material, and
each coating material
used at a new
affected source does
not exceed 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg
coating material as-
purchased; or.
[[Page 41302]]
(ii) Each coating Follow the
material used at an procedures set
existing affected out in Sec.
source does not 63.3370(b).
exceed 0.2 kg organic
HAP per kg coating
solids, and each
coating material used
at a new affected
source does not
exceed 0.08 kg
organic HAP per kg
coating solids as-
purchased.
(2) Use of ``as-applied'' (i) Each coating Follow the
compliant coating materials. material used at an procedures set
existing affected out in Sec.
source does not 63.3370(c)(1).
exceed 0.04 kg Use either
organic HAP per kg Equation 4 or 5
coating material, and of Sec.
each coating material 63.3370 to
used at a new determine
affected source does compliance with
not exceed 0.016 kg Sec.
organic HAP per kg 63.3320(b)(2)
coating material as- in accordance
applied; or. with Sec.
63.3370(c)(5)(i
).
(ii) Each coating Follow the
material used at an procedures set
existing affected out in Sec.
source does not 63.3370(c)(2).
exceed 0.2 kg organic Use Equations 6
HAP per kg coating and 7 of Sec.
solids, and each 63.3370 to
coating material used determine
at a new affected compliance with
source does not Sec.
exceed 0.08 kg 63.3320(b)(3)
organic HAP per kg in accordance
coating solids as- with Sec.
applied; or. 63.3370(c)(5)(i
).
(iii) Monthly average Follow the
of all coating procedures set
materials used at an out in Sec.
existing affected 63.3370(c)(3).
source does not Use Equation 8
exceed 0.04 kg of Sec.
organic HAP per kg 63.3370 to
coating material, and determine
monthly average of compliance with
all coating materials Sec.
used at a new 63.3320(b)(2)
affected source does in accordance
not exceed 0.016 kg with Sec.
organic HAP per kg 63.3370(c)(5)(i
coating material as- i).
applied on a monthly
average basis; or.
(iv) Monthly average Follow the
of all coating procedures set
materials used at an out in Sec.
existing affected 63.3370(c)(4).
source does not Use Equation 9
exceed 0.2 kg organic of Sec.
HAP per kg coating 63.3370 to
solids, and monthly determine
average of all compliance with
coating materials Sec.
used at a new 63.3320(b)(3)
affected source does in accordance
not exceed 0.08 kg with Sec.
organic HAP per kg 63.3370(c)(5)(i
coating solids as- i).
applied on a monthly
average basis.
(3) Tracking total monthly Total monthly organic Follow the
organic HAP applied. HAP applied does not procedures set
exceed the calculated out in Sec.
limit based on 63.3370(d).
emission limitations. Show that total
monthly HAP
applied
(Equation 10 of
Sec. 63.3370)
is less than
the calculated
equivalent
allowable
organic HAP
(Equation 17 or
18 of Sec.
63.3370).
(4) Accounting for volatile A site- and product- Follow the
matter retained in the coated specific emission procedures set
web or otherwise not emitted. factor was out in Sec.
appropriately 63.3360(g) and
established for the Sec.
group of products for 63.3370(e)
which the site- and
product-specific
emission factor was
used in the
compliance
calculations.
(5) Use of a capture system (i) Overall organic Follow the
and control device. HAP control procedures set
efficiency is equal out in Sec.
to 95 percent at an 63.3370(f) to
existing affected determine
source and 98 percent compliance with
at a new affected Sec.
source on a monthly 63.3320(b)(1)
basis; or oxidizer according to
outlet organic HAP Sec.
concentration is no 63.3370(j) if
greater than 20 ppmv using a solvent
and capture recovery
efficiency is 100 device, or Sec.
percent; or operating 63.3370(k) if
parameters are using a control
continuously device and
monitored; or. CPMS, or Sec.
63.3370(l) if
using an
oxidizer.
(ii) Overall organic Follow the
HAP emission rate procedures set
does not exceed 0.2 out in Sec.
kg organic HAP per kg 63.3370(g) to
coating solids for an determine
existing affected compliance with
source or 0.08 kg Sec.
organic HAP per kg 63.3320(b)(3)
coating solids for a according to
new affected source Sec.
on a monthly average 63.3370(j) if
as-applied basis;. using a solvent
recovery
device, or Sec.
63.3370(l) if
using an
oxidizer.
(iii) Overall organic Follow the
HAP emission rate procedures set
does not exceed 0.04 out in Sec.
kg organic HAP per kg 63.3370(h) to
coating material for determine
an existing affected compliance with
source or 0.016 kg Sec.
organic HAP per kg 63.3320(b)(2)
coating material for according to
a new affected source Sec.
on a monthly average 63.3370(j) if
as-applied basis; or. using a solvent
recovery
device, or Sec.
63.3370(l) if
using an
oxidizer.
(iv) Overall organic Follow the
HAP emission rate procedures set
does not exceed the out in Sec.
calculated limit 63.3370(i).
based on emission Show that the
limitations. monthly organic
HAP emission
rate is less
than the
calculated
equivalent
allowable
organic HAP
emission rate
(Equation 17 or
18 of Sec.
63.3370).
Calculate the
monthly organic
HAP emission
rate according
to Sec.
63.3370(j) if
using a solvent
recovery
device, or Sec.
63.3370(l) if
using an
oxidizer.
[[Page 41303]]
(6) Use of multiple capture (i) Overall organic Follow the
and/or control devices. HAP control procedures set
efficiency is equal out in Sec.
to 95 percent at an 63.3370(f) to
existing affected determine
source and 98 percent compliance with
at a new affected Sec.
source on a monthly 63.3320(b)(1)
basis; or. according to
Sec.
63.3370(f)(1)
or (2).
(ii) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set
HAP emission rate out in Sec.
does not exceed 0.2 63.3370(g) to
kg organic HAP per kg determine
coating solids for an compliance with
existing affected Sec.
source or 0.08 kg 63.3320(b)(3)
organic HAP per kg according to
coating solids for a Sec.
new affected source 63.3370(o).
on a monthly average
as-applied basis; or.
(iii) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set
HAP emission rate out in Sec.
does not exceed 0.04 63.3370(h) to
kg organic HAP per kg determine
coating material for compliance with
an existing affected Sec.
source or 0.016 kg 63.3320(b)(2)
organic HAP per kg according to
coating material for Sec.
a new affected source 63.3370(o).
on a monthly average
as-applied basis; or.
(iv) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set
HAP emission rate out in Sec.
does not exceed the 63.3370(i).
calculated limit Show that the
based on emission monthly organic
limitations. HAP emission
rate is less
than the
calculated
equivalent
allowable
organic HAP
emission rate
(Equation 17 or
18 of Sec.
63.3370)
according to
Sec.
63.3370(o).
(7) Use of a combination of (i) Average equivalent Follow the
compliant coatings and organic HAP emission procedures set
control devices. rate does not exceed out in Sec.
0.2 kg organic HAP 63.3370(g) to
per kg coating solids determine
for an existing compliance with
affected source or Sec.
0.08 kg organic HAP 63.3320(b)(3)
per kg coating solids according to
for a new affected Sec.
source on a monthly 63.3370(o).
average as-applied
basis; or.
(ii) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set
HAP emission rate out in Sec.
does not exceed 0.04 63.3370(h) to
kg organic HAP per kg determine
coating material for compliance with
an existing affected Sec.
source or 0.016 kg 63.3320(b)(2)
organic HAP per kg according to
coating material for Sec.
a new affected source 63.3370(o).
on a monthly average
as-applied basis; or.
(iii) Average Follow the
equivalent organic procedures set
HAP emission rate out in Sec.
does not exceed the 63.3370(i).
calculated limit Show that the
based on emission monthly organic
limitations. HAP emission
rate is less
than the
calculated
equivalent
allowable
organic HAP
emission rate
(Equation 17 or
18 of Sec.
63.3370)
according to
Sec.
63.3370(o).
(8) Use of non-HAP coatings... All coatings for all Follow the
coating lines at an procedures set
affected source have out in Sec.
organic HAP contents 63.3370(s).
below 0.1 percent by
mass for OSHA-defined
carcinogens as
specified in section
A.6.4 of appendix A
to 29 CFR 1910.1200,
and below 1.0 percent
by mass for other
organic HAP compounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP content of each coating
material using Equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.001
Where:
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg. or calculate the as-applied volatile
organic content of each coating material using Equation 5:
[[Page 41304]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.002
Where:
Cavi = Monthly average, as-applied, volatile organic
content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(2) * * *
(i) Determine the as-applied coating solids content of each coating
material following the procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d). You must
calculate the as-applied coating solids content of coating materials
which are reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application, using
Equation 6:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.003
Where:
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(ii) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP to coating solids ratio
using Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.004
Where:
Hsi = As-applied, organic HAP to coating solids ratio of
coating material, i.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Casi = Monthly average, as-applied, coating solids
content of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
(3) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials
as-applied is less than the mass percent limit (Sec. 63.3320(b)(2)).
Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content of
all coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less
than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, and all
coating materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.016
kg organic HAP per kg of coating material applied, as determined by
Equation 8:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.005
Where:
HL = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content of
all coating materials applied, expressed as kg organic HAP per kg of
coating material applied, kg/kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere,
[[Page 41305]]
kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases except where
you choose to take into account the volatile matter retained in the
coated web or otherwise not emitted to the atmosphere for the
compliance demonstration procedures in Sec. 63.3370.
(4) Monthly average organic HAP content of all coating materials
as-applied is less than the mass fraction of coating solids limit
(Sec. 63.3320(b)(3)). Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied
organic HAP content on the basis of coating solids applied of all
coating materials applied at an existing affected source is less than
0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, and all coating
materials applied at a new affected source are less than 0.08 kg
organic HAP per kg coating solids applied, as determined by Equation 9:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.006
Where:
Hs = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP to coating
solids ratio, kg organic HAP/kg coating solids applied.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in Sec.
63.3370.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/
kg.
* * * * *
(d) Monthly allowable organic HAP applied. Demonstrate that the
total monthly organic HAP applied as determined by Equation 10 is less
than the calculated equivalent allowable organic HAP as determined by
Equation 17 or 18 in paragraph (m) of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.007
Where:
Hm = Total monthly organic HAP applied, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in Sec.
63.3370.
(e) Accounting for volatile matter retained in the coated web or
otherwise not emitted. If you choose to use the equation in Sec.
63.3360(g) to take into account volatile organic matter that is
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted, you must identify
each group of similar products that can utilize each site- and product-
specific emission factor. Details regarding the test methods and
calculations are provided in Sec. 63.3360(g).
(f) Capture and control to reduce emissions to no more than
allowable limit (Sec. 63.3320(b)(1)). Operate a capture system and
control device and demonstrate an overall organic HAP control
efficiency of at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at
least 98 percent at a new affected source for each month, or operate a
capture system and oxidizer so that an outlet organic HAP concentration
of no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis is achieved as long as the
capture efficiency is 100 percent as detailed in Sec. 63.3320(b)(4).
Unless one of the cases described in paragraph (f)(1), (2), or (3) of
this section applies to the affected source, you must either
demonstrate compliance in accordance with the procedure in paragraph
(i) of this section when emissions from the affected source are
controlled by a solvent recovery device, or the procedure in paragraph
(l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer or
demonstrate compliance for a web coating line by operating each capture
system and each control device and continuous parameter monitoring
according to the procedures in paragraph (k) of this section.
(1) If the affected source has only always-controlled work stations
and operates more than one capture system or more than one control
device, you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the
provisions of either paragraph (o) or (q) of this section.
(2) If the affected source operates one or more never-controlled
work stations or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations,
you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (o) of this section.
(3) An alternative method of demonstrating compliance with Sec.
63.3320(b)(1) is the installation of a PTE around the web coating line
that
[[Page 41306]]
achieves 100 percent capture efficiency and ventilation of all organic
HAP emissions from the total enclosure to an oxidizer with an outlet
organic HAP concentration of no greater than 20 ppmv on a dry basis. If
this method is selected, you must demonstrate compliance by following
the procedures in paragraphs (f)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
Compliance is determined according to paragraph (f)(3)(iii) of this
section.
(i) Demonstrate that a total enclosure is installed. An enclosure
that meets the requirements in Sec. 63.3360(f)(1) will be considered a
total enclosure.
(ii) Determine the organic HAP concentration at the outlet of your
total enclosure using the procedures in paragraph (f)(3)(ii)(A) or (B)
of this section.
(A) Determine the control device efficiency using Equation 2 of
Sec. 63.3360 and the applicable test methods and procedures specified
in Sec. 63.3360(e).
(B) Use a CEMS to determine the organic HAP emission rate according
to paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (x) of this section.
(iii) You are in compliance if the installation of a total
enclosure is demonstrated and the organic HAP concentration at the
outlet of the incinerator is demonstrated to be no greater than 20 ppmv
on a dry basis.
(g) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction of coating solids
applied limit (Sec. 63.3320(b)(3)). Operate a capture system and
control device and limit the organic HAP emission rate from an existing
affected source to no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP emitted per kg
coating solids applied, and from a new affected source to no more than
0.08 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating solids applied as determined
on a monthly average as-applied basis. If the affected source operates
more than one capture system, more than one control device, one or more
never-controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-
controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate compliance in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this section.
Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance following the procedure in
paragraph (j) of this section when emissions from the affected source
are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in
paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are controlled by an
oxidizer.
(h) Capture and control to achieve mass fraction limit (Sec.
63.3320(b)(2)). Operate a capture system and control device and limit
the organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP
emitted per kg coating material applied at an existing affected source,
and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP emitted per kg coating material
applied at a new affected source as determined on a monthly average as-
applied basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture
system, more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work
stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work stations, then
you must demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (o) of this section. Otherwise, you must demonstrate
compliance following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section
when emissions from the affected source are controlled by a solvent
recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when
emissions are controlled by an oxidizer.
(i) Capture and control to achieve allowable emission rate. Operate
a capture system and control device and limit the monthly organic HAP
emissions to less than the allowable emissions as calculated in
accordance with paragraph (m) of this section. If the affected source
operates more than one capture system, more than one control device,
one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or more
intermittently-controlled work stations, then you must demonstrate
compliance in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (o) of this
section. Otherwise, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance
following the procedure in paragraph (j) of this section when emissions
from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or
the procedure in paragraph (l) of this section when emissions are
controlled by an oxidizer.
(j) Solvent recovery device compliance demonstration. If you use a
solvent recovery device to control emissions, you must show compliance
by following the procedures in either paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this
section:
(1) Liquid-liquid material balance. Perform a monthly liquid-liquid
material balance as specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (v) of
this section and use the applicable equations in paragraphs (j)(1)(vi)
through (ix) of this section to convert the data to units of the
selected compliance option in paragraphs (f) through (i) of this
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph
(j)(1)(x) of this section.
(i) Determine the mass of each coating material applied on the web
coating line or group of web coating lines controlled by a common
solvent recovery device during the month.
(ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of
each coating material as-applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(c).
(iii) Determine the volatile organic content of each coating
material as-applied during the month following the procedure in Sec.
63.3360(d).
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids
content of each coating material applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d).
(v) Determine and monitor the amount of volatile organic matter
recovered for the month according to the procedures in Sec.
63.3350(d).
(vi) Recovery efficiency. Calculate the volatile organic matter
collection and recovery efficiency using Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.008
Where:
Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, percent.
Mvr = Mass of volatile matter recovered in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
[[Page 41307]]
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this
section.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Cvi = Volatile organic content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Cvij = Volatile organic content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(vii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during the
month using Equation 12:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.009
Where:
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, percent.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Chi = Organic HAP content of coating material, i, as-
purchased, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Chij = Organic HAP content of material, j, added to as-
purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this
section.
(viii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
using Equation 13:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.010
Where:
L = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of coating solids applied, kg/
kg.
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Csij = Coating solids content of material, j, added to
as-purchased coating material, i, expressed as a mass-fraction, kg/
kg.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied using Equation 14:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.011
Where:
S = Mass organic HAP emitted per mass of material applied, kg/kg.
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
Mij = Mass of material, j, added to as-purchased coating
material, i, in a month, kg.
(x) You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b) if:
(A) The volatile organic matter collection and recovery efficiency
is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent
or greater at a new affected source; or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied
is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at
an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per
kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(2) Continuous emission monitoring of capture system and control
device performance. Demonstrate initial compliance through a
performance test on capture efficiency and continuing compliance
through continuous emission monitors and continuous monitoring of
capture system operating parameters following the procedures in
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (vii) of this
[[Page 41308]]
section. Use the applicable equations specified in paragraphs
(j)(2)(viii) through (x) of this section to convert the monitoring and
other data into units of the selected compliance option in paragraphs
(f) through (i) of this section. Compliance is determined in accordance
with paragraph (j)(2)(xi) of this section.
(i) Control device efficiency. Continuously monitor the gas stream
entering and exiting the control device to determine the total organic
volatile matter mass flow rate (e.g., by determining the concentration
of the vent gas in grams per cubic meter and the volumetric flow rate
in cubic meters per second such that the total organic volatile matter
mass flow rate in grams per second can be calculated) such that the
control device efficiency of the control device can be calculated for
each month using Equation 2 of Sec. 63.3360.
(ii) Capture efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web coating line is
operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency.
(iii) Determine the percent capture efficiency in accordance with
Sec. 63.3360(f).
(iv) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control
efficiency achieved for each month using Equation 15:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.012
Where:
R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
E = Organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control
device, percent.
CE = Organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the capture
system, percent.
(v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating
material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines
controlled by a common control device during the month.
(vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of
each coating material as-applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(c).
(vii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids
content of each coating material as-applied during the month following
the procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d).
(viii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted
during the month for each month using Equation 16:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.013
Where:
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this
section.
(ix) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
using Equation 13 of this section.
(x) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied using Equation 14 of this section.
(xi) Compare actual performance to the performance required by
compliance option. The affected source is in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) for each month if the capture
system is operated such that the average capture system operating
parameter is greater than or less than (as appropriate) the operating
parameter value established in accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f); and
(A) The organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency
is 95 percent or greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent
or greater at a new affected source; or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material applied
is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material applied at
an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg organic HAP per
kg coating material applied at a new affected source; or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(k) Capture and control system compliance demonstration procedures
using a CPMS. If you use an add-on control device, you must demonstrate
initial compliance for each capture system and each control device
through performance tests and demonstrate continuing compliance through
continuous monitoring of capture system and control device operating
parameters as specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of this
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (k)(4)
or (k)(5) of this section.
(1) Determine the control device destruction or removal efficiency
using
[[Page 41309]]
the applicable test methods and procedures in Sec. 63.3360(e).
(2) Determine the emission capture efficiency in accordance with
Sec. 63.3360(f).
(3) Whenever a web coating line is operated, continuously monitor
the operating parameters established according to Sec. 63.3350(e) and
(f).
(4) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) if the thermal oxidizer is
operated such that the average combustion temperature does not fall
more than 50 degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3360(e)(3)(i) for each 3-hour period or if the
catalytic oxidizer is operating such that the three-hour average
temperature difference across the bed does not fall more than 80
percent of the average temperature established in accordance with Sec.
63.3360(e)(3)(ii) and the minimum temperature is always 50 degrees
Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition temperature, or the catalytic
oxidizer average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50
[deg]F below the temperature established in accordance with Sec.
63.3360(e)(3)(ii) for each 3-hour period, and the capture system
operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or
less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f); and
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a
new affected source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source;
or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(5) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit
deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) is determined by either
assuming no control of emissions or by estimating the emissions using a
control destruction efficiency curve during each 3-hour period that was
a deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b) if, including the periods of deviations:
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a
new affected source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source;
or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(l) Oxidizer compliance demonstration procedures. If you use an
oxidizer to control emissions to comply with this subpart, you must
show compliance by following the procedures in paragraph (l)(1) of this
section. Use the applicable equations specified in paragraph (l)(2) of
this section to convert the monitoring and other data into units of the
selected compliance option in paragraph (f) through (i) of this
section. Compliance is determined in accordance with paragraph (l)(3)
or (l)(4) of this section.
(1) Demonstrate initial compliance through performance tests of
capture efficiency and control device efficiency and continuing
compliance through continuous monitoring of capture system and control
device operating parameters as specified in paragraphs (l)(1)(i)
through (vi) of this section:
(i) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency using the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(e).
(ii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency in accordance
with Sec. 63.3360(f).
(iii) Capture and control efficiency monitoring. Whenever a web
coating line is operated, continuously monitor the operating parameters
established in accordance with Sec. 63.3350(e) and (f) to ensure
capture and control efficiency.
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating materials applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the mass of each coating
material applied on the web coating line or group of web coating lines
controlled by a common oxidizer during the month.
(v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied, organic HAP emission
rate based on coating material applied, or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of
each coating material as-applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(c).
(vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on coating solids applied or emission of less than
the calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the coating solids
content of each coating material applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.3360(d).
(2) Convert the information obtained under paragraph (q)(1) of this
section into the units of the selected compliance option using the
calculation procedures specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(i) through (iv)
of this section.
(i) Control efficiency. Calculate the overall organic HAP control
efficiency achieved using Equation 15.
(ii) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emitted during
the month using Equation 16.
(iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
for each month using Equation 13.
(iv) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating materials applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied using Equation 14.
(3) No operating limit deviations. You are in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) if the oxidizer is operated such
that the average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50
degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with
Sec. 63.3360(e)(3)(i) for each 3-hour period, or the catalytic
oxidizer average combustion temperature does not fall more than 50
degrees Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with
Sec. 63.3360(e)(3)(ii) for each 3-hour period or the temperature
difference across the bed does not fall more than 80 percent of the
average temperature established in accordance with Sec.
63.3360(e)(3)(ii) and the minimum temperature is always 50 degrees
Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition temperature, and the capture
system operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than
or less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established
in accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f); and
[[Page 41310]]
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a
new affected source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source;
or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(4) Operating limit deviations. If one or more operating limit
deviations occurred during the monthly averaging period, compliance
with the emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) is determined by
assuming no control of emissions or by estimating the emissions using a
control destruction efficiency curve during each 3-hour period that was
a deviation. You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b) if, including the periods of deviation:
(i) The overall organic HAP control efficiency is 95 percent or
greater at an existing affected source and 98 percent or greater at a
new affected source; or
(ii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at an
existing affected source and no more than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg
coating solids applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The organic HAP emission rate based on coating material
applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg coating material
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016 kg
organic HAP per kg coating material applied at a new affected source;
or
(iv) The organic HAP emitted during the month is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP as determined using paragraph (m) of
this section.
(m) Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions. This paragraph
provides the procedures and calculations for determining monthly
allowable organic HAP emissions for use in demonstrating compliance in
accordance with paragraph (d), (i), (j)(1)(x)(D), (j)(2)(xi)(D), or
(l)(3)(iv) of this section. You will need to determine the amount of
coating material applied at greater than or equal to 20 mass percent
coating solids and the amount of coating material applied at less than
20 mass percent coating solids. The allowable organic HAP limit is then
calculated based on coating material applied at greater than or equal
to 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 0.2 kg organic HAP per
kg coating solids at an existing affected source or 0.08 kg organic HAP
per kg coating solids at a new affected source, and coating material
applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids complying with 4
mass percent organic HAP at an existing affected source and 1.6 mass-
percent organic HAP at a new affected source as follows:
(1) Determine the as-purchased mass of each coating material
applied each month.
(2) Determine the as-purchased coating solids content of each
coating material applied each month in accordance with Sec.
63.3360(d)(1).
(3) Determine the as-purchased mass fraction of each coating
material which was applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids
content on an as-applied basis.
(4) Determine the total mass of each solvent, diluent, thinner, or
reducer added to coating materials which were applied at less than 20
mass percent coating solids content on an as-applied basis each month.
(5) Calculate the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions using
Equation 17 for an existing affected source:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.014
Where:
Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mi = mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which was
applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on an
as-applied basis, kg/kg.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
MLj = Mass of non-coating-solids-containing coating
material, j, added to coating-solids-containing coating materials
which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids
content, on an as-applied basis, in a month, kg.
or Equation 18 for a new affected source:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.015
Where:
Ha = Monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mi = Mass of as-purchased coating material, i, applied in
a month, kg.
Gi = Mass fraction of each coating material, i, which was
applied at 20 mass percent or greater coating solids content, on an
as-applied basis, kg/kg.
Csi = Coating solids content of coating material, i,
expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
q = Number of different materials added to the coating material.
MLj = Mass of non-coating-solids-containing coating
material, j, added to coating-solids-containing coating materials
which were applied at less than 20 mass percent coating solids
content, on an as-applied basis, in a month, kg.
* * * * *
(o) Combinations of capture and control. If you operate more than
one capture system, more than one control device, one or more never-
controlled work stations, or one or more intermittently-controlled work
stations,
[[Page 41311]]
you must calculate organic HAP emissions according to the procedures in
paragraphs (o)(1) through (4) of this section, and use the calculation
procedures specified in paragraph (o)(5) of this section to convert the
monitoring and other data into units of the selected control option in
paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section. Use the procedures
specified in paragraph (o)(6) of this section to demonstrate
compliance.
(1) Solvent recovery system using liquid-liquid material balance
compliance demonstration. If you choose to comply by means of a liquid-
liquid material balance for each solvent recovery system used to
control one or more web coating lines, you must determine the organic
HAP emissions for those web coating lines controlled by that solvent
recovery system either:
(i) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v)
through (vii) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by
that solvent recovery system have only always-controlled work stations;
or
(ii) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(1)(ii), (iii), (v), and (vi)
and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines controlled by that
solvent recovery system have one or more never-controlled or
intermittently-controlled work stations.
(2) Solvent recovery system using performance test compliance
demonstration and CEMS. To demonstrate compliance through an initial
test of capture efficiency, continuous monitoring of a capture system
operating parameter, and a CEMS on each solvent recovery system used to
control one or more web coating lines, you must:
(i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent
recovery system, monitor the operating parameter established in
accordance with Sec. 63.3350(f) to ensure capture system efficiency;
and
(ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating
lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that
solvent recovery system either:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (v),
(vi), and (viii) of this section, if the web coating lines served by
that capture and control system have only always-controlled work
stations; or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iii), (vi),
and (p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that
capture and control system have one or more never-controlled or
intermittently-controlled work stations.
(3) Oxidizer. To demonstrate compliance through performance tests
of capture efficiency and control device efficiency, continuous
monitoring of capture system, and CPMS for control device operating
parameters for each oxidizer used to control emissions from one or more
web coating lines, you must:
(i) Monitor the operating parameter in accordance with Sec.
63.3350(e) to ensure control device efficiency; and
(ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer,
monitor the operating parameter established in accordance with Sec.
63.3350(f) to ensure capture efficiency; and
(iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those web coating
lines served by each capture system delivering emissions to that
oxidizer either:
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section, if the web coating lines served by that capture and control
system have only always-controlled work stations; or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii), (v), and
(p) of this section, if the web coating lines served by that capture
and control system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-
controlled work stations.
(4) Uncontrolled coating lines. If you own or operate one or more
uncontrolled web coating lines, you must determine the organic HAP
applied on those web coating lines using Equation 10. The organic HAP
emitted from an uncontrolled web coating line is equal to the organic
HAP applied on that web coating line.
(5) Convert the information obtained under paragraphs (o)(1)
through (4) of this section into the units of the selected compliance
option using the calculation procedures specified in paragraphs
(o)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Organic HAP emitted. Calculate the organic HAP emissions for
the affected source for the month by summing all organic HAP emissions
calculated according to paragraphs (o)(1), (o)(2)(ii), (o)(3)(iii), and
(o)(4) of this section.
(ii) Coating solids applied. If demonstrating compliance on the
basis of organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied or
emission of less than the calculated allowable organic HAP, the owner
or operator must determine the coating solids content of each coating
material applied during the month following the procedure in Sec.
63.3360(d).
(iii) Organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied.
Calculate the organic HAP emission rate based on coating solids applied
for each month using Equation 13.
(iv) Organic HAP based on materials applied. Calculate the organic
HAP emission rate based on material applied using Equation 14.
(6) Compliance. The affected source is in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) for the month if all operating
parameters required to be monitored under paragraphs (o)(1) through (3)
of this section were maintained at the values established under
Sec. Sec. 63.3350 and 63.3360 and one of the standards in paragraphs
(o)(6)(i) through (iv) of this section were met. If operating parameter
deviations occurred, the affected source is in compliance with the
emission standards in Sec. 63.3320(b) for the month if, assuming no
control of emissions or by estimating the emissions using a control
destruction efficiency curve for each 3-hour deviation period, one of
the standards in paragraphs (6)(i) through (iv) of this section were
met.
(i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per
kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more
than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new
affected source; or
(ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg
material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016
kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source; or
(iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
during the month is less than the calculated allowable organic HAP as
determined using paragraph (m) of this section; or
(iv) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
was not more than 5 percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied
for the month at an existing affected source and no more than 2 percent
of the total mass of organic HAP applied for the month at a new
affected source. The total mass of organic HAP applied by the affected
source in the month must be determined using Equation 10.
(p) Intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations.
If you have been expressly referenced to this paragraph by paragraph
(o)(1)(ii), (o)(2)(ii)(B), or (o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section for
calculation procedures to determine organic HAP emissions for your
intermittently-controlled and never-controlled work stations, you must:
(1) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass
mode and the mass of all coating materials as-applied on
[[Page 41312]]
never-controlled work stations during the month.
(2) Determine the sum of the mass of all coating materials as-
applied on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in a
controlled mode and the mass of all coating materials applied on
always-controlled work stations during the month.
(3) Liquid-liquid material balance compliance demonstration. For
each web coating line or group of web coating lines for which you use
the provisions of paragraph (o)(1)(ii) of this section, you must
calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation 19 of
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.016
Where:
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled
mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Rv = Organic volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, percent.
MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode
and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on never-controlled
work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this
section.
(4) Performance test to determine capture efficiency and control
device efficiency. For each web coating line or group of web coating
lines for which you use the provisions of paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(B) or
(o)(3)(iii)(B) of this section, you must calculate the organic HAP
emitted during the month using Equation 20:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09JY20.017
Where:
He = Total monthly organic HAP emitted, kg.
p = Number of different coating materials applied in a month.
Mci = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in controlled
mode and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on always-
controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
R = Overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
MBi = Sum of the mass of coating material, i, as-applied
on intermittently-controlled work stations operating in bypass mode
and the mass of coating material, i, as-applied on never-controlled
work stations, in a month, kg.
Cahi = Monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of coating material, i, expressed as a mass fraction, kg/kg.
Mvret = Mass of volatile matter retained in the coated
web after curing or drying, or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere, kg. The value of this term will be zero in all cases
except where you choose to take into account the volatile matter
retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted to the
atmosphere for the compliance demonstration procedures in this
section.
(q) Always-controlled work stations with more than one capture and
control system. If you operate more than one capture system or more
than one control device and only have always-controlled work stations,
then you are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b)(1) for the month if for each web coating line or group of
web coating lines controlled by a common control device:
(1) The volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency as
determined by paragraphs (j)(1)(i), (iii), (v), and (vi) of this
section is at least 95 percent at an existing affected source and at
least 98 percent at a new affected source; or
(2) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by
paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section for each web coating
line or group of web coating lines served by that control device and a
common capture system is at least 95 percent at an existing affected
source and at least 98 percent at a new affected source; or
(3) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by
paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii) and (l)(2)(i) of this section for
each web coating line or group of web coating lines served by that
control device and a common capture system is at least 95 percent at an
existing affected source and at least 98 percent at a new affected
source.
(r) Mass-balance approach. As an alternative to Sec. 63.3370(b)
through (p), you may demonstrate monthly compliance using a mass-
balance approach in accordance with this section, except for any month
that you elect to meet the emission limitation in Sec. 63.3320(b)(4).
The mass-balance approach should be performed as follows:
(1) Separately for each individual/grouping(s) of lines, you must
sum the mass of organic HAP emitted during the month and divide by the
corresponding total mass of all organic HAP applied on the lines, or
total mass of coating materials applied on the lines, or total mass of
coating solids applied on the lines, for the same period, in accordance
with the emission limitation that you have elected at Sec.
63.3320(b)(1) through (3) for the month's demonstration. You may also
choose to use volatile organic content as a surrogate for organic HAP
for the compliance demonstration in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(d).
You are required to include all emissions and inputs that occur during
periods that each line or grouping of lines operates in accordance with
the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.3300.
(2) You must include all of the organic HAP emitted by your
individual/grouping(s) of lines, as follows.
[[Page 41313]]
(i) You must record the mass of organic HAP or volatile organic
content utilized at all work stations of all of your individually/
grouping(s) of lines. You must additionally record the mass of all
coating materials applied at these work stations if you are
demonstrating compliance for the month with the emission limitation at
Sec. 63.3320(b)(2) (the ``coating materials'' option). You must
additionally record the mass of all coating solids applied at these
work stations if you are demonstrating compliance for the month with
the emission limitation at Sec. 63.3320(b)(3) (the ``coating solids''
option).
(ii) You must assume that all of the organic HAP input to all
never-controlled work stations is emitted, unless you have determined
an emission factor in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(g).
(iii) For all always-controlled work stations, you must assume that
all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is emitted, less the
reductions provided by the corresponding capture system and control
device, in accordance with the most recently measured capture and
destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with the measured mass of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) recovered for the month (e.g., carbon
control or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile
organic content retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted if
you have determined an emission factor in accordance with Sec.
63.3360(g).
(iv) For all intermittently-controlled work stations, you must
assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is
emitted during periods of no control. During periods of control, you
must assume that all of the organic HAP or volatile organic content is
emitted, less the reductions provided by the corresponding capture
system and control device, in accordance with the most recently
measured capture and destruction efficiencies, or in accordance with
the measured mass of VOC recovered for the month (e.g., carbon control
or condensers). You may account for organic HAP or volatile organic
content retained in the coated web or otherwise not emitted if you have
determined an emission factor in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(g).
(v) You must record the organic HAP or volatile organic content
input to all work stations of your individual/grouping(s) of lines and
the mass of coating materials and/or solids applied, if applicable, and
determine corresponding emissions during all periods of operation,
including malfunctions or startups and shutdowns of any web coating
line or control device.
(3) You are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b) if each of your individual/grouping(s) of lines, meets one
of the requirements in paragraphs (r)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
section, as applicable. If operating parameter limit deviations
occurred, including periods that the oxidizer control device(s), if
any, operated at an average combustion temperature more than 50 degrees
Fahrenheit below the temperature established in accordance with Sec.
63.3360(e), or the 3-hour average temperature difference across the
catalyst bed at no less than 80 percent of this average temperature
differential and the catalytic oxidizer maintained a minimum
temperature 50 degrees Fahrenheit above the catalyst's ignition
temperature, you are in compliance with the emission standards in Sec.
63.3320(b) for the month, if assuming no control of emissions for each
3-hour deviation period (or in accordance with an alternate approved
method), one of the requirements in paragraphs (r)(3)(i) through (iii)
of this section was met.
(i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on HAP applied is no more than 0.05 kg organic HAP per kg HAP
applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.02 kg organic
HAP per kg HAP applied at a new affected source; or
(ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on coating solids applied is no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP per
kg coating solids applied at an existing affected source and no more
than 0.08 kg organic HAP per kg coating solids applied at a new
affected source; or
(iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
based on material applied is no more than 0.04 kg organic HAP per kg
material applied at an existing affected source and no more than 0.016
kg organic HAP per kg material applied at a new affected source.
(s) Non-HAP coating. You must demonstrate that all of the coatings
applied at all of the web coating lines at the affected source have
organic HAP contents below 0.1 percent by mass for OSHA-defined
carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR
1910.1200, and below 1.0 percent by mass for other organic HAP
compounds using the procedures in Sec. 63.3370(s)(1) through (3).
(1) Determine the organic HAP mass fraction of each coating
material ``as purchased'' by following one of the procedures in
paragraphs Sec. 63.3360(c)(1) through (3) and determine the organic
HAP mass fraction of each coating material ``as applied'' by following
the procedures in paragraph Sec. 63.3360(c)(4).
(2) Submit to your permitting authority a report certifying that
all coatings applied at all of the web coating lines at your effected
source are non-HAP coatings.
(3) Maintain records of coating formulations used as required in
Sec. 63.3410(a)(1)(iii).
(4) Resume reporting requirements if any of the coating
formulations are modified to exceed the thresholds in Sec. 63.3370(s)
or new coatings which exceed the thresholds in paragraph (s) of this
section are used.
0
12. Section 63.3400 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iv), (c)(2) introductory text,
(c)(2)(v) and (vi), (e), and (f);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (k) and revising newly
redesignated (k) introductory text; and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (g) and paragraphs (h), (i), and (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.3400 What notifications and reports must I submit?
(a) Reports. Each owner or operator of an affected source subject
to this subpart must submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b)
through (k) of this section to the Administrator.
(b) Initial notifications. You must submit an initial notification
as required by Sec. 63.9(b), using the procedure in Sec. 63.3400(h).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The first compliance report is due no later than July 31 or
January 31, whichever date follows the end of the calendar half
immediately following the compliance date that is specified for your
affected source in Sec. 63.3330. Prior to the electronic template
being available in CEDRI for one year, the report must be postmarked or
delivered by the aforementioned dates. After the electronic template
has been available in CEDRI for 1 year, the next full report must be
submitted electronically as described in paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
(iv) Each subsequent compliance report must be submitted
electronically no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is
the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
* * * * *
(2) Compliance report contents. The compliance report must contain
the
[[Page 41314]]
information in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section:
* * * * *
(v) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit
or operating limit) that applies to you and that occurs at an affected
source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission
limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the
following information:
(A) The total operating time of the web coating line(s) during the
reporting period.
(B) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause), if applicable, and the corrective action
taken.
(C) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over the emission limits in Sec. 63.3320 for each monthly period
covered in the report if the source failed to meet an applicable
emission limit of this subpart.
(vi) For each deviation from an emission limit occurring at an
affected source where you are using a CEMS or CPMS to comply with the
emission limit in this subpart, you must include the following
information:
(A) The total operating time of the web coating line(s) during the
reporting period.
(B) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was
inoperative except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(C) The date and time that each CEMS and CPMS, if applicable, was
out-of-control, including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(D) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown,
or malfunction or during another period.
(E) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of each deviation
during the reporting period and the total duration of each deviation as
a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting
period.
(F) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(G) A summary of the total duration (in hours) of CEMS and/or CPMS
downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CEMS
and/or CPMS downtime as a percent of the total source operating time
during that reporting period.
(H) A breakdown of the total duration of CEMS and/or CPMS downtime
during the reporting period into periods that are due to monitoring
equipment malfunctions, non-monitoring equipment malfunctions, quality
assurance/quality control calibrations, other known causes, and other
unknown causes.
(I) The date of the latest CEMS and/or CPMS certification or audit.
(J) A description of any changes in CEMS, CPMS, or controls since
the last reporting period.
(K) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted
over the emission limits in Sec. 63.3320 for each monthly period
covered in the report if the source failed to meet an applicable
emission limit of this subpart.
* * * * *
(e) Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit a
Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Sec. 63.9(h). For
affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
September 19, 2019, the Notification of Compliance Status must be
submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this
section. For affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before September 19, 2019, the Notification of
Compliance Status must be submitted electronically using the procedure
in paragraph (h) starting July 9, 2021.
(f) Performance test reports. You must submit performance test
reports as specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(2) if you are using a control
device to comply with the emission standard and you have not obtained a
waiver from the performance test requirement or you are not exempted
from this requirement by Sec. 63.3360(b). Catalyst activity test
results are not required to be submitted but must be maintained onsite.
Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test
required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (3) of this section. For affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after September 19, 2019, the
performance test reports must be submitted electronically using the
procedure in paragraph (h) of this section. For affected sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before September 19,
2019, the performance test reports must be submitted electronically
using the procedure in paragraph (h) starting July 9, 2021.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on EPA's ERT website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated through the use of EPA's ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. The
results of the performance test must be included as an attachment in
the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema
listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated package or
alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (f)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed
on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive,
or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (f)(1)
of this section.
(g) Performance evaluation reports. You must submit the results of
performance evaluations within 60 days of completing each CMS
performance evaluation (as defined in Sec. 63.2) following the
procedures specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this section.
For affected sources that commence construction or reconstruction after
September 19, 2019, the performance evaluation reports must be
submitted electronically using the procedure in paragraph (h) of this
section. For affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction on or before September 19, 2019, the performance
evaluation reports must be submitted electronically using the procedure
in paragraph (h) starting July 9, 2021.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by EPA's ERT as listed on
EPA's ERT
[[Page 41315]]
website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the results of the
performance evaluation to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file format generated
through the use of EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT
website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by EPA's ERT as listed on EPA's ERT website at the
time of the evaluation. The results of the performance evaluation must
be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file
consistent with the XML schema listed on EPA's ERT website. Submit the
ERT generated package or alternative file to EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (g)(1) of this section is
CBI, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to
be CBI, to EPA. The file must be generated through the use of EPA's ERT
or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed
on EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive,
or other commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the
medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02,
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted
must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as described in paragraph (g)(1)
of this section.
(h) Electronic reporting. If you are required to submit reports
following the procedure specified in this paragraph, you must submit
reports to EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through EPA's CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). Initial notifications and notifications of
compliance status must be submitted as portable document formats (PDF)
to CEDRI using the attachment module of the ERT. You must use the
semiannual compliance report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart 1 year after
it becomes available. The date report templates become available will
be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which
the report is submitted. If you claim some of the information required
to be submitted via CEDRI is CBI, submit a complete report, including
information claimed to be CBI to EPA. The report must be generated
using the appropriate form on the CEDRI website. Submit the file on a
compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage
medium and clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium
to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to EPA via EPA's CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph.
(i) Extension for CDX/CEDRI outage. If you are required to
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with
the reporting requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you
must meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of
this section.
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(j) Extension for force majeure events. If you are required to
electronically submit a report through CEDRI in EPA's CDX, you may
assert a claim of force majeure for failure to timely comply with the
reporting requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must
meet the requirements outlined in paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this
section.
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
(k) SSM reports. For affected sources that commenced construction
or reconstruction before September 19, 2019, you must submit SSM
reports as specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(5), except that the provisions
in subpart A of this part pertaining to startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions do not apply unless a control device is used to comply
with this subpart. On and after, July 9, 2021, and for affected sources
that commence construction or reconstruction after
[[Page 41316]]
September 19, 2019, this section is no longer relevant.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 63.3410 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3410 What records must I keep?
(a) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section on a monthly basis in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(1):
(1) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of all measurements
needed to demonstrate compliance with this standard as indicated in
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63, including:
(i) Continuous emission monitor data in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.3350(d);
(ii) Control device and capture system operating parameter data in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3350(c), (e), and (f);
(iii) Organic HAP content data for the purpose of demonstrating
compliance in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3360(c);
(iv) Volatile matter and coating solids content data for the
purpose of demonstrating compliance in accordance with the requirements
of Sec. 63.3360(d);
(v) Overall control efficiency determination using capture
efficiency and control device destruction or removal efficiency test
results in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3360(e) and
(f);
(vi) Material usage, organic HAP usage, volatile matter usage, and
coating solids usage and compliance demonstrations using these data in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3370(b), (c), and (d); and
(vii) Emission factor development calculations and HAP content for
coating materials used to develop the emission factor as needed for
Sec. 63.3360(g).
(2) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(c) for each CMS operated by
the owner or operator in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
63.3350(b), as indicated in Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63.
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart must maintain records of all liquid-liquid material balances
performed in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.3370. The
records must be maintained in accordance with the applicable
requirements of Sec. 63.10(b).
(c) For each deviation from an operating limit occurring at an
affected source, you must record the following information.
(1) The total operating time the web coating line(s) controlled by
the corresponding add-on control device and/or emission capture system
during the reporting period.
(2) Date, time, duration, and cause of the deviations.
(3) If the facility determines by its monthly compliance
demonstration, in accordance with Sec. 63.3370, as applicable, that
the source failed to meet an applicable emission limit of this subpart,
you must record the following for the corresponding affected equipment:
(i) Record an estimate of the quantity of HAP (or VOC if used a
surrogate in accordance with Sec. 63.3360(d)) emitted in excess of the
emission limit for the month, and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
(ii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec. 63.3340(a), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(d) Records of results from the annual catalyst activity test, if
applicable.
(e) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are
submitted electronically via EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
0
14. Section 63.3420 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.3420 What authorities may be delegated to the States?
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
state, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the
authorities contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained
by the EPA Administrator and not transferred to a state, local, or
tribal agency.
(b) Authority which will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section:
(1) Approval of alternate test method for organic HAP content
determination under Sec. 63.3360(c).
(2) Approval of alternate test method for volatile matter
determination under Sec. 63.3360(d).
0
15. Table 1 to subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits if Using Add-On
Control Devices and Capture System
If you are required to comply with operating limits by Sec.
63.3321, you must comply with the applicable operating limits in the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you must
You must meet the demonstrate
For the following device: following operating continuous
limit: compliance with
operating limits by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Thermal oxidizer......... a. The average i. Collecting the
combustion combustion
temperature in any temperature data
3-hour period must according to Sec.
not fall more than 63.3350(e)(10);
50 [deg]F below the ii. Reducing the
combustion data to 3-hour
temperature limit block averages; and
established
according to Sec.
63.3360(e)(3)(i).
iii. Maintain the 3-
hour average
combustion
temperature at or
above the
temperature limit.
2. Catalytic oxidizer....... a. The average i. Collecting the
temperature at the catalyst bed inlet
inlet to the temperature data
catalyst bed in any according to Sec.
3-hour period must 63.3350(e)(10);
not fall more than ii. Reducing the
50 degrees data to 3-hour
Fahrenheit below block averages; and
the combustion
temperature limit
established
according to Sec.
63.3360(e)(3)(ii).
iii. Maintain the 3-
hour average
catalyst bed inlet
temperature at or
above the
temperature limit.
b. The temperature i. Collecting the
rise across the catalyst bed inlet
catalyst bed must and outlet
not fall below 80 temperature data
percent of the according to Sec.
limit established 63.3350(e)(10);
according to Sec. ii. Reducing the
63.3360(e)(3)(ii), data to 3-hour
provided that the block averages; and
minimum temperature iii. Maintain the 3-
is always 50 hour average
degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise
above the across the catalyst
catalyst's ignition bed at or above the
temperature. limit, and maintain
the minimum
temperature at
least 50 degrees
Fahrenheit above
the catalyst's
ignition
temperature
[[Page 41317]]
3. Emission capture system.. Submit monitoring Conduct monitoring
plan to the according to the
Administrator that plan (Sec.
identifies 63.3350(f)(3)).
operating
parameters to be
monitored according
to Sec.
63.3350(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
16. Table 2 to subpart JJJJ is revised to read as follows:
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of 40 CFR part 63
General Provisions to Subpart JJJJ
You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements
according to the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
General provisions reference subpart JJJJ Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(4)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.1(a)(5)............. No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(8)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.1(a)(9)............. No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(14)....... Yes..............
Sec. 63.1(b)(1)............. No............... Subpart JJJJ
specifies
applicability.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)-(3)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.1(c)(1)............. Yes..............
Sec. 63.1(c)(2)............. No............... Area sources are not
subject to emission
standards of subpart
JJJJ.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3)............. No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4)............. Yes..............
Sec. 63.1(c)(5)............. Yes..............
Sec. 63.1(d)................ No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.1(e)................ Yes..............
Sec. 63.2................... Yes.............. Additional
definitions in
subpart JJJJ.
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(3)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.4(a)(4)............. No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.4(a)(5)............. Yes..............
Sec. 63.4(b)-(c)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.5(a)(1)-(2)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.5(b)(1)............. Yes..............
Sec. 63.5(b)(2)............. No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(6)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.5(c)................ No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.5(d)................ Yes..............
Sec. 63.5(e)................ Yes..............
Sec. 63.5(f)................ Yes..............
Sec. 63.6(a)................ Yes.............. Applies only when
capture and control
system is used to
comply with the
standard.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(5)......... No............... Sec. 63.3330
specifies compliance
dates.
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)(1)(i).......... Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019,
see Sec.
63.3340(a) for
general duty
requirement. Yes,
for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter,
see Sec.
63.3340(a) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)......... Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019.
Yes, for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)........ Yes..............
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)............. No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)............. Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019.
Yes, for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)............. Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019.
Yes, for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)-(3)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.6(g)................ Yes..............
Sec. 63.6(h)................ No............... Subpart JJJJ does not
require continuous
opacity monitoring
systems (COMS).
[[Page 41318]]
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(a)-(d)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............. No............... See Sec.
63.3360(e)(2).
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)-(3)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.7(f)-(h)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(2)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)............. No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)............. No............... Subpart JJJJ does not
have monitoring
requirements for
flares.
Sec. 63.8(b)................ Yes..............
Sec. 63.8(c)(1) and Sec. Depends, see No, for new or
63.8(c)(1)(i). explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019,
see Sec.
63.3340(a) for
general duty
requirement. Yes,
for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter,
see Sec.
63.3340(a) for
general duty
requirement.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)......... Yes.............. Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)
only applies if you
use capture and
control systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........ Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019.
Yes, for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)......... Yes.............. See Sec.
63.3350(e)(10)(iv)
for temperature
sensor validation
procedures
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)............. No............... Sec. 63.3350
specifies the
requirements for the
operation of CMS for
capture systems and
add-on control
devices at sources
using these to
comply.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)............. No............... Subpart JJJJ does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8)......... Yes.............. Provisions for COMS
are not applicable.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)-(2)......... Yes.............. Refer to Sec.
63.3350(e)(5) for
CPMS quality control
procedures to be
included in the
quality control
program.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)............. No............... Sec. 63.3350(e)(5)
specifies the
program of
corrective action.
Sec. 63.8(e)-(f)............ Yes.............. Sec. 63.8(e)(2)
does not apply to
CPMS. Sec.
63.8(f)(6) only
applies if you use
CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g)................ Yes.............. Only applies if you
use CEMS.
Sec. 63.9(a)................ Yes..............
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)............. Yes..............
Sec. 63.9(b)(2)............. Yes.............. Except Sec.
63.3400(b)(1)
requires submittal
of initial
notification for
existing affected
sources no later
than 1 year before
compliance date.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)-(5)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.9(c)-(e)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.9(f)................ No............... Subpart JJJJ does not
require opacity and
visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.9(g)................ Yes.............. Provisions for COMS
are not applicable.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(3)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.9(h)(4)............. No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(6)......... Yes..............
Sec. 63.9(i)................ Yes..............
Sec. 63.9(j)................ Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(a)............... Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)......... Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019.
Yes, for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)........ No............... See Sec. 63.3410
for recordkeeping of
relevant
information.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)....... Yes.............. Sec.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)
only applies if you
use a capture and
control system.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).... Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019.
Yes, for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv).. Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)............ Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(4)........ No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(5)-(8)........ Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)............ No............... Reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(14)...... Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)........... Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019.
Yes, for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(2)........ Yes..............
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............ No............... Subpart JJJJ does not
require opacity and
visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............ Yes..............
[[Page 41319]]
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i)......... Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019.
Yes, for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter.
See Sec.
63.3400(c) for
malfunction
reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)........ Depends, see No, for new or
explanation. reconstructed
sources which
commenced
construction or
reconstruction after
September 19, 2019.
Yes, for all other
affected sources
before July 9, 2021,
and No thereafter.
See Sec.
63.3400(c) for
malfunction
reporting
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1)-(2)........ Yes.............. Provisions for COMS
are not applicable.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)-(4)........ No............... Subpart JJJJ does not
require opacity and
visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(f)............... Yes..............
Sec. 63.11.................. No............... Subpart JJJJ does not
specify use of
flares for
compliance.
Sec. 63.12.................. Yes..............
Sec. 63.13.................. Yes..............
Sec. 63.14.................. Yes.............. Subpart JJJJ includes
provisions for
alternative ASME and
ASTM test methods
that are
incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15.................. Yes..............
Sec. 63.16.................. Yes..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-05854 Filed 7-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P