[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27132-27159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13084]
[[Page 27131]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from the Printing
and Publishing Industry; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 105 / Thursday, May 30, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 27132]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 63
[AD-FRL-5509-1]
RIN 2060-AD95
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Final
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions From the Printing and
Publishing Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), as amended in 1990 for the printing and publishing industry.
The NESHAP requires existing and new major sources to control emissions
using the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to control
hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The standards were proposed in the
Federal Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13664). This Federal Register
action announces the EPA's final decisions on the rule.
The final rule includes organic HAP emission limits for publication
rotogravure, product and packaging rotogravure, and wide-web
flexographic printing. A variety of organic HAP are used as solvents
and components of inks and other materials used by printers. The HAP
emitted by the facilities covered by this final rule include xylene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
methanol, ethylene glycol, and certain glycol ethers. All of these
pollutants can cause reversible or irreversible toxic effects following
exposure. The potential toxic effects include eye, nose, throat, and
skin irritation; and damage to the heart, liver, kidneys, and blood
cells. The final rule is estimated to reduce baseline emissions of HAP
by 31 percent or 6700 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (7400 tons per year
(tpy)).
The emissions reductions achieved by these standards, combined with
the emissions reductions achieved by similar standards, will achieve
the primary goal of the CAA, which is to ``enhance the quality of the
Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare
and productive capacity of its population''. The intent of this final
regulation is to protect the public health by requiring the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of organic HAP from new and existing
sources, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission
reduction, any nonair quality, health and environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Background Information Document. The background information
document (BID) for the promulgated standards may be obtained from the
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia, 22161, telephone number (703) 487-4650. Please
refer to ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
the Printing and Publishing Industry--Background Information for
Promulgated Standards,'' EPA-453/R-96-005b. The BID contains (1) a
summary of the changes made to the standards since proposal, and (2) a
summary of all the public comments made on the proposed standards and
the Administrator's response to the comments.
Electronic versions of the promulgation BID as well as this final
rule are available for download from the EPA's Technology Transfer
Network (TTN), a network of electronic bulletin boards developed and
operated by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. The service is free, except for the cost of a phone
call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for data transfer of up to 14,400 bits per
second. If more information on TTN is needed, contact the systems
operator at (919) 541-5384.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-42, containing supporting information used
in developing the promulgated standards, is available for public
inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
at the EPA Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Waterside
Mall, Room M-1500, Ground Floor, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460; telephone number (202) 260-7548, FAX (202) 260-4400. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Salman at (919) 541-0859,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those which have
the potential to emit HAP listed in section 112(b) of the CAA in the
following regulated categories and entities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Printers, publishers, and
manufacturers of packaging,
wall and floor coverings,
house furnishings and
sanitary paper products
employing rotogravure
printing or wide-web
flexographic printing
technologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.820 of the rule. If you
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of NESHAP is
available only by the filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA,
the requirements that are the subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. Regulatory Background and Purpose
B. Common Sense Initiative
II. The Standards
III. Summary of Impacts
IV. Significant Changes to the Proposed Standards
A. Public Participation
B. Comments on the Proposed Standards
C. Significant Changes
D. Minor Changes
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 12866: Administrative Designation and
Regulatory Analysis
D. Executive Order 12875
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
G. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA)
[[Page 27133]]
I. Background
A. Regulatory Background and Purpose
Section 112 of the CAA requires control of emissions of HAP to
protect public health and the environment. This final regulation will
reduce emissions of organic HAP from rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printing operations.
In part, section 112 requires that emission standards be
promulgated for all categories of major sources of HAP, and for many
categories of small ``area'' sources. The CAA lists 189 HAP believed to
cause adverse health or environmental effects. Major sources are
defined as those that emit or have the potential to emit at least 10
tons per year of any single HAP or 25 tons per year of any combination
of HAP.
In the July 16, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR 31576), the EPA
published the initial list of categories of sources slated for
regulation. This list includes the printing and publishing category.
Emissions standards for the listed source categories are required to be
promulgated between November 1992 and November 2000.
Congress specified that each of these standards must require the
maximum reduction in emissions of HAP that the EPA determines is
achievable considering cost, non-air-quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. In essence, these MACT standards
ensure that all major sources of air toxics achieve the level of
control already being achieved by the better controlled and lower
emitting sources in each category. This approach creates a level
economic playing field, ensuring that facilities that employ cleaner
processes and good emissions controls are not disadvantaged relative to
competitors with poorer controls. At the same time, this approach
provides assurance to every citizen, in every community, that any major
source of toxic air pollution located nearby will have to effectively
control its emissions.
All U.S. publication rotogravure facilities and some product and
packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing facilities are
major sources of HAP emissions, with the potential to emit over 23 Mg/
yr (25 tpy) of organic HAP, including toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene,
methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, ethylene glycol,
and certain glycol ethers. All of these pollutants can cause reversible
or irreversible toxic effects following exposure. The potential toxic
effects include irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and skin; and
damage to the heart, liver, kidneys, and blood cells.
The EPA recognizes that the degree of adverse effects to health
resulting from the most significant emissions identified can range from
mild to severe. The extent to which the effects could be experienced is
dependent upon the ambient concentrations and exposure time. The latter
is further influenced by source-specific characteristics such as
emission rates and local meteorological conditions. Human variability
factors, including genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and
lifestyle also influence the degree to which effects to health occur.
The final standards will reduce organic HAP emissions from
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing operations by 6,700 Mg/
yr (7,400 tpy) from a baseline level of 21,700 Mg/yr (23,900 tpy). No
small firms are at risk of closure as a result of the final standards,
and there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
B. Common Sense Initiative
On October 17, 1994, the Administrator established the Common Sense
Initiative (CSI) Council in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (U.S.C. App. 2, section 9(c)) requirements. The CSI
addresses six industrial sectors. The Printing CSI Subcommittee
addresses the Printing and Publishing industry.
The following are the six principles of the CSI program, as stated
in the ``Advisory Committee Charter.''
1. Regulation. Review existing regulations for opportunities to get
better environmental results at less cost. Improve new rules through
increased coordination.
2. Pollution Prevention. Actively promote pollution prevention as
the standard business practice and a central ethic of environmental
protection.
3. Recordkeeping and Reporting. Make it easier to provide, use, and
publicly disseminate relevant pollution and environmental information.
4. Compliance and Enforcement. Find innovative ways to assist
companies that seek to comply and exceed legal requirements while
consistently enforcing the law for those that do not achieve
compliance.
5. Permitting. Improve permitting so that it works more
efficiently, encourages innovation, and creates more opportunities for
public participation.
6. Environmental Technology. Give industry the incentives and
flexibility to develop innovative technologies that meet and exceed
environmental standards while cutting costs.
The Printing CSI Subcommittee met for the first time just before
the proposed rule was published. Several Subcommittee members were very
involved in the development of the proposed rule. All Subcommittee
members were made aware of the proposal and copies of the proposal were
provided to all interested Subcommittee members. Although the
Subcommittee did not choose to make review of the proposed rule one of
its projects, several Subcommittee members did submit comments on the
proposed rule. The subcommittee was provided with an update on the
final rule at its March 19, 1996 meeting.
Many aspects of the CSI principles are reflected in the final
standards. The alternatives considered in the development of this
regulation, including those alternatives selected as standards for new
and existing printing facilities, are based on process and emissions
data received from over 600 printing facilities. The EPA met with
industry and trade groups on numerous occasions to discuss these data.
In addition, printers, trade organizations, ink manufacturers, and
State and local regulatory authorities commented on draft versions of
the proposed regulation and on the proposed regulation. Two trade
organizations provided extensive comments. All comments were
considered, and a number of changes to the final rule reflect these
comments. Of major concern to industry were the opportunity to comply
through pollution prevention by using low HAP content materials, the
analytical method for HAP content determination, reliance on
formulation data for HAP and volatile matter determination, and
flexible compliance demonstration provisions that account for different
configurations of work stations and printing presses within a facility.
The regulation allows sources the flexibility to select from
various options for compliance. Sources may reduce HAP usage and
emissions through conversion to waterborne, lower HAP solvent-borne or
ultraviolet/electron beam cure materials. Alternatively, sources may
install or upgrade existing capture and control devices to meet the
proposed standard. Finally, sources have the option to comply by a
combination of lower HAP materials and capture and control. Facilities
may select the most cost-effective option based on facility specific
considerations.
The final rule allows existing facilities three years from the date
of promulgation to comply. This is the maximum amount of time allowed
under the CAA. This time frame will provide the greatest opportunity
for
[[Page 27134]]
developing and adopting low-HAP content materials, and provide
sufficient time for facilities that choose to install or upgrade
capture and control equipment.
Included in the final rule are methods for determining initial
compliance as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. All of these components are necessary to ensure that
sources will comply with the standards both initially and over time.
However, the EPA has made every effort to simplify the requirements in
the rule. The EPA has also attempted to maintain consistency with
existing regulations.
Representatives from other interested EPA offices and programs were
included in the regulatory development process as members of the work
group. The work group reviewed and concurred with the regulation before
proposal and promulgation. Therefore, the EPA believes that the
implications to other EPA offices and programs have been adequately
considered during the development of the rule.
II. The Standards
The final rule is applicable to all existing and new rotogravure
and wide-web flexographic facilities that are major sources of HAP or
are located at plant sites that are major sources of HAP.
Publication rotogravure facilities subject to this rule must limit
emissions of organic HAP to no more than eight percent of the total
volatile matter used each month. The emission limitation may be
achieved by capture and control of at least 92 percent of organic HAP
used, by substitution of non-HAP materials for organic HAP, or by a
combination of capture and control technologies and substitution of
materials.
Product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic
printing facilities subject to this rule must limit emissions to no
more than five percent of the organic HAP applied each month, or to no
more than four percent of the mass of inks, coatings, varnishes,
adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers, thinners, and other materials
applied each month, or to no more than 20 percent of the solids applied
each month, or to an equivalent allowable mass based on the as-applied
solids contents of the materials applied each month.
Section 112(a) of the CAA defines major source as a source, or
group of sources, located within a contiguous area and under common
control that emits or has the potential to emit, considering controls,
9.1 Mg/yr (10 tpy) or more of any individual HAP or 22.7 Mg/yr (25 tpy)
or more of any combination of HAP. Area sources are stationary sources
that do not qualify as ``major.'' ``Potential to emit'' is defined in
the section 112 General Provisions (40 CFR 63.2) as ``the maximum
capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical
or operational design.'' Any physical or operational limitation on the
capacity of the stationary source to emit a pollutant, including air
pollution control equipment and restrictions on the hours of operation
or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed,
shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect
it would have on emissions is Federally enforceable.
The EPA notes that in recent decisions, National Mining Ass'n v.
EPA, 59 F.3d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1995) and Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v.
EPA, No. 89-1514, slip op. (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 1995), the District of
Columbia Circuit court addressed challenges related to the EPA's
requirement that a source which wishes to limit its potential to emit
must obtain a federally enforceable limit for the New Source Review and
NESHAP programs. The EPA is currently reviewing its Federal
enforceability requirements in light of these court decisions, and has
not yet decided how it will address this issue. Once the EPA has
completed its review of the Federal enforceability requirements in all
relevant programs including the NESHAP program, the EPA will make
available in a Federal Register notice its response to the court
decisions. In the interim, the EPA has issued its Interim Policy on
Enforceability of Limitations on Potential to Emit (January 22, 1996),
which summarizes how certain State-enforceable limits may be recognized
under this definition pending further rulemaking.
To determine the applicability of this rule to facilities that are
within a contiguous area of other HAP-emitting emission sources that
are not part of the source category covered by this rule, the owner or
operator must determine whether the plant site as a whole is a major
source. A formal HAP emissions inventory must be used to determine if
total potential HAP emissions from all HAP emission sources at the
plant site meet the definition of a major source. If the facility
commits to HAP usage restrictions as provided in the rule that ensure
potential HAP emissions will be below the major source cutoffs, only
simplified reporting and recordkeeping requirements apply. A facility
may also limit its potential to emit through other appropriate
mechanisms that may be available through the permitting authority.
Existing major sources may switch to area source status by
obtaining and complying with a federally enforceable limit on their
potential to emit prior to the ``compliance date'' of the regulation.
The ``compliance date'' for existing sources for this regulation is
defined as May 30, 1999. New major sources are required to comply with
the NESHAP requirements upon start-up or the promulgation date,
whichever is later. A facility that has not obtained federally
enforceable limits on its potential to emit by the compliance date, and
that has not complied with the NESHAP requirements, will be in
violation of the NESHAP. All sources that are major sources for HAP on
the compliance date or become major sources after the compliance date
are required to comply permanently with the NESHAP to ensure that the
maximum achievable reductions in toxic emissions are achieved and
maintained.
The final standards impose limits on organic HAP emissions from
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing. Publication rotogravure
facilities must demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis considering
all organic HAP used on publication rotogravure presses and all
affiliated equipment, including proof presses, cylinder and parts
cleaners, ink and solvent mixing and storage equipment, and solvent
recovery equipment. Facilities may comply using capture and control
equipment, substitution of non-HAP solvents for HAP, or a combination
of these methods.
Product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic
printing facilities must demonstrate compliance on a monthly basis
considering all organic HAP applied on product and packaging
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing presses. Certain presses
which are used primarily for coating, laminating, or printing using
other technologies than rotogravure printing and wide-web flexographic
printing may be excluded from the affected source, subject only to
simplified recordkeeping requirements. Owners or operators of such
equipment will be subject to the appropriate source category standard
when such a standard is issued.
Product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic
printers may comply through the use of capture and control equipment,
the substitution of non-HAP solvents for HAP, or a combination of these
methods. Facilities may comply on the basis of organic HAP emissions
per mass of solids applied, organic HAP emissions per mass of
[[Page 27135]]
materials applied, allowable organic HAP emissions based on the as-
applied solids content of the materials applied, or overall organic HAP
control efficiency.
III. Summary of Impacts
These standards will reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing operations by
approximately 6700 Mg/yr (7400 tpy) in 1999 compared to the emissions
that would result in the absence of the standards. These standards will
also, to some extent, reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions
from those same operations compared to the emissions that would result
in the absence of the standards. The extent of the reduction in VOC
emissions cannot be predicted because of uncertainty over the extent to
which printers will comply through substitution of water and non-VOC
organics for organic HAP. No significant adverse secondary air, water,
solid waste, or energy impacts are anticipated from the promulgation of
these standards.
Implementation of this regulation is expected to result in
nationwide annual costs (including capital recovery) of approximately
$40 million beyond baseline. These costs include $21 million per year
for publication rotogravure printers and $19 million per year for
package and product rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printers.
These costs include capital recovery over a ten year period, operating
costs for newly installed and upgraded capture and control systems, and
costs for recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring. Cost estimates for
publication rotogravure printers remain unchanged from the proposed
rule. Estimated costs for package and product rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printers are $2 million less than those for the proposed
rule as a result of the facility-wide definition of affected source.
The economic impact analysis conducted before proposal showed that
the economic impacts from the proposed standards would be
insignificant. Since compliance costs and reporting and recordkeeping
burdens have been reduced in the final rule, the economic impacts of
the final rule are also insignificant.
IV. Significant Changes to the Proposed Standards
A. Public Participation
The standards were proposed and the preamble was published in the
Federal Register on March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13664). The preamble to the
proposed standards discussed the availability of the regulatory text
and proposal BID, which described the regulatory alternatives
considered and the impacts of those alternatives. Public comments were
solicited at the time of proposal, and copies of the regulatory text
and BID were distributed to interested parties. Electronic versions of
the preamble, regulation, and BID were made available to interested
parties via the TTN (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
preamble). A correction notice which addressed minor typographical
errors was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 1995 (60 FR
16920).
The preamble to the proposed standards provided the public the
opportunity to request a public hearing. However, a public hearing was
not requested. The public comment period was from March 14, 1995 to May
30, 1995. In all, 117 comment letters were received. The comments have
been carefully considered, and changes have been made to the proposed
standards when determined by the Administrator to be appropriate.
B. Comments on the Proposed Standards
Comments on the proposed standards were received from 117
commenters; the commenters were comprised of printers, ink
manufacturers, State and local air pollution control agencies, trade
organizations for printers and control equipment manufacturers, and
citizens. A detailed discussion of these comments and responses can be
found in the promulgation BID, which is referred to in the Addresses
section of this preamble. The discussion of comments and responses in
the BID serves as the basis for the revisions that have been made to
the standards between proposal and promulgation. Many of the comment
letters contained multiple comments.
C. Significant Changes
Several significant changes have been made in response to the
comments received on the proposed standards. A summary of the major
changes is presented below.
(1) Incidental Printing and Ancillary Printing Equipment
The rule affects rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing
operations at major sources. Several commenters noted that this will
include facilities that use little or no HAP on rotogravure or wide-web
flexographic printing presses, but are major sources as a result of
activities conducted on other equipment in other source categories. In
addition, commenters noted that equipment that meets the definition of
rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing press but conducts only a
small amount of rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing
operations and is primarily used for coating, laminating, or printing
by other processes would have, as proposed, been subject to the
standard.
The first case above can be characterized as ``incidental
printing'' because the total work done on rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printing presses at the facility is minimal and is
incidental to the other operations conducted at the facility. In the
second case above, the equipment can be characterized as ``ancillary
printing equipment'' because the work being done on rotogravure and
wide-web flexographic print stations is minimal in comparison to, and
ancillary to, the work being done on other work stations (i.e., coating
stations) on that equipment.
The EPA has considered control requirements for incidental printing
as a separate subgroup. Under the rule, product and packaging
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing affected sources that
apply no more than 500 kilograms of materials each month and that are
located at facilities that are major sources of HAP are considered
incidental printers. This definition ensures that the total work done
on product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic presses
at the facility is minimal and is incidental to the other operations
conducted at the facility.
The EPA believes it is appropriate not to subject incidental
printing operations to the requirements in Sec. 63.825 that apply to
product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing.
The EPA's analysis of the MACT floor for product and packaging
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing is based on emissions
levels and control techniques at facilities primarily engaged in
printing that generally apply more than 500 kilograms of material each
month on product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic
presses. The EPA has little information on which to establish a MACT
control level for incidental printing. The available information
indicates that the MACT floor for this subgroup is no control.
The final standard includes simplified requirements and does not
mandate emission controls for incidental printers. Affected sources
within this subgroup are those which apply no more than 500 kilograms
of material
[[Page 27136]]
each month or no more than 400 kilogams of HAP each month on product
and packaging rotogravure and wide-web flexographic presses. The 400
kilogram of HAP applied per month alternative threshold has been
included to provide affected sources applying somewhat more than 500
kilograms of material per month with the opportunity to maintain
incidental printer status if they reduce the HAP content of the
materials applied so that the monthly HAP applied is no more than would
be applied by an affected source that applied 500 kilograms of material
per month. Affected sources in this subgroup would be subject only to
initial notification requirements and recordkeeping requirements to
show that one of the thresholds is met every month.
The type of simplified requirements included in the final standard
for this subgroup of product and packaging or wide-web flexographic
sources were not made available to publication rotogravure affected
sources because each press at a publication rotogravure affected source
would far exceed the thresholds every month. A single publication
rotogravure press would, in fact, be a major source of HAP.
The final standard also permits the owner or operator of a product
and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing affected
source to choose to exclude ancillary printing equipment from the
affected source. This equipment is used primarily for coating,
laminating, or other operations besides product and packaging
rotogravure and wide-web flexographic printing. Presses on which five
weight-percent or less of the total material applied each month is
applied by rotogravure or wide-web flexographic print stations would be
subject only to a simplified recordkeeping requirement. The EPA
believes it is appropriate to provide the owner or operator with the
option not to subject these presses to the HAP emission limitations for
product and packaging and wide-web flexographic printing in Sec. 63.825
because the work being done on the rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic print stations on these presses is ancillary to the work
being done on other work stations (i.e., coating stations) on these
presses. The EPA is separately establishing MACT for other source
categories, such as the paper and other web coating source category and
the metal coil coating source category, which may be more appropriate
for this type of equipment. Ancillary printing equipment, if excluded
from this standard, will be subject to the appropriate source category
standard when such a standard is issued.
(2) Research and Laboratory Equipment
Several comments were received requesting exemption of research and
laboratory equipment. Commenters noted that the purpose and operation
of research presses are independent of their location. One commenter
noted that research and laboratory operations could be exempted from
this standard and a separate standard for these operations could be
developed.
All research and laboratory equipment has been excluded from the
final standard whether or not it is collocated with production
facilities. In order to regulate research and laboratory equipment, it
would be necessary to develop a separate source category as directed by
section 112(c)(7) of the CAA to assure equitable treatment of such
equipment.
(3) Addition of Presses to Existing Affected Sources
Comments were received concerning triggering of new source
compliance deadlines as a result of adding new presses to existing
control systems or new stations to existing presses. Commenters noted
that this would discourage replacement and modification of presses or
stations to take advantage of low-HAP materials.
Addition of presses to existing affected sources will subject the
affected source to the compliance deadline for new sources only if the
additional press or presses constitutes a reconstruction of the source,
as defined in Sec. 63.2. Additions, replacements, and modifications to
existing sources which do not meet the definition of reconstruction do
not alter the compliance deadline.
(4) Affected Source for Product and Packaging Rotogravure and Wide-web
Flexographic Printing Facilities
Comments were received suggesting changes in the definition of
affected source at product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printing facilities to simplify compliance demonstration.
One commenter stated that a facility-wide definition of affected source
would significantly cut recordkeeping expenses.
In response, the final standard considers all rotogravure and wide-
web flexographic printing equipment at a given facility as a single
affected source. This grouping is more consistent with the way that the
MACT floor was determined and is consistent with other MACT standards
which have grouped various emission points into a single affected
source. It is also more consistent with the definition of affected
source for publication rotogravure.
This definition of affected source simplifies reporting and
recordkeeping in many cases. In addition, sources may achieve the
required emissions reductions by considering emissions from the entire
affected source, including controlled and uncontrolled presses. This
will allow sources to comply in the most cost-effective way and will
not require expensive control equipment for small presses which emit
relatively small amounts of organic HAP if equivalent emissions
reductions can be achieved elsewhere in the affected source.
(5) Organic HAP Analysis Methods
Ninety-six comments were received requesting that the EPA accept
formulation data in lieu of requiring the use of EPA Method 311 to
determine organic HAP content of printing materials. Formulation data
were preferred to reduce analytical cost and delays due to chemical
analysis. Some commenters also suggested various modifications to the
proposed analytical technique in the interests of improved accuracy,
consistency with apparatus presently in operation, and reduced
analytical costs.
The final standard adopts Method 311, as revised and promulgated
with the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (60 FR 62930),
for organic HAP analysis. Printers and ink manufacturers have the
option of relying on formulation data if the data meet specified
criteria. In the event of any discrepancy between formulation data and
the results of EPA Method 311, the results of EPA Method 311 shall be
presumed to govern for all compliance purposes. In addition, the
printer may determine the total volatile matter content of the material
and use this value for the organic HAP content for all compliance
purposes. This option may be chosen by printers using materials in
which all, or nearly all, of the volatile matter is organic HAP in
order to avoid the need for a more time-consuming analytic procedure.
(6) Volatile Matter Analysis Methods
Several comments were received requesting that formulation data be
acceptable instead of chemical analysis data. Commenters noted this
would greatly reduce analytical costs.
The final standard allows printers and ink manufacturers the option
of relying on formulation data for volatile matter and solids content,
in lieu of EPA Methods 24 and 24A. In the event of any
[[Page 27137]]
discrepancy between formulation data and the results of the EPA test
methods, the test methods shall be presumed to govern for all
compliance purposes.
(7) Compliance Monitoring for Catalytic Oxidizers
Nine commenters noted that the temperature downstream of a
catalytic oxidizer was inappropriate for use as a monitoring parameter
to indicate HAP destruction. The commenters noted that downstream
temperature parameters established during performance testing under
normal conditions might not be maintained during low-load conditions,
yet this would not be an indication of excess emissions.
The final standard requires owners or operators using a catalytic
oxidizer (that is, a catalytic incinerator) and monitoring an operating
parameter to ensure compliance with the standard to monitor the
temperature immediately upstream of the catalyst bed. The requirement
to monitor the temperature downstream of the catalyst bed has been
eliminated. Since the operating parameters are established during a
test under normal operating conditions, a downstream temperature
monitoring parameter might be impossible to meet during periods when
organic loading to the oxidizer was lower than normal. This might have
led to exceedances which were not indicative of improper operating
conditions or excessive emissions.
(8) Additional Compliance Options for Product and Packaging Rotogravure
and Wide-web Flexographic Printing Affected Sources
Several commenters requested clarification that compliance need
only be demonstrated by a single procedure appropriate to the source's
compliance strategy. Several commenters suggested that the rule should
provide a variety of compliance demonstration alternatives to
accomodate different aggregations of work stations and HAP control
strategies.
In order to make the compliance options consistent with facility-
wide definition of affected source, additional means of demonstrating
compliance have been added to the final rule. Facilities may
demonstrate that each material applied meets either of the organic HAP
thresholds, or that all materials on average meet either of the organic
HAP thresholds, or that the organic HAP emitted is less than the
organic HAP allowed taking these thresholds into account. In addition,
emissions from controlled and uncontrolled presses are aggregated to
determine compliance across the entire affected source.
The final rule has been expanded to include ten procedures under
which compliance can be demonstrated under different circumstances. Any
one of the ten procedures can be used. These procedures are consistent
with the proposed standards for low HAP materials and HAP emission
control device operation. These procedures encompass the range of
suggestions made by the commenters. The new compliance demonstration
procedures in the final rule are expected to have a negligible impact
on HAP emissions compared to the provisions in the proposed rule.
(9) Capture Efficiency Protocols and Test Methods
Four commenters requested that the rule allow the use of alternate
capture efficiency test protocols approved by the EPA in lieu of the
procedures specified in Sec. 52.741.
The final rule includes additional options for capture efficiency
tests. Provisions of the proposed rule pertaining to verification of
permanent total enclosures and temporary total enclosure capture
efficiency testing in accordance with Sec. 52.741 have been retained in
the final rule. The final rule also allows, as an alternative, the use
of any capture efficiency protocol and test methods which satisfy the
criteria of either the Data Quality Objective or Lower Confidence Limit
approaches. An appendix describing these approaches has been added to
the final rule. The use of these alternative approaches is optional for
the owner or operator of the affected source and the EPA has determined
that capture efficiency tests satisfying the criteria of these
alternate approaches will be sufficiently rigorous to ensure compliance
with the standard.
(10) Transition from Area Source to Major Source Status
A commenter requested that a provision allowing a transition period
for a newly designated major source to come into compliance be
incorporated in the rule. The commenter noted that the proposed rule
had no provisions for a source to make this transition without being in
violation of the standard.
A provision has been added to the final rule which provides a
mechanism for owners or operators that have used the provisions of
Sec. 63.820(a)(2) to establish the facility as an area source to
reestablish the facility as a major source. Such a source must continue
to comply with its HAP usage commitments until it meets all
requirements for major sources.
(11) Definition of ``Month''
In response to a comment, the definition of ``month'' in the final
rule has been changed to include prespecified periods of 28 to 35 days.
The revised definition will fit better with the materials accounting
systems used by some facilities and have little or no effect on the
emission reduction achieved by the standard.
(12) Alternatives to Vent Stream Flow Rate Monitoring
Seven commenters requested inclusion of alternative methods for
vent stream flow rate monitoring, substitution of flow indicators
rather than flow meters, or elimination of the flow rate monitoring
requirement. One commenter recommended that press interlocks be
permitted as an alternative to vent stream flow rate monitoring.
The final regulation includes alternatives to the vent stream flow
rate measurement requirement. These alternatives are simpler than the
requirements in the proposed rule, but still ensure that sufficient
records will be generated to show when HAP containing vent streams are
being delivered to a control device and to allow for proper calculation
of HAP emissions. Owners or operators of product and packaging
rotogravure or wide-web flexographic presses with intermittently-
controllable work stations may, as alternatives to measuring vent
stream flow rate, install flow indicators on the bypass lines, secure
bypass line valves with locking mechanisms or car seals, continuously
monitor bypass valve position, or equip the press with an interlock
preventing operation when the control device is bypassed. Sampling
lines for gas analyzers and relief valves needed for safety purposes
are not considered bypass lines for the purposes of these provisions.
Presses that do not have any intermittently-controllable work stations
are not subject to these provisions.
(13) Provisions for Inclusion of Stand-alone Coating Equipment in
Affected Source
One comment was received suggesting that off-line coaters sharing a
common control device with printing presses should be included in the
affected source at the discretion of the facility. It was noted that
such a provision would avoid penalizing facilities that had tightened
up their control systems by tying in other sources of HAP.
Provisions have been added to the final rule through which owners
or operators of affected sources may, at
[[Page 27138]]
their option, under certain conditions, include stand-alone coating
equipment in the affected source subject to this standard. This type of
coating equipment is expected to be covered by one of several MACT
standards (e.g., Paper and Other Web Coating) which are scheduled to be
promulgated in the future. Printers choosing this option may avoid the
difficulty of complying with multiple standards in the future. Stand-
alone coating equipment must meet certain requirements to be eligible
for inclusion under this provision. To be eligible, stand-alone coating
equipment must either share a control device with a press included in
the affected source, or process the same substrate as a press included
in the affected source, or apply one or more of the same solids-
containing materials as a press included in the affected source. If any
eligible equipment is included under this provision, all eligible
equipment at the facility must be included.
(14) Addition of Criteria To Determine Whether Method 25 or Method 25A
is Appropriate for Performance Testing
The proposed rule required that performance tests employ either
Method 25 or 25A, as appropriate to the conditions of the site. The
final rule has been clarified to specify the conditions based on the
required or anticipated organic volatile matter concentration at the
exhaust from the control device. These conditions are based on guidance
provided to regional offices and State programs, and clarify the
conditions under which Method 25A are appropriate. This will reduce the
administrative burden on some sources and will not reduce the
stringency of the rule.
(15) Conditions Under Which Performance Test Is To Be Conducted
One commenter recommended testing under reasonably expected
conditions and a second commenter recommended testing under normal
conditions instead of maximum conditions.
The final rule has been made consistent with the General Provisions
to require performance testing under ``normal operating conditions''
rather than ``maximum capacity.'' This will result in establishment of
more representative operating parameters and will not cause an increase
in HAP emissions.
(16) Clarification of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Several comments were received requesting clarification that only
recordkeeping and reporting applicable to the specific control strategy
employed were required. One commenter stated that area sources should
be required to submit initial notifications so that States would be
advised of their operations.
The final rule enumerates the types of excess emissions (including
operating parameter exceedences) which must be included, as applicable,
in the summary report. Recordkeeping requirements for incidental
printing, ancillary printing equipment, and optional inclusion of
stand-alone coating equipment have been added to the final rule.
The requirement for annual reporting of HAP usage by sources using
the optional provisions of this rule to establish area source status
has been eliminated from the final rule. A less burdensome requirement
that such sources submit initial notifications has been added to the
final rule. This initial notification will inform the Administrator
that a source is using these optional provisions to establish area
source status. The annual report was determined to be unnecessary
because the source is required to maintain monthly records of HAP usage
and to report any 12 month period in which the area source commitment
is not met as part of its summary report.
D. Minor Changes
This section contains a list of several of the minor changes to the
final rule.
(1) Revisions to definitions and phrasing have been made to clarify
the regulation.
(2) Variables have been redefined as necessary to avoid ambiguity,
and additional variables have been defined where necessary to
explicitly describe the additional compliance options available in the
final rule.
(3) Typographical errors have been corrected.
(4) The citation of the basis for delegation of regulatory
authority has been corrected.
(5) The summary table in the proposed rule has been eliminated.
(The General Provisions cross reference table has been retained and
additional clarifying notes have been added.)
(6) Language has been added to the final rule which clarifies that
the optional area source mechanism included in the rule does not
preclude an owner or operator from taking advantage of other mechanisms
which are available to establish area source status.
(7) A provision in the proposed rule requiring owners or operators
of affected sources to obtain part 70 or part 71 operating permits has
been eliminated from the final rule because this provision may have
been inadvertently interpreted to require these permits for sources
which used the optional provisions of the rule to establish area source
status. Such sources may be required to obtain such permits, but are
not required to obtain them as a result of using the optional provision
in this standard.
(8) The deadline for initial notification for existing sources has
been extended until one year before the compliance date.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The Docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by the EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The Docket
is a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. The
contents of the Docket, including the BID for the proposed and
promulgated standards and the EPA responses to significant comments,
will serve as the record in case of judicial review (see 42 U.S.C.
7607(d)(7)(A)).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0335. The EPA is therefore
amending the table of currently approved information collection request
(ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations. This
amendment updates the table to accurately display those information
requirements contained in this final rule. This display of the OMB
control number and its subsequent codification in the Code of Federal
Regulations satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR
part 1320.
The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior
to OMB approval. As a result, the EPA finds that there is ``good
cause'' under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553(b)) to amend the table in part 9 without prior notice and
comment. Due to the technical nature of the table, further notice and
comment would be unnecessary. For the same reasons, the EPA finds that
there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
[[Page 27139]]
The information required to be collected by this rule is necessary
to identify the regulated entities who are subject to the rule and to
ensure their compliance with the rule. The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are mandatory and are being established under authority of
section 114 of the CAA. All information submitted to the EPA for which
a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the
EPA policies set forth in title 40, part 2, subpart B--Confidentiality
of Business Information.
The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection averaged over the first three years is estimated to be
89,965 hours per year. The average burden, per respondent, is 164 hours
per year. The rule requires an initial one-time notification from each
respondent and subsequent reports/notification would have to be
submitted semiannually. Respondents operating capture systems and
control devices would also be required to submit notifications of
performance tests, performance test plans and reports of performance
tests. There would be an estimated 500 respondents to the collection
requirements. This estimate includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing methods for compliance with
any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Send comments on the EPA's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, to the Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136), 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, 725 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20503; marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the OMB control number in
any correspondence.
C. Executive Order 12866: Administrative Designation and Regulatory
Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
EPA is required to judge whether a regulation is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of this executive
order to prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities, (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency, (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof, or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the executive
order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
the EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of the executive order. The EPA has submitted this
action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions
or recommendations will be documented in the public record.
D. Executive Order 12875
To reduce the burden of Federal regulations on States and small
governments, the President issued Executive Order 12875 on October 26,
1993, entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. In
particular, this executive order is designed to require agencies to
assess the effects of regulations that are not required by statute and
that create mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments. Two
methods exist for complying with the requirements of the executive
order: (1) Assure that funds necessary to pay direct costs of
compliance with a regulation are provided, or (2) provide OMB a
description of the communications and consultations with State/local/
tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, any written
submission from them, and the EPA's position supporting the need to
issue the regulation.
The EPA has always been concerned about the effect of the cost of
regulations on small entities; the EPA has consulted with and sought
input from public entities to explain costs and burdens they may incur.
The EPA advised interested parties on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 21592),
of the categories considered as major and area sources of HAP, and the
printing/publishing (surface coating) industry was listed as a category
of both major and area sources. The EPA made significant effort to hear
from all levels of interest and all segments of the rotogravure and
wide-web flexographic printing industry. To facilitate comments and
input, the EPA participated in numerous meetings with trade
organizations representing all industry sectors affected by this rule.
Throughout the regulatory development process, and more specifically,
in consultation meetings, industry representatives from printing
companies, ink manufacturers, and various trade associations were given
an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulatory approach and the
MACT alternatives being developed. The major topic areas resulting from
these discussions included industry segmentation, the determination of
the MACT floor, test methods, monitoring procedures, facility-wide
averaging, compliance deadlines, and pollution prevention.
Documentation of all meetings and public comments can be found in
Docket A-92-42.
Representatives of State and local air pollution control agencies
participated in all of the EPA work group meetings, and several State
and local agencies submitted public comments in response to the
proposed standards.
The EPA has considered the purpose and intent of Executive Order
12875 and has determined that printing and publishing NESHAP are
needed. The rule is generally required by statute under section 112 of
the CAA because printing and publishing facilities emit significant
quantities of air pollutants. Through meetings and consultations during
project development and proposal, efforts were made to inform entities
of the costs required to comply with the regulation; in addition,
modifications were made to reduce the burden to small entities.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
EPA to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small
business ``entities.'' If a preliminary analysis indicates that a
proposed regulation would have a significant economic impact on 20
percent or more of small entities, then a final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
[[Page 27140]]
(RFA) must be prepared. The EPA's analysis of these impacts was
summarized in the preamble to the proposed rule (60 FR 13664).
In addition, the EPA has a set of Regulatory Flexibility Guidelines
(RFG), published in April 1992, that require the EPA to conduct a final
RFA if any small business or small entity impacts occur resulting from
a rule whose Start Action Notice (SAN) is approved after the date of
publication of the EPA RFG. The SAN for this rule was approved before
that date, thus the former Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines hold.
An RFA was conducted, however, as part of the larger economic impact
analysis whose results were presented in the preamble to the proposed
rule. The RFA prepared meets the EPA RFG as well as the original
Regulatory Flexibility Act Guidelines. It also meets the analytical
requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
of 1996.
This analysis found that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
No comments were received on this analysis. The changes made in the
final rule reduce the cost of achieving and demonstrating compliance
for affected small and large entities. Therefore, pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
business entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA
regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more in any one year to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Therefore, the
requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this action.
G. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
Pursuant to Subtitle E of SBREFA, this rule, which is nonmajor, was
submitted to Congress before publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR parts 9 and 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard for
printing and publishing industry.
Dated: May 15, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 9--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313(d), 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding a new entry to the table under
the indicated heading in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories \13\
* * * * *
63.829-63.830............................ 2060-0335
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the table encompass the
applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
which are not independent information collection requirements.
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 101, 112, 114, 116, 183(f) and 301 of the CAA,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7511b(f), 7601).
2. Part 63 is amended by adding a new subpart KK consisting of
Secs. 63.820 through 63.839 to read as follows:
Subpart KK--National Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing
Industry
Sec.
63.820 Applicability.
63.821 Designation of affected sources.
63.822 Definitions.
63.823 Standards: General.
63.824 Standards: Publication rotogravure printing.
63.825 Standards: Product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printing.
63.826 Compliance dates.
63.827 Performance test methods.
63.828 Monitoring requirements.
63.829 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.830 Reporting requirements.
63.831 Delegation of Authority.
63.832--63.839 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart KK--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
KK
Appendix A to Subpart KK--Data Quality Objective and Lower Confidence
Limit Approaches for Alternative Capture Efficiency Protocols and Test
Methods
Subpart KK--National Emission Standards for the Printing and
Publishing Industry
Sec. 63.820 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to:
(1) Each new and existing facility that is a major source of
hazardous air
[[Page 27141]]
pollutants (HAP), as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, at which publication
rotogravure, product and packaging rotogravure, or wide-web
flexographic printing presses are operated, and
(2) each new and existing facility at which publication
rotogravure, product and packaging rotogravure, or wide-web
flexographic printing presses are operated for which the owner or
operator chooses to commit to, and meets the criteria of paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section for purposes of establishing
the facility to be an area source with respect to this subpart:
(i) Use less than 9.1 Mg (10 tons) per each rolling 12-month period
of each HAP at the facility, including materials used for source
categories or purposes other than printing and publishing, and
(ii) Use less than 22.7 Mg (25 tons) per each rolling 12-month
period of any combination of HAP at the facility, including materials
used for source categories or purposes other than printing and
publishing.
(3) Each facility for which the owner or operator chooses to commit
to and meets the criteria stated in paragraph (a)(2) of this section
shall be considered an area source, and is subject only to the
provisions of Sec. 63.829(d) and Sec. 63.830(b)(1) of this subpart.
(4) Each facility for which the owner or operator commits to the
conditions in paragraph (a)(2) of this section may exclude material
used in routine janitorial or facility grounds maintenance, personal
uses by employees or other persons, the use of products for the purpose
of maintaining electric, propane, gasoline and diesel powered motor
vehicles operated by the facility, and the use of HAP contained in
intake water (used for processing or noncontact cooling) or intake air
(used either as compressed air or for combustion).
(5) Each facility for which the owner or operator commits to the
conditions in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to become an area
source, but subsequently exceeds either of the thresholds in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section for any rolling 12-month period (without first
obtaining and complying with other limits that keep its potential to
emit HAP below major source levels), shall be considered in violation
of its commitment for that 12-month period and shall be considered a
major source of HAP beginning the first month after the end of the 12-
month period in which either of the HAP-use thresholds was exceeded. As
a major source of HAP, each such facility would be subject to the
provisions of this subpart as noted in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
and would no longer be eligible to use the provisions of paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, even if in subsequent 12-month periods the
facility uses less HAP than the thresholds in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(6) An owner or operator of an affected source subject to paragraph
(a)(2) of this section who chooses to no longer be subject to paragraph
(a)(2) of this section shall notify the Administrator of such change.
If, by no longer being subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
facility at which the affected source is located becomes a major
source:
(i) The owner or operator of an existing source must continue to
comply with the HAP usage provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this
section until the source is in compliance with all relevant
requirements for existing affected sources under this subpart;
(ii) The owner or operator of a new source must continue to comply
with the HAP usage provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of this section until
the source is in compliance with all relevant requirements for new
affected sources under this subpart.
(7) Nothing in this paragraph is intended to preclude a facility
from establishing area source status by limiting its potential to emit
through other appropriate mechanisms that may be available through the
permitting authority.
(b) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory
equipment.
Sec. 63.821 Designation of affected sources.
(a) The affected sources subject to this subpart are:
(1) All of the publication rotogravure presses and all affiliated
equipment, including proof presses, cylinder and parts cleaners, ink
and solvent mixing and storage equipment, and solvent recovery
equipment at a facility.
(2) All of the product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web
flexographic printing presses at a facility plus any other equipment at
that facility which the owner or operator chooses to include in
accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, except
(i) Proof presses, and
(ii) Any product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
press which is used primarily for coating, laminating, or other
operations which the owner or operator chooses to exclude, provided
that
(A) The sum of the total mass of inks, coatings, varnishes,
adhesives, primers, solvents, thinners, reducers, and other materials
applied by the press using product and packaging rotogravure work
stations and the total mass of inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,
primers, solvents, thinners, reducers, and other materials applied by
the press using wide-web flexographic print stations in each month
never exceeds five weight-percent of the total mass of inks, coatings,
varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents, thinners, reducers, and other
materials applied by the press in that month, including all inboard and
outboard stations, and
(B) The owner or operator maintains records as required in
Sec. 63.829(f).
(3) The owner or operator of an affected source, as defined in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, may elect to include in that affected
source stand-alone coating equipment subject to the following
provisions:
(i) Stand-alone coating equipment meeting any of the criteria
specified in this subparagraph is eligible for inclusion:
(A) The stand-alone coating equipment and one or more product and
packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic presses are used to
apply solids-containing materials to the same web or substrate, or
(B) The stand-alone coating equipment and one or more product and
packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic presses apply a common
solids-containing material, or
(C) A common control device is used to control organic HAP
emissions from the stand-alone coating equipment and from one or more
product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing
presses;
(ii) All eligible stand-alone coating equipment located at the
facility is included in the affected source; and
(iii) No product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
presses are excluded from the affected source under the provisions of
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(b) Each product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
printing affected source at a facility that is a major source of HAP,
as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, that complies with the criteria of
paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) on and after the applicable compliance date
as specified in Sec. 63.826 of this subpart is subject only to the
requirements of Sec. 63.829(e) and Sec. 63.830(b)(1) of this subpart.
(1) The owner or operator of the source applies no more than 500 kg
per month, for every month, of inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,
primers, solvents, thinners, reducers, and other materials on product
and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing presses, or
(2) The owner or operator of the source applies no more than 400 kg
per month, for every month, of organic HAP
[[Page 27142]]
on product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing
presses.
(c) Each product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
printing affected source at a facility that is a major source of HAP,
as defined in 40 CFR 63.2, that complies with neither the criterion of
paragraph (b)(1) nor (b)(2) of this section in any month after the
applicable compliance date as specified in Sec. 63.826 of this subpart
is, starting with that month, subject to all relevant requirements of
this subpart and is no longer eligible to use the provisions of
paragraph (b) of this section, even if in subsequent months the
affected source does comply with the criteria of paragraphs (b)(1) or
(b)(2) of this section.
Sec. 63.822 Definitions.
(a) All terms used in this subpart that are not defined below have
the meaning given to them in the CAA and in subpart A of this part.
Always-controlled work station means a work station associated with
a dryer from which the exhaust is delivered to a control device, with
no provision for the dryer exhaust to bypass the control device.
Sampling lines for analyzers and relief valves needed for safety
purposes are not considered bypass lines.
Capture efficiency means the fraction of all organic HAP emissions
generated by a process that are delivered to a control device,
expressed as a percentage.
Capture system means a hood, enclosed room, or other means of
collecting organic HAP emissions into a closed-vent system that
exhausts to a control device.
Car-seal means a seal that is placed on a device that is used to
change the position of a valve or damper (e.g., from open to closed) in
such a way that the position of the valve or damper cannot be changed
without breaking the seal.
Certified product data sheet (CPDS) means documentation furnished
by suppliers of inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers,
solvents, and other materials or by an outside laboratory that provides
the organic HAP content of these materials, by weight, measured using
Method 311 of appendix A of this Part 63 or an equivalent or
alternative method (or formulation data as provided in Sec. 63.827(b))
and the solids content of these materials, by weight, determined in
accordance with Sec. 63.827(c). The purpose of the CPDS is to assist
the owner or operator in demonstrating compliance with the emission
limitations presented in Secs. 63.824-63.825.
Coating operation means the application of a uniform layer of
material across the entire width of a substrate.
Coating station means a work station on which a coating operation
is conducted.
Control device means a device such as a carbon adsorber or oxidizer
which reduces the organic HAP in an exhaust gas by recovery or by
destruction.
Control device efficiency means the ratio of organic HAP emissions
recovered or destroyed by a control device to the total HAP emissions
that are introduced into the control device, expressed as a percentage.
Day means a 24-consecutive-hour period.
Facility means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under
common ownership or control, including properties that are separated
only by a road or other public right-of-way.
Flexographic press means an unwind or feed section, a series of
individual work stations, one or more of which is a flexographic print
station, any dryers (including interstage dryers and overhead tunnel
dryers) associated with the work stations, and a rewind, stack, or
collection station. The work stations may be oriented vertically,
horizontally, or around the circumference of a single large impression
cylinder. Inboard and outboard work stations, including those employing
any other technology, such as rotogravure, are included if they are
capable of printing or coating on the same substrate.
Flexographic print station means a work station on which a
flexographic printing operation is conducted. A flexographic print
station includes a flexographic printing plate which is an image
carrier made of rubber or other elastomeric material. The image (type
and art) to be printed is raised above the printing plate.
HAP applied means the organic HAP content of all inks, coatings,
varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvent, and other materials applied to
a substrate by a product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web
flexographic printing affected source.
HAP used means the organic HAP applied by a publication rotogravure
printing affected source, including all organic HAP used for cleaning,
parts washing, proof presses, and all organic HAP emitted during tank
loading, ink mixing, and storage.
Intermittently-controllable work station means a work station
associated with a dryer with provisions for the dryer exhaust to be
delivered to or diverted from a control device depending on the
position of a valve or damper. Sampling lines for analyzers and relief
valves needed for safety purposes are not considered bypass lines.
Month means a calendar month or a prespecified period of 28 days to
35 days.
Never-controlled work station means a work station which is not
equipped with provisions by which any emissions, including those in the
exhaust from any associated dryer, may be delivered to a control
device.
Overall Organic HAP control efficiency means the total efficiency
of a control system, determined either by:
(1) The product of the capture efficiency and the control device
efficiency or
(2) A liquid-liquid material balance.
Print station means a work station on which a printing operation is
conducted.
Printing operation means the formation of words, designs, and
pictures on a substrate other than fabric through the application of
material to that substrate.
Product and packaging rotogravure printing means the production, on
a rotogravure press, of any printed substrate not otherwise defined as
publication rotogravure printing. This includes, but is not limited to,
folding cartons, flexible packaging, labels and wrappers, gift wraps,
wall and floor coverings, upholstery, decorative laminates, and tissue
products.
Proof press means any device used only to check the quality of the
image formation of rotogravure cylinders or flexographic plates, which
prints only non-saleable items.
Publication rotogravure printing means the production, on a
rotogravure press, of the following saleable paper products:
(1) Catalogues, including mail order and premium,
(2) Direct mail advertisements, including circulars, letters,
pamphlets, cards, and printed envelopes,
(3) Display advertisements, including general posters, outdoor
advertisements, car cards, window posters; counter and floor displays;
point of purchase and other printed display material,
(4) Magazines,
(5) Miscellaneous advertisements, including brochures, pamphlets,
catalog sheets, circular folders, announcements, package inserts, book
jackets, market circulars, magazine inserts, and shopping news,
(6) Newspapers, magazine and comic supplements for newspapers, and
preprinted newspaper inserts, including hi-fi and spectacolor rolls and
sections,
[[Page 27143]]
(7) Periodicals, and
(8) Telephone and other directories, including business reference
services.
Research or laboratory equipment means any equipment for which the
primary purpose is to conduct research and development into new
processes and products, where such equipment is operated under the
close supervision of technically trained personnel and is not engaged
in the manufacture of products for commercial sale in commerce, except
in a de minimis manner.
Rotogravure press means an unwind or feed section, a series of one
or more work stations, one or more of which is a rotogravure print
station, any dryers associated with the work stations, and a rewind,
stack, or collection section. Inboard and outboard work stations
including those employing any other technology, such as flexography,
are included if they are capable of printing or coating on the same
substrate.
Rotogravure print station means a work station on which a
rotogravure printing operation is conducted. A rotogravure print
station includes a rotogravure cylinder and ink supply. The image (type
and art) to be printed is etched or engraved below the surface of the
rotogravure cylinder. On a rotogravure cylinder the printing image
consists of millions of minute cells.
Stand-alone coating equipment means an unwind or feed section, a
series of one or more coating stations and any associated dryers, and a
rewind, stack or collection section that:
Is not part of a product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web
flexographic press, and
Is used to conduct one or more coating operations on a substrate.
Stand-alone coating equipment
May or may not process substrate that is also processed by a
product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press, apply
solids-containing materials that are also applied by a product and
packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press, and utilize a
control device that is also utilized by a product and packaging
rotogravure or wide-web flexographic press. Stand-alone coating
equipment is sometimes referred to as ``off-line'' coating equipment.
Wide-web flexographic press means a flexographic press capable of
printing substrates greater than 18 inches in width.
Work station means a unit on a rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
press where material is deposited onto a substrate.
(b) The symbols used in equations in this subpart are defined as
follows:
(1) Cahi=the monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of solids-containing material, i, expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/
kg.
(2) Casi=the monthly average, as applied, solids content, of
solids-containing material, i, expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
(3) Chi=the organic HAP content of ink or other solids-
containing material, i, expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
(4) Chij=the organic HAP content of solvent j, added to
solids-containing material i, expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
(5) Chj=the organic HAP content of solvent j, expressed as a
weight-fraction, kg/kg.
(6) Ci=the organic volatile matter concentration in ppm, dry
basis, of compound i in the vent gas, as determined by Method 25 or
Method 25A.
(7) Csi=the solids content of ink or other material, i,
expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
(8) Cvi=the volatile matter content of ink or other material,
i, expressed as a weight-fraction, kg/kg.
(9) E=the organic volatile matter control efficiency of the control
device, percent.
(10) F=the organic volatile matter capture efficiency of the
capture system, percent.
(11) Gi=the mass fraction of each solids containing material,
i, which was applied at 20 weight-percent or greater solids content, on
an as-applied basis, kg/kg.
(12) H=the total monthly organic HAP applied, kg.
(13) Ha=the monthly allowable organic HAP emissions, kg.
(14) HL=the monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP content
of all solids-containing materials applied at less than 0.04 kg organic
HAP per kg of material applied, kg/kg.
(15) Hs=the monthly average, as-applied, organic HAP to solids
ratio, kg organic HAP/kg solids applied.
(16) Hsi=the as-applied, organic HAP to solids ratio of
material i.
(17) L=the mass organic HAP emission rate per mass of solids
applied, kg/kg.
(18) MBi=the sum of the mass of solids-containing material, i,
applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in
bypass mode and the mass of solids-containing material, i, applied on
never-controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
(19) MBj=the sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer,
diluent, or other non-solids-containing material, j, applied on
intermittently-controllable work stations operating in bypass mode and
the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other non-solids-
containing material, j, applied on never-controlled work stations, in a
month, kg.
(20) Mci=the sum of the mass of solids-containing material, i,
applied on intermittently-controllable work stations operating in
controlled mode and the mass of solids-containing material, i, applied
on always-controlled work stations, in a month, kg.
(21) Mcj=the sum of the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer,
diluent, or other non-solids-containing material, j, applied on
intermittently-controllable work stations operating in controlled mode
and the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or other non-
solids-containing material, j, applied on always-controlled work
stations in a month, kg.
(22) Mf=the total organic volatile matter mass flow rate, kg/
h.
(23) Mfi=the organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the
inlet to the control device, kg/h.
(24) Mfo=the organic volatile matter mass flow rate at the
outlet of the control device, kg/h.
(25) Mhu=the mass of organic HAP used in a month, kg.
(26) Mi=the mass of ink or other material, i, applied in a
month, kg.
(27) Mij=the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or
other non-solids-containing material, j, added to solids-containing
material, i, in a month, kg.
(28) Mj=the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or
other non-solids-containing material, j, applied in a month, kg.
(29) MLj=the mass of solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, or
other non-solids-containing material, j, added to solids-containing
materials which were applied at less than 20 weight-percent solids
content, on an as-applied basis, in a month, kg.
(30) Mvr=the mass of volatile matter recovered in a month, kg.
(31) Mvu=the mass of volatile matter, including water, used in
a month, kg.
(32) MWi=the molecular weight of compound i in the vent gas,
kg/kg-mol.
(33) n=the number of organic compounds in the vent gas.
(34) p=the number of different inks, coatings, varnishes,
adhesives, primers, and other materials applied in a month.
(35) q=the number of different solvents, thinners, reducers,
diluents, or other non-solids-containing materials applied in a month.
(36) Qsd=the volumetric flow rate of gases entering or exiting
the control device, as determined by Method 2, dscm/h.
(37) R=the overall organic HAP control efficiency, percent.
[[Page 27144]]
(38) Re=the overall effective organic HAP control efficiency
for publication rotogravure, percent.
(39) Rv=the organic volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, percent.
(40) S=the mass organic HAP emission rate per mass of material
applied, kg/kg.
(41) 0.0416=conversion factor for molar volume, kg-mol/m3(@
293 K and 760 mmHg).
Sec. 63.823 Standards: General.
Table 1 to this subpart provides cross references to the 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A, general provisions, indicating the applicability of
the general provisions requirements to this subpart KK.
Sec. 63.824 Standards: Publication rotogravure printing.
(a) Each owner or operator of any publication rotogravure printing
affected source that is subject to the requirements of this subpart
shall comply with these requirements on and after the compliance dates
as specified in Sec. 63.826 of this subpart.
(b) Each publication rotogravure affected source shall limit
emissions of organic HAP to no more than eight percent of the total
volatile matter used each month. The emission limitation may be
achieved by overall control of at least 92 percent of organic HAP used,
by substitution of non-HAP materials for organic HAP, or by a
combination of capture and control technologies and substitution of
materials. To demonstrate compliance, each owner or operator shall
follow the procedure in paragraph (b)(1) of this section when emissions
from the affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device,
the procedure in paragraph (b)(2) of this section when emissions from
the affected source are controlled by an oxidizer, and the procedure in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section when no control device is used.
(1) Each owner or operator using a solvent recovery device to
control emissions shall demonstrate compliance by showing that the HAP
emission limitation is achieved by following the procedures in either
paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section:
(i) Perform a liquid-liquid material balance for each month as
follows:
(A) Measure the mass of each ink, coating, varnish adhesive,
primer, solvent, and other material used by the affected source during
the month.
(B) Determine the organic HAP content of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent and other material used by the
affected source during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.827(b)(1).
(C) Determine the volatile matter content, including water, of each
ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material
used by the affected source during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.827(c)(1).
(D) Install, calibrate, maintain and operate, according to the
manufacturer's specifications, a device that indicates the cumulative
amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery device on a
monthly basis. The device shall be initially certified by the
manufacturer to be accurate to within 2.0 percent.
(E) Measure the amount of volatile matter recovered for the month.
(F) Calculate the overall effective organic HAP control efficiency
(Re) for the month using Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.000
For the purposes of this calculation, the mass fraction of organic HAP
present in the recovered volatile matter is assumed to be equal to the
mass fraction of organic HAP present in the volatile matter used.
(G) The affected source is in compliance for the month, if Re
is at least 92 percent each month.
(ii) Use continuous emission monitors, conduct an initial
performance test of capture efficiency, and continuously monitor a site
specific operating parameter to assure capture efficiency as specified
in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (b)(1)(ii)(E) of this section:
(A) Install continuous emission monitors 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 and summed) at both the inlet to and the outlet from the
control device, such that the percent control efficiency (E) of the
control device can be calculated for each month.
(B) Determine the percent capture efficiency (F) of the capture
system according to Sec. 63.827(e).
(C) Calculate the overall effective organic HAP control efficiency
(Re) achieved for each month using Equation 2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.001
(D) Install, calibrate, operate and maintain the instrumentation
necessary to measure continuously the site-specific operating parameter
established in accordance with Sec. 63.828(a)(5) whenever a publication
rotogravure printing press is operated.
(E) The affected source is in compliance with the requirement for
the month if Re is at least 92 percent, and the capture device is
operated at an average value greater than, or less than (as
appropriate) the operating parameter value established in accordance
with Sec. 63.828(a)(5) for each three-hour period.
(2) Each owner or operator using an oxidizer to control emissions
shall demonstrate compliance by showing that the HAP emission
limitation is achieved by following the procedure in either paragraph
(b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this section:
(i) Demonstrate initial compliance through performance tests and
continuing compliance through continuous monitoring as follows:
(A) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency (E) using the
procedure in Sec. 63.827(d).
[[Page 27145]]
(B) Determine the capture efficiency (F) using the procedure in
Sec. 63.827(e).
(D) Calculate the overall effective organic HAP control efficiency
(Re) achieved using Equation 2.
(E) The affected source is in initial compliance if Re is at
least 92 percent. Demonstration of continuing compliance is achieved by
continuous monitoring of an appropriate oxidizer operating parameter in
accordance with Sec. 63.828(a)(4), and by continuous monitoring of an
appropriate capture system monitoring parameter in accordance with
Sec. 63.828(a)(5). The affected source is in continuing compliance if
the capture device is operated at an average value greater than or less
than (as appropriate) the operating parameter value established in
accordance with Sec. 63.828(a)(5), and
(1) if an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer is used, the
average combustion temperature for all three-hour periods is greater
than or equal to the average combustion temperature established under
Sec. 63.827(d), or
(2) if a catalytic oxidizer is used, the average catalyst bed inlet
temperature for all three-hour periods is greater than or equal to the
average catalyst bed inlet temperature established in accordance with
Sec. 63.827(d).
(ii) Use continuous emission monitors, conduct an initial
performance test of capture efficiency, and continuously monitor a site
specific operating parameter to assure capture efficiency in accordance
with the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(3) To demonstrate compliance without the use of a control device,
each owner or operator shall compare the mass of organic HAP used to
the mass of volatile matter used each month, as specified in paragraphs
(b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(iv) of this section:
(i) Measure the mass of each ink, coating, varnish adhesive,
primer, solvent, and other material used in the affected source during
the month,
(ii) Determine the organic HAP content of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material used during the
month following the procedure in Sec. 63.827(b)(1), and
(iii) Determine the volatile matter content, including water, of
each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other
material used during the month following the procedure in
Sec. 63.827(c)(1).
(iv) The affected source is in compliance for the month if the mass
of organic HAP used does not exceed eight percent of the mass of
volatile matter used.
Sec. 63.825 Standards: Product and packaging rotogravure and wide-web
flexographic printing.
(a) Each owner or operator of any product and packaging rotogravure
or wide-web flexographic printing affected source that is subject to
the requirements of this subpart shall comply with these requirements
on and after the compliance dates as specified in Sec. 63.826 of this
subpart.
(b) Each product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
printing affected source shall limit emissions to no more than five
percent of the organic HAP applied for the month; or to no more than
four percent of the mass of inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,
primers, solvents, reducers, thinners, and other materials applied for
the month; or to no more than 20 percent of the mass of solids applied
for the month; or to a calculated equivalent allowable mass based on
the organic HAP and solids contents of the inks, coatings, varnishes,
adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers, thinners, and other materials
applied for the month. The owner or operator of each product and
packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing affected source
shall demonstrate compliance with this standard by following one of the
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(10) of this section:
(1) Demonstrate that each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,
solvent, diluent, reducer, thinner, and other material applied during
the month contains no more than 0.04 weight-fraction organic HAP, on an
as-purchased basis, as determined in accordance with Sec. 63.827(b)(2).
(2) Demonstrate that each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,
and other solids-containing material applied during the month contains
no more than 0.04 weight-fraction organic HAP, on a monthly average as-
applied basis as determined in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2)(i)-
(ii) of this section. The owner or operator shall calculate the as-
applied HAP content of materials which are reduced, thinned, or diluted
prior to application, as follows:
(i) Determine the organic HAP content of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, diluent, reducer, thinner, and
other material applied on an as-purchased basis in accordance with
Sec. 63.827(b)(2).
(ii) Calculate the monthly average as-applied organic HAP content,
Cahi of each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer, and other
solids-containing material using Equation 3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.002
(3)(i) Demonstrate that each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive,
primer, and other solids-containing material applied, either
(A) Contains no more than 0.04 weight-fraction organic HAP on a
monthly average as-applied basis, or
(B) Contains no more than 0.20 kg of organic HAP per kg of solids
applied, on a monthly average as-applied basis.
(ii) The owner or operator may demonstrate compliance in accordance
with paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) (A)-(C) of this section.
(A) Use the procedures of paragraph (b)(2) of this section to
determine which materials meet the requirements of paragraph
(b)(3)(i)(A) of this section,
(B) Determine the as-applied solids content following the procedure
in Sec. 63.827(c)(2) of all materials which do not meet the
requirements of paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section. The owner or
operator may calculate the monthly average as-applied solids content of
materials which are reduced, thinned, or diluted prior to application,
using Equation 4, and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.003
(C) Calculate the as-applied organic HAP to solids ratio, Hsi,
for all materials which do not meet the requirements of
[[Page 27146]]
paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section, using Equation 5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.004
(4) Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP
content, HL, of all materials applied is less than 0.04 kg HAP per
kg of material applied, as determined by Equation 6.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.005
(5) Demonstrate that the monthly average as-applied organic HAP
content on the basis of solids applied, Hs, is less than 0.20 kg
HAP per kg solids applied as determined by Equation 7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.006
(6) Demonstrate that the total monthly organic HAP applied, H, as
determined by Equation 8, is less than the calculated equivalent
allowable organic HAP, Ha, as determined by paragraph (e) of this
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.007
(7) Operate a capture system and control device and demonstrate an
overall organic HAP control efficiency of at least 95 percent for each
month. If the affected source operates more than one capture system or
more than one control device, and has only always-controlled work
stations, then the owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance in
accordance with the provisions of either paragraph (f) or (h) of this
section. If the affected source operates one or more never-controlled
work stations or one or more intermittently-controllable work stations,
then the owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section. Otherwise, the
owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance in accordance with the
procedure in paragraph (c) of this section when emissions from the
affected source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the
procedure in paragraph (d) of this section when emissions are
controlled by an oxidizer.
(8) Operate a capture system and control device and limit the
organic HAP emission rate to no more than 0.20 kg organic HAP emitted
per kg solids applied as determined on a monthly average as-applied
basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture system,
more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work
stations, or one or more intermittently-controllable work stations,
then the owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section. Otherwise, the
owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance following the procedure
in paragraph (c) of this section when emissions from the affected
source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in
paragraph (d) of this section when emissions are controlled by an
oxidizer.
(9) 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 material applied as determined on a monthly average as-applied
basis. If the affected source operates more than one capture system,
more than one control device, one or more never-controlled work
stations, or one or more intermittently-controllable work stations,
then the owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph (f) of this section. Otherwise, the
owner or operator shall demonstrate compliance following the procedure
in paragraph (c) of this section when emissions from the affected
source are controlled by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in
paragraph (d) of this section when emissions are controlled by an
oxidizer.
(10) 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 (e) of this section. If the
affected source operates more than one capture system, more than one
control device, one or more never-controlled work stations, or one or
more intermittently-controllable work stations, then the owner or
operator shall demonstrate compliance in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph (f) of this section. Otherwise, the owner or operator
shall demonstrate compliance following the procedure in paragraph (c)
of this section when emissions from the affected source are controlled
by a solvent recovery device or the procedure in paragraph (d) of this
section when emissions are controlled by an oxidizer.
(c) To demonstrate compliance with the overall organic HAP control
efficiency requirement in Sec. 63.825(b)(7) or the organic HAP
emissions limitation requirements in Sec. 63.825(b)(8)-(10), each owner
or operator using a solvent recovery device to control emissions shall
show compliance by following the procedures in either paragraph (c)(1)
or (c)(2) of this section:
(1) Perform a liquid-liquid material balance for each and every
month as follows:
(i) Measure the mass of each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive,
primer, solvent and other material applied on the press or group of
presses controlled by a common solvent recovery device during the
month.
(ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on material applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material applied during
the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.827(b)(2).
(iii) Determine the volatile matter content of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material applied during
the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.827(c)(2).
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the solids content of each
ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material
applied during the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.827(c)(2).
(v) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the
manufacturer's specifications, a device that indicates the cumulative
amount of volatile matter recovered by the solvent recovery device on a
monthly basis. The device shall be initially certified by the
manufacturer to be accurate to within 2.0 percent.
(vi) Measure the amount of volatile matter recovered for the month.
(vii) Calculate the volatile matter collection and recovery
efficiency, Rv, using Equation 9.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.008
(viii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP
[[Page 27147]]
emission rate based on material applied or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, calculate the organic HAP emitted
during the month, H, using Equation 10.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.009
(ix) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, calculate the organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, L, using Equation 11.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.010
(x) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on materials applied, calculate the organic HAP
emission rate based on material applied, S, using Equation 12.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.011
(xi) The affected source is in compliance if
(A) The organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency,
Rv, is 95 percent or greater, or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, is
0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied or less, or
(C) the organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, is
0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied or less, or
(D) the organic HAP emitted during the month, H, is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, Ha, as determined using
paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Use continuous emission monitors, conduct an initial
performance test of capture efficiency, and continuously monitor a site
specific operating parameter to assure capture efficiency following the
procedures in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(xi) of this section:
(i) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on materials applied, or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, measure the mass of each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive,
primer, solvent, and other material applied on the press or group of
presses controlled by a common control device during the month.
(ii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on material applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material applied during
the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.827(b)(2).
(iii) Install continuous emission monitors 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 and summed) at both the inlet to and the outlet from the
control device, such that the percent control efficiency (E) of the
control device can be calculated for each month.
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the solids content of each
ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material
applied during the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.827(c)(2).
(v) Install, calibrate, operate and maintain the instrumentation
necessary to measure continuously the site-specific operating parameter
established in accordance with Sec. 63.828(a)(5) whenever a product and
packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing press is
operated.
(vi) Determine the capture efficiency (F) in accordance with
Sec. 63.827(e)-(f).
(vii) Calculate the overall organic HAP control efficiency, (R),
achieved for each month using Equation 13.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.012
(viii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on material applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month, H, for
each month using Equation 14.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.013
(ix) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, calculate the organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, L, using Equation 15.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.014
(x) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on materials applied, calculate the organic HAP
emission rate based on material applied, S, using Equation 16.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.015
(xi) The affected source is in compliance if the capture system
operating parameter is operated at an average value greater than or
less than (as appropriate) the operating parameter
[[Page 27148]]
value established in accordance with Sec. 63.828(a)(5) for each three
hour period, and
(A) The organic volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency,
Rv, is 95 percent or greater, or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, is
0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied or less, or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, is
0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied or less, or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month, H, is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, Ha, as determined using
paragraph (e) of this section.
(d) To demonstrate compliance with the overall organic HAP control
efficiency requirement in Sec. 63.825(b)(7) or the overall organic HAP
emission rate limitation requirements in Sec. 63.825(b)(8)-(10), each
owner or operator using an oxidizer to control emissions shall show
compliance by following the procedures in either paragraph (d)(1) or
(d)(2) 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 following the procedures in paragraph
(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(xi) of this section:
(i) Determine the oxidizer destruction efficiency (E) using the
procedure in Sec. 63.827(d).
(ii) Determine the capture system capture efficiency (F) in
accordance with Sec. 63.827(e)-(f).
(iii) Calculate the overall organic HAP control efficiency, (R),
achieved using Equation 13.
(iv) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on materials applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, measure the mass of each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive,
primer, solvent, and other material applied on the press or group of
presses controlled by a common solvent recovery device during the
month.
(v) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on material applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, determine the organic HAP content of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material applied during
the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.827(b)(2).
(vi) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, determine the solids content of each
ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material
applied during the month following the procedure in Sec. 63.827(c)(2).
(vii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, organic HAP emission rate based
on material applied or emission of less than the calculated allowable
organic HAP, calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month, H, for
each month using Equation 14.
(viii) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, calculate the organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied, L, for each month using Equation
15.
(ix) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on materials applied, calculate the organic HAP
emission rate based on material applied, S, using Equation 16.
(x) Install, calibrate, operate and maintain the instrumentation
necessary to measure continuously the site-specific operating
parameters established in accordance with Sec. 63.828(a)(4)-(5)
whenever a product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
press is operating.
(xi) The affected source is in compliance, if the oxidizer is
operated such that the average operating parameter value is greater
than the operating parameter value established in accordance with
Sec. 63.828(a)(4) for each three-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. 63.828(a)(5) for each three hour period, and
(A) The overall organic HAP control efficiency, R, is 95 percent or
greater, or
(B) The organic HAP emission rate based on solids applied, L, is
0.20 kg organic HAP per kg solids applied or less, or
(C) The organic HAP emission rate based on material applied, S, is
0.04 kg organic HAP per kg material applied or less, or
(D) The organic HAP emitted during the month, H, is less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, Ha, as determined using
paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Use continuous emission monitors, conduct an initial
performance test of capture efficiency, and continuously monitor a site
specific operating parameter to assure capture efficiency. Compliance
shall be demonstrated in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(c)(2) of this section.
(e) Owners or operators may calculate the monthly allowable HAP
emissions, Ha, for demonstrating compliance in accordance with
paragraph (b)(6), (c)(1)(xi)(D), (c)(2)(xi)(D), or (d)(1)(xi)(D) of
this section as follows:
(1) Determine the as-purchased mass of each ink, coating, varnish,
adhesive, primer, and other solids-containing material applied each
month, Mi.
(2) Determine the as-purchased solids content of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, and other solids-containing material applied
each month, in accordance with Sec. 63.827(c)(2), Csi.
(3) Determine the as-purchased mass fraction of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, and other solids-containing material which
was applied at 20 weight-percent or greater solids content, on an as-
applied basis, Gi.
(4) Determine the total mass of each solvent, diluent, thinner, or
reducer added to materials which were applied at less than 20 weight-
percent solids content, on an as-applied basis, each month, MLj.
(5) Calculate the monthly allowable HAP emissions, Ha, using
Equation 17.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.016
(f) Owners or operators of product and packaging rotogravure or
wide-web flexographic printing presses shall demonstrate compliance
according to the procedures in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(7) of this
section if the affected source operates more than one capture system,
more than one control device, one or more never-controlled
[[Page 27149]]
work stations, or one or more intermittently-controllable work
stations.
(1) The owner or operator of each solvent recovery system used to
control one or more product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web
flexographic presses for which the owner or operator chooses to comply
by means of a liquid-liquid mass balance shall determine the organic
HAP emissions for those presses controlled by that solvent recovery
system either
(i) in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(i)-(iii) and (c)(1)(v)-
(viii) of this section if the presses controlled by that solvent
recovery system have only always-controlled work stations, or
(ii) in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)-(iii), (c)(1)(v)-
(vi), and (g) of this section if the presses controlled by that solvent
recovery system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-
controllable work stations.
(2) The owner or operator of each solvent recovery system used to
control one or more product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web
flexographic presses, for which the owner or operator chooses to comply
by means of an initial test of capture efficiency, continuous emission
monitoring of the control device, and continuous monitoring of a
capture system operating parameter, shall
(i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent
recovery system, monitor an operating parameter established in
accordance with Sec. 63.828(a)(5) to assure capture system efficiency,
and
(ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those presses served
by each capture system delivering emissions to that solvent recovery
system either
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i)-(iii) and (c)(2)(v)-
(viii) of this section if the presses served by that capture system
have only always-controlled work stations, or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iii), (c)(2)(v)-
(vii), and (g) of this section if the presses served by that capture
system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controllable
work stations.
(3) The owner or operator of each oxidizer used to control
emissions from one or more product and packaging rotogravure or wide-
web flexographic presses choosing to demonstrate 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, shall
(i) Monitor an operating parameter established in accordance with
Sec. 63.828(a)(4) to assure control device efficiency, and
(ii) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer,
monitor an operating parameter established in accordance with
Sec. 63.828(a)(5) to assure capture efficiency, and
(iii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those presses served
by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer either
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (d)(1)(i)-(v) and (d)(1)(vii) of
this section if the presses served by that capture system have only
always-controlled work stations, or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (d)(1)(i)-(iii), (d)(1)(v), and
(g) of this section if the presses served by that capture system have
one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controllable work
stations.
(4) The owner or operator of each oxidizer used to control
emissions from one or more product and packaging rotogravure or wide-
web flexographic presses choosing to demonstrate compliance through an
initial capture efficiency test, continuous emission monitoring of the
control device and continuous monitoring of a capture system operating
parameter, shall
(i) For each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer,
monitor an operating parameter established in accordance with
Sec. 63.828(a)(5) to assure capture efficiency, and
(ii) Determine the organic HAP emissions for those presses served
by each capture system delivering emissions to that oxidizer either
(A) In accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(i)-(iii) and (c)(2)(v)-
(viii) of this section if the presses served by that capture system
have only always-controlled work stations, or
(B) In accordance with paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iii), (c)(2)(v)-
(vii), and (g) of this section if the presses served by that capture
system have one or more never-controlled or intermittently-controllable
work stations.
(5) The owner or operator of one or more uncontrolled product and
packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing presses shall
determine the organic HAP applied on those presses using Equation 8.
The organic HAP emitted from an uncontrolled press is equal to the
organic HAP applied on that press.
(6) If demonstrating compliance on the basis of organic HAP
emission rate based on solids applied or emission of less than the
calculated allowable organic HAP, the owner or operator shall determine
the solids content of each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,
solvent and other material applied during the month following the
procedure in Sec. 63.827(c)(2).
(7) The owner or operator shall determine the organic HAP emissions
for the affected source for the month by summing all organic HAP
emissions calculated according to paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2)(ii),
(f)(3)(iii), (f)(4)(ii), and (f)(5) of this section. The affected
source is in compliance for the month, if all operating parameters
required to be monitored under paragraphs (f)(2)-(4) of this section
were maintained at the appropriate values, and
(i) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
was not more than four percent of the total mass of inks, coatings,
varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents, diluents, reducers, thinners
and other materials applied by the affected source, or
(ii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
was not more than 20 percent of the total mass of solids applied by the
affected source, or
(iii) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
was not more than the equivalent allowable organic HAP emissions for
the affected source, Ha, calculated in accordance with paragraph
(e) of this section, or
(iv) The total mass of organic HAP emitted by the affected source
was not more than five percent of the total mass of organic HAP applied
by the affected source. The total mass of organic HAP applied by the
affected source in the month shall be determined by the owner or
operator using Equation 8.
(g) Owners or operators determining organic HAP emissions from a
press or group of presses having one or more never-controlled or
intermittently-controllable work stations and using the procedures
specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(ii), (f)(2)(ii)(B), (f)(3)(iii)(B), or
(f)(4)(ii)(B) of this section shall for that press or group of presses:
(1) Determine the sum of the mass of all inks, coatings, varnishes,
adhesives, primers, and other solids-containing materials which are
applied on intermittently-controllable work stations in bypass mode and
the mass of all inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers, and
other solids-containing materials which are applied on never-controlled
work stations during the month, MBi.
(2) Determine the sum of the mass of all solvents, reducers,
thinners, and other diluents which are applied on intermittently-
controllable work stations in bypass mode and the mass of all solvents,
reducers, thinners, and other diluents which are applied on never-
[[Page 27150]]
controlled work stations during the month, MBj.
(3) Determine the sum of the mass of all inks, coatings, varnishes,
adhesives, primers, and other solids-containing materials which are
applied on intermittently-controllable work stations in controlled mode
and the mass of all inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers, and
other solids-containing materials which are applied on always-
controlled work stations during the month, MBj.
(4) Determine the sum of the mass of all solvents, reducers,
thinners, and other diluents which are applied on intermittently-
controllable work stations in controlled mode and the mass of all
solvents, reducers, thinners, and other diluents which are applied on
always-controlled work stations during the month, MCj.
(5) For each press or group of presses for which the owner or
operator uses the provisions of paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section,
the owner or operator shall calculate the organic HAP emitted during
the month using Equation 18.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.017
(6) For each press or group of presses for which the owner or
operator uses the provisions of paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(B),
(f)(3)(iii)(B), or (f)(4)(ii)(B) of this section, the owner or operator
shall calculate the organic HAP emitted during the month using Equation
(19).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.018
(h) If the affected source operates more than one capture system or
more than one control device, and has no never-controlled work stations
and no intermittently-controllable work stations, then the affected
source is in compliance with the 95 percent overall organic HAP control
efficiency requirement for the month if for each press or group of
presses controlled by a common control device:
(1) The volatile matter collection and recovery efficiency,
Rv, as determined by paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(iii), and
(c)(1)(v)-(vii) of this section is equal to or greater than 95 percent,
or
(2) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by
paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(v)-(vii) of this section for each
press or group of presses served by that control device and a common
capture system is equal to or greater than 95 percent and the average
capture system operating parameter value for each capture system
serving that control device is greater than or less than (as
appropriate) the operating parameter value established for that capture
system in accordance with Sec. 63.828(a)(5) for each three hour period,
or
(3) The overall organic HAP control efficiency as determined by
paragraphs (d)(1)(i)-(iii) and (d)(1)(x) of this section for each press
or group of presses served by that control device and a common capture
system is equal to or greater than 95 percent, the oxidizer is operated
such that the average operating parameter value is greater than the
operating parameter value established in accordance with
Sec. 63.828(a)(4) for each three hour period, and the average capture
system operating parameter value for each capture system serving that
control device is greater than or less than (as appropriate) the
operating parameter value established for that capture system in
accordance with Sec. 63.828(a)(5) for each three hour period.
Sec. 63.826 Compliance dates.
(a) The compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing
affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart is May 30,
1999.
(b) The compliance date for an owner or operator of a new affected
source subject to the provisions of this subpart is immediately upon
start-up of the affected source, or May 30, 1996, whichever is later.
(c) Affected sources which have undergone reconstruction are
subject to the requirements for new affected sources. The costs
associated with the purchase and installation of air pollution control
equipment are not considered in determining whether the affected source
has been reconstructed. Additionally, the costs of retrofitting and
replacement of equipment that is installed specifically to comply with
this subpart are not considered reconstruction costs.
Sec. 63.827 Performance test methods.
(a) An owner or operator using a control device to comply with the
requirements of Secs. 63.824-63.825 is not required to conduct an
initial performance test to demonstrate compliance if one or more of
the criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section are
met:
(1) A control device that is in operation prior to May 30, 1996,
does not need to be tested if
(i) It is equipped with continuous emission monitors for
determining inlet and outlet total organic volatile matter
concentration, and capture efficiency has been determined in accordance
with the requirements of this subpart, such that an overall HAP control
efficiency can be calculated, and
(ii) The continuous emission monitors are used to demonstrate
continuous compliance in accordance with Sec. 63.828, or
(2) The owner or operator has met the requirements of either
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(iv) or Sec. 63.7(h), or
(3) The control device is a solvent recovery system and the owner
or operator chooses to comply by means of a monthly liquid-liquid
material balance.
(b) Determination of the organic HAP content of inks, coatings,
varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents,
and other materials for the purpose of meeting the requirements of
Sec. 63.824 shall be
[[Page 27151]]
conducted according to paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Determination
of the organic HAP content of inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives,
primers, solvents, thinners, reducers, diluents, and other materials
for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.825 shall be
conducted according to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Each owner or operator of a publication rotogravure facility
shall determine the organic HAP weight-fraction of each ink, coating,
varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, and other material used in a
publication rotogravure affected source by following one of the
procedures in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section:
(i) The owner or operator may test the material in accordance with
Method 311 of appendix A of this Part 63. The Method 311 determination
may be performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results
provided to the owner or operator. If these values cannot be determined
using Method 311, the owner or operator shall submit an alternative
technique for determining their values for approval by the
Administrator. The recovery efficiency of the technique must be
determined for all of the target organic HAP and a correction factor,
if necessary, must be determined and applied.
(ii) The owner or operator may determine the volatile matter
content of the material in accordance with Sec. 63.827(c)(1) and use
this value for the organic HAP content for all compliance purposes.
(iii) The owner or operator may, except as noted in paragraph
(b)(1)(iv) of this section, rely on formulation data provided by the
manufacturer of the material on a CPDS if
(A) The manufacturer has included in the organic HAP content
determination all HAP present at a level greater than 0.1 percent in
any raw material used, weighted by the mass fraction of each raw
material used in the material, and
(B) The manufacturer has determined the HAP content of each raw
material present in the formulation by Method 311 of appendix A of this
part 63, or by an alternate method approved by the Administrator, or by
reliance on a CPDS from a raw material supplier prepared in accordance
with Sec. 63.827(b)(1)(iii)(A).
(iv) In the event of any inconsistency between the Method 311 of
appendix A of this part 63 test data and formulation data, that is, if
the Method 311 test value is higher, the Method 311 test data shall
govern, unless after consultation, an owner or operator demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the formulation data
are correct.
(2) Each owner or operator of a product and packaging rotogravure
or wide-web flexographic printing facility shall determine the organic
HAP weight fraction of each ink, coating, varnish, adhesive, primer,
solvent, thinner, reducer, diluent, and other material applied by
following one of the procedures in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through
(b)(2)(iii) of this section:
(i) The owner or operator may test the material in accordance with
Method 311 of appendix A of this part 63. The Method 311 determination
may be performed by the manufacturer of the material and the results
provided to the owner or operator. If these values cannot be determined
using Method 311, the owner or operator shall submit an alternative
technique for determining their values for approval by the
Administrator. The recovery efficiency of the technique must be
determined for all of the target organic HAP and a correction factor,
if necessary, must be determined and applied.
(ii) The owner or operator may determine the volatile matter
content of the material in accordance with Sec. 63.827(c)(2) and use
this value for the organic HAP content for all compliance purposes.
(iii) The owner or operator may, except as noted in paragraph
(b)(2)(iv) of this section, rely on formulation data provided by the
manufacturer of the material on a CPDS if
(A) The manufacturer has included in the organic HAP content
determination, all organic HAP present at a level greater than 0.1
percent in any raw material used, weighted by the mass fraction of each
raw material used in the material, and
(B) The manufacturer has determined the organic HAP content of each
raw material present in the formulation by Method 311 of appendix A of
this part 63, or, by an alternate method approved by the Administrator,
or, by reliance on a CPDS from a raw material supplier prepared in
accordance with Sec. 63.827(b)(2)(iii)(A).
(iv) In the event of any inconsistency between the Method 311 of
appendix A of this part 63 test data and a facility's formulation data,
that is, if the Method 311 test value is higher, the Method 311 test
data shall govern, unless after consultation, an owner or operator
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the enforcement authority that the
formulation data are correct.
(c) Determination by the owner or operator of the volatile matter
content of inks, coatings, varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents,
reducers, thinners, diluents, and other materials used for the purpose
of meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.824 shall be conducted according
to paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Determination by the owner or
operator of the volatile matter and solids content of inks, coatings,
varnishes, adhesives, primers, solvents, reducers, thinners, diluents,
and other materials applied for the purpose of meeting the requirements
of Sec. 63.825 shall be conducted according to paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(1) Each owner or operator of a publication rotogravure facility
shall determine the volatile matter weight-fraction of each ink,
coating, varnish, adhesive, primer, solvent, reducer, thinner, diluent,
and other material used using Method 24A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
The Method 24A determination may be performed by the manufacturer of
the material and the results provided to the owner or operator. If
these values cannot be determined using Method 24A, the owner or
operator shall submit an alternative technique for determining their
values for approval by the Administrator. The owner or operator may
rely on formulation data, subject to the provisions of paragraph (c)(3)
of this section.
(2) Each owner or operator of a product and packaging rotogravure
or wide-web flexographic printing facility shall determine the volatile
matter and solids weight-fraction of each ink, coating, varnish,
adhesive, primer, solvent, reducer, thinner, diluent, and other
material applied using Method 24 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The
Method 24 determination may be performed by the manufacturer of the
material and the results provided to the owner or operator. If these
values cannot be determined using Method 24, the owner or operator
shall submit an alternative technique for determining their values for
approval by the Administrator. The owner or operator may rely on
formulation data, subject to the provisions of paragraph (c)(3) of this
section.
(3) Owners or operators may determine the volatile matter content
of materials based on formulation data, and may rely on volatile matter
content data provided by material suppliers. In the event of any
inconsistency between the formulation data and the results of Test
Methods 24 or 24A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, the applicable test
method shall govern, unless after consultation, the owner or operator
can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the enforcement agency that the
formulation data are correct.
(d) A performance test of a control device to determine destruction
[[Page 27152]]
efficiency for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Secs. 63.824-
63.825 shall be conducted by the owner or operator in accordance with
the following:
(1) An initial performance test to establish the destruction
efficiency of an oxidizer and the associated combustion zone
temperature for a thermal oxidizer and the associated catalyst bed
inlet temperature for a catalytic oxidizer shall be conducted and the
data reduced in accordance with the following reference methods and
procedures:
(i) Method 1 or 1A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is used for sample
and velocity traverses to determine sampling locations.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is used
to determine gas volumetric flow rate.
(iii) Method 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is used for gas
analysis to determine dry molecular weight.
(iv) Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A is used to determine
stack gas moisture.
(v) Methods 2, 2A, 3, and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A shall be
performed, as applicable, at least twice during each test period.
(vi) Method 25 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, shall be used to
determine organic volatile matter concentration, except as provided in
paragraphs (d)(1)(vi)(A)-(C) of this section. The owner or operator
shall submit notice of the intended test method to the Administrator
for approval along with notice of the performance test required under
Sec. 63.7(c). The owner or operator may use Method 25A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, if
(A) An exhaust gas organic volatile matter concentration of 50
parts per million by volume (ppmv) or less is required to comply with
the standards of Secs. 63.824-63.825, or
(B) The organic volatile matter concentration at the inlet to the
control system and the required level of control are such to result in
exhaust gas organic volatile matter concentrations of 50 ppmv or less,
or
(C) Because of the high efficiency of the control device, the
anticipated organic volatile matter concentration at the control device
exhaust is 50 ppmv or less, regardless of inlet concentration.
(vii) Each performance test shall consist of three separate runs;
each run conducted for at least one hour under the conditions that
exist when the affected source is operating under normal operating
conditions. For the purpose of determining organic volatile matter
concentrations and mass flow rates, the average of results of all runs
shall apply.
(viii) Organic volatile matter mass flow rates shall be determined
using Equation 20:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.019
(ix) Emission control device efficiency shall be determined using
Equation 21:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.020
(2) The owner or operator shall record such process information as
may be necessary to determine the conditions of the performance test.
Operations during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction shall
not constitute representative conditions for the purpose of a
performance test.
(3) For the purpose of determining the value of the oxidizer
operating parameter that will demonstrate continuing compliance, the
time-weighted average of the values recorded during the performance
test shall be computed. For an oxidizer other than catalytic oxidizer,
the owner or operator shall establish as the operating parameter the
minimum combustion temperature. For a catalytic oxidizer, the owner or
operator shall establish as the operating parameter the minimum gas
temperature upstream of the catalyst bed. These minimum temperatures
are the operating parameter values that demonstrate continuing
compliance with the requirements of Secs. 63.824-63.825.
(e) A performance test to determine the capture efficiency of each
capture system venting organic emissions to a control device for the
purpose of meeting the requirements of Secs. 63.824(b)(1)(ii),
63.824(b)(2), 63.825(c)(2), 63.825(d)(1)-(2), 63.825(f)(2)-(4), or
63.825(h)(2)-(3) shall be conducted by the owner or operator in
accordance with the following:
(1) For permanent total enclosures, capture efficiency shall be
assumed as 100 percent. Procedure T--Criteria for and Verification of a
Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure as found in appendix B to
Sec. 52.741 of part 52 of this chapter shall be used to confirm that an
enclosure meets the requirements for permanent total enclosure.
(2) For temporary total enclosures, the capture efficiency shall be
determined according to the protocol specified in
Sec. 52.741(a)(4)(iii)(B) of part 52 of this chapter. The owner or
operator may exclude never-controlled work stations from such capture
efficiency determinations.
(f) As an alternative to the procedures specified in Sec. 63.827(e)
an owner or operator required to conduct a capture efficiency test may
use any capture efficiency protocol and test methods that satisfy the
criteria of either the Data Quality Objective (DQO) or the Lower
Confidence Limit (LCL) approach as described in Appendix A of this
subpart. The owner or operator may exclude never-controlled work
stations from such capture efficiency determinations.
Sec. 63.828 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Following the date on which the initial performance test of a
control device is completed, to demonstrate continuing compliance with
the standard, the owner or operator shall monitor and inspect each
control device required to comply with Secs. 63.824-63.825 to ensure
proper operation and maintenance by implementing the applicable
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
(1) Owners or operators of product and packaging rotogravure or
wide-web flexographic presses with intermittently-controllable work
stations shall follow one of the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (a)(1)(iv) of this section for each dryer associated with such
a work station:
(i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the
manufacturer's specifications a flow control position indicator that
provides a record indicating whether the exhaust stream from the dryer
was directed to the control device or was diverted from the control
device. The time and flow control position must be recorded at least
once per hour, as well as every time the flow direction is changed. The
flow control position indicator shall be installed at the entrance to
any bypass line that could divert the exhaust stream away from the
control device to the atmosphere.
[[Page 27153]]
(ii) Secure any bypass line valve in the closed position with a
car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration; a visual inspection of
the seal or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every
month to ensure that the valve or damper is maintained in the closed
position and the exhaust stream is not diverted through the bypass
line.
(iii) Ensure that any bypass line valve or damper is in the closed
position through continuous monitoring of valve position. The
monitoring system shall be inspected at least once every month to
ensure that it is functioning properly.
(iv) Use an automatic shutdown system in which the press is stopped
when flow is diverted away from the control device to any bypass line.
The automatic system shall be inspected at least once every month to
ensure that it is functioning properly.
(2) Compliance monitoring shall be subject to the provisions of
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section, as applicable.
(i) All continuous emission monitors shall comply with performance
specifications (PS) 8 or 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as
appropriate. The requirements of Appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 shall
also be followed. In conducting the quarterly audits required by
appendix F, owners or operators must challenge the monitors with
compounds representative of the gaseous emission stream being
controlled.
(ii) All temperature monitoring equipment shall be installed,
calibrated, maintained, and operated according to manufacturers
specifications. The calibration of the chart recorder, data logger, or
temperature indicator shall be verified every three months; or the
chart recorder, data logger, or temperature indicator shall be
replaced. The replacement shall be done either if the owner or operator
chooses not to perform the calibration, or if the equipment cannot be
calibrated properly.
(3) An owner or operator complying with Secs. 63.824-63.825 through
continuous emission monitoring of a control device shall install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain continuous emission monitors to
measure the total organic volatile matter concentration at both the
control device inlet and the outlet.
(4) An owner or operator complying with the requirements of
Secs. 63.824-63.825 through the use of an oxidizer and demonstrating
continuous compliance through monitoring of an oxidizer operating
parameter shall:
(i) For an oxidizer other than a catalytic oxidizer, install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain a temperature monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder. The device shall have an accuracy
of 1 percent of the temperature being monitored in deg.C
or 1 deg.C, whichever is greater. The thermocouple or
temperature sensor shall be installed in the combustion chamber at a
location in the combustion zone.
(ii) For a catalytic oxidizer, install, calibrate, operate, and
maintain a temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous
recorder. The device shall be capable of monitoring temperature with an
accuracy of 1 percent of the temperature being monitored in
deg.C or 1 deg.C, whichever is greater. The thermocouple
or temperature sensor shall be installed in the vent stream at the
nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed inlet.
(5) An owner or operator complying with the requirements of
Secs. 63.824-63.825 through the use of a control device and
demonstrating continuous compliance by monitoring an operating
parameter to ensure that the capture efficiency measured during the
initial compliance test is maintained, shall:
(i) Submit to the Administrator with the compliance status report
required by Sec. 63.9(h) of the General Provisions, a plan that
(A) Identifies the operating parameter to be monitored to ensure
that the capture efficiency measured during the initial compliance test
is maintained,
(B) Discusses why this parameter is appropriate for demonstrating
ongoing compliance, and
(C) Identifies the specific monitoring procedures;
(ii) Set the operating parameter value, or range of values, that
demonstrate compliance with Secs. 63.824-63.825, and
(iii) Conduct monitoring in accordance with the plan submitted to
the Administrator unless comments received from the Administrator
require an alternate monitoring scheme.
(b) Any excursion from the required operating parameters which are
monitored in accordance with paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) of this
section, unless otherwise excused, shall be considered a violation of
the emission standard.
Sec. 63.829 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The recordkeeping provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart A of
this part that apply and those that do not apply to owners and
operators of affected sources subject to this subpart are listed in
Table 1 of this subpart.
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart shall maintain the records specified in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (b)(3) of this section on a monthly basis in accordance with
the requirements of Sec. 63.10(b)(1) of this part:
(1) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(2) of this part, of all
measurements needed to demonstrate compliance with this standard, such
as continuous emission monitor data, control device and capture system
operating parameter data, material usage, HAP usage, volatile matter
usage, and solids usage that support data that the source is required
to report.
(2) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(3) of this part for each
applicability determination performed by the owner or operator in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.820(a) of this subpart, and
(3) Records specified in Sec. 63.10(c) of this part for each
continuous monitoring system operated by the owner or operator in
accordance with the requirements of Sec. 63.828(a) of this subpart.
(c) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart shall maintain records of all liquid-liquid material balances
performed in accordance with the requirements of Secs. 63.824-63.825 of
this subpart. The records shall be maintained in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.10(b) of this part.
(d) The owner or operator of each facility which commits to the
criteria of Sec. 63.820(a)(2) shall maintain records of all required
measurements and calculations needed to demonstrate compliance with
these criteria, including the mass of all HAP containing materials used
and the mass fraction of HAP present in each HAP containing material
used, on a monthly basis.
(e) The owner or operator of each facility which meets the limits
and criteria of Sec. 63.821(b)(1) shall maintain records as required in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. The owner or operator of each
facility which meets the limits and criteria of Sec. 63.821(b)(2) shall
maintain records as required in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
Owners or operators shall maintain these records for five years, and
upon request, submit them to the Administrator.
(1) For each facility which meets the criteria of
Sec. 63.821(b)(1), the owner or operator shall maintain records of the
total volume of each material applied on product and packaging
rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing presses during each
month.
(2) For each facility which meets the criteria of
Sec. 63.821(b)(2), the owner or operator shall maintain records of the
[[Page 27154]]
total volume and organic HAP content of each material applied on
product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing
presses during each month.
(f) The owner or operator choosing to exclude from an affected
source, a product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic
press which meets the limits and criteria of Sec. 63.821(a)(2)(ii)(A)
shall maintain the records specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of
this section for five years and submit them to the Administrator upon
request:
(1) The total mass of each material applied each month on the
press, including all inboard and outboard stations, and
(2) The total mass of each material applied each month on the press
by product and packaging rotogravure or wide-web flexographic printing
operations.
Sec. 63.830 Reporting requirements.
(a) The reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 63 subpart A of this
part that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of
affected sources subject to this subpart are listed in Table 1 of this
subpart.
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected source subject to this
subpart shall submit the reports specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(6) of this section to the Administrator:
(1) An initial notification required in Sec. 63.9(b).
(i) Initial notifications for existing sources shall be submitted
no later than one year before the compliance date specified in
Sec. 63.826(a).
(ii) Initial notifications for new and reconstructed sources shall
be submitted as required by Sec. 63.9(b).
(iii) For the purpose of this subpart, a Title V or part 70 permit
application may be used in lieu of the initial notification required
under Sec. 63.9(b), provided the same information is contained in the
permit application as required by Sec. 63.9(b), and the State to which
the permit application has been submitted has an approved operating
permit program under part 70 of this chapter and has received
delegation of authority from the EPA.
(iv) Permit applications shall be submitted by the same due dates
as those specified for the initial notifications.
(2) A Notification of Performance Tests specified in Sec. 63.7 and
Sec. 63.9(e) of this part. This notification, and the site-specific
test plan required under Sec. 63.7(c)(2) shall identify the operating
parameter to be monitored to ensure that the capture efficiency
measured during the performance test is maintained. The operating
parameter identified in the site-specific test plan shall be considered
to be approved unless explicitly disapproved, or unless comments
received from the Administrator require monitoring of an alternate
parameter.
(3) A Notification of Compliance Status specified in Sec. 63.9(h)
of this part.
(4) Performance test reports specified in Sec. 63.10(d)(2) of this
part.
(5) Start-up, shutdown, and malfunction reports specified in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5) of this part, except that the provisions in subpart A
pertaining to start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions do not apply
unless a control device is used to comply with this subpart.
(i) If actions taken by an owner or operator during a start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction of an affected source (including actions taken
to correct a malfunction) are not completely consistent with the
procedures specified in the source's start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction plan specified in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of this part, the owner
or operator shall state such information in the report. The start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction report shall consist of a letter containing
the name, title, and signature of the responsible official who is
certifying its accuracy, that shall be submitted to the Administrator.
(ii) Separate start-up, shutdown, or malfunction reports are not
required if the information is included in the report specified in
paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(6) A summary report specified in Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of this part
shall be submitted on a semi-annual basis (i.e., once every six-month
period). In addition to a report of operating parameter exceedances as
required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(i), the summary report shall include, as
applicable:
(i) Exceedances of the standards in Secs. 63.824-63.825.
(ii) Exceedances of either of the criteria of Sec. 63.820(a)(2).
(iii) Exceedances of the criterion of Sec. 63.821(b)(1) and the
criterion of Sec. 63.821(b)(2) in the same month.
(iv) Exceedances of the criterion of Sec. 63.821(a)(2)(ii)(A).
Sec. 63.831 Delegation of authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under 40 CFR part 63 subpart E of this part, the authorities
contained in paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a State.
(b) Authority which will not be delegated to States:
Sec. 63.827(b), approval of alternate test method for organic HAP
content determination; Sec. 63.827(c), approval of alternate test
method for volatile matter determination.
Table 1 to Subpart KK.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart
KK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
General provisions reference subpart KK Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1)-(a)(4)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.1(a)(5).............. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(6)-(a)(8)....... No.
Sec. 63.1(a)(9).............. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14)..... Yes.
Sec. 63.1(b)(1).............. No............... Subpart KK specifies
applicability.
Sec. 63.1(b)(2)-(b)(3)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.1(c)(1).............. Yes.
Sec. 63.1(c)(2).............. No............... Area sources are not
subject to subpart
KK.
Sec. 63.1(c)(3).............. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.1(c)(4).............. Yes.
Sec. 63.1(c)(5).............. No.
Sec. 63.1(d)................. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.1(e)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.2.................... Yes.............. Additional
definitions in
subpart KK.
Sec. 63.3(a)-(c)............. Yes.
Sec. 63.4(a)(1)-(a)(3)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.4(a)(4).............. No............... Section reserved.
[[Page 27155]]
Sec. 63.4(a)(5).............. Yes.
Sec. 63.4(b-c)............... Yes.
Sec. 63.5(a)(1)-(a)(2)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.5(b)(1).............. Yes.
Sec. 63.5(b)(2).............. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.5(b)(3)-(b)(6)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.5(c)................. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.5(d)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.5(e)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.5(f)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(a)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(b)(5)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).............. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).............. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(c)(2)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)....... No............... Sections reserved.
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).............. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(d)................. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.6(e)................. Yes.............. Provisions pertaining
to start-ups,
shutdowns,
malfunctions, and
CMS do not apply
unless an add-on
control system is
used.
Sec. 63.6(f)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(g)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(h)................. No............... Subpart KK does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)...... Yes.
Sec. 63.6(i)(15)............. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.6(i)(16)............. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(j)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.7.................... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1)-(a)(2)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).............. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).............. No............... Subpart KK specifies
the use of solvent
recovery devices or
oxidizers.
Sec. 63.8(b)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)-(3).......... Yes.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).............. No............... Subpart KK specifies
CMS sampling
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).............. No............... Subpart KK does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(c)(8)....... Yes.............. Provisions for COMS
are not applicable.
Sec. 63.8(d)-(f)............. Yes.
Sec. 63.8(g)................. No............... Subpart KK specifies
CMS data reduction
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(a)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1).............. Yes.
Sec. 63.9(b)(2).............. Yes.............. Initial notification
submission date
extended.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)-(b)(5)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(c)-(e)............. Yes.
Sec. 63.9(f)................. No............... Subpart KK does not
require opacity and
visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.9(g)................. Yes.............. Provisions for COMS
are not applicable.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4).............. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)....... Yes.
Sec. 63.9(i)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.9(j)................. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(a)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)-(b)(3)...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(1)............. Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4)...... No............... Sections reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(5)-(c)(8)...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(c)(9)............. No............... Section reserved.
Sec. 63.10(c)(10)-(c)(15).... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-(d)(2)...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............. No............... Subpart KK does not
require opacity and
visible emissions
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)-(d)(5)...... Yes.
Sec. 63.10(e)................ Yes.............. Provisions for COMS
are not applicable.
Sec. 63.10(f)................ Yes.
Sec. 63.11................... No............... Subpart KK specifies
the use of solvent
recovery devices or
oxidizers.
Sec. 63.12................... Yes.
Sec. 63.13................... Yes.
Sec. 63.14................... Yes.
Sec. 63.15................... Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 27156]]
Appendix A to Subpart KK--Data Quality Objective and Lower Confidence
Limit Approaches for Alternative Capture Efficiency Protocols and Test
Methods
1. Introduction
1.1 Alternative capture efficiency (CE) protocols and test
methods that satisfy the criteria of either the data quality
objective (DQO) approach or the lower confidence limit (LCL)
approach are acceptable under Sec. 63.827(f). The general criteria
for alternative CE protocols and test methods to qualify under
either the DQO or LCL approach are described in section 2. The DQO
approach and criteria specific to the DQO approach are described in
section 3. The LCL approach and criteria specific to the LCL
approach are described in section 4. The recommended reporting for
alternative CE protocols and test methods are presented in section
5. The recommended recordkeeping for alternative CE protocols and
test methods are presented in section 6.
1.2 Although the Procedures L, G.1, G.2, F.1, and F.2 in
Sec. 52.741 of part 52 were developed for TTE and BE testing, the
same procedures can also be used in an alternative CE protocol. For
example, a traditional liquid/gas mass balance CE protocol could
employ Procedure L to measure liquid VOC input and Procedure G.1 to
measure captured VOC.
2. General Criteria for DQO and LCL Approaches
2.1 The following general criteria must be met for an
alternative capture efficiency protocol and test methods to qualify
under the DQO or LCL approach.
2.2 An alternative CE protocol must consist of at least three
valid test runs. Each test run must be at least 20 minutes long. No
test run can be longer than 24 hours.
2.3 All test runs must be separate and independent. For
example, liquid VOC input and output must be determined
independently for each run. The final liquid VOC sample from one run
cannot be the initial sample for another run. In addition, liquid
input for an entire day cannot be apportioned among test runs based
on production.
2.4 Composite liquid samples cannot be used to obtain an
``average composition'' for a test run. For example, separate
initial and final coating samples must be taken and analyzed for
each run; initial and final samples cannot be combined prior to
analysis to derive an ``average composition'' for the test run.
2.5 All individual test runs that result in a CE of greater
than 105 percent are invalid and must be discarded.
2.6 If the source can demonstrate to the regulatory agency that
a test run should not be considered due to an identified testing or
analysis error such as spillage of part of the sample during
shipping or an upset or improper operating conditions that is not
considered part of normal operation then the test result for that
individual test run may be discarded. This limited exception allows
sources to discard as ``outliers'' certain individual test runs
without replacing them with a valid test run as long as the facility
has at least three valid test runs to use when calculating its DQO
or LCL. This exception is limited solely to test runs involving the
types of errors identified above.
2.7 All valid test runs that are conducted must be included in
the average CE determination. The individual test run CE results and
average CE results cannot be truncated (i.e., 105 percent cannot be
reported as 100+ percent) for purposes of meeting general or
specific criteria for either the DQO or the LCL. If the DQO is
satisfied and the average CE is greater than 100, then 100 percent
CE must be considered the result of the test.
2.8 Alternative test methods for measuring VOC concentration
must include a three-point calibration of the gas analysis
instrument in the expected concentration range.
3. Data Quality Objective Approach
3.1 The purpose of the DQO is to allow sources to use
alternative CE protocols and test methods while ensuring reasonable
precision consistent with pertinent requirements of the Clean Air
Act. In addition to the general criteria described in section 2, the
specific DQO criterion is that the width of the two-sided 95 percent
confidence interval of the mean measured value must be less than or
equal to 10 percent of the mean measured value (see Figure 1). This
ensures that 95 percent of the time, when the DQO is met, the actual
CE value will be 5 percent of the mean measured value
(assuming that the test protocol is unbiased).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.021
3.2 The DQO calculation is made as follows using Equations 1
and 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.023
Where:
a=distance from the average measured CE value to the endpoints of
the 95-percent (two-sided) confidence interval for the measured
value.
n=number of valid test runs.
P=DQO indicator statistic, distance from the average measured CE
value to the endpoints of the 95-percent (two-sided) confidence
interval, expressed as a percent of the average measured CE value.
s=sample standard deviation.
t0.975=t-value at the 95-percent confidence level (see Table
1).
xavg=average measured CE value (calculated from all valid test
runs).
xi=the CE value calculated from the ith test run.
[[Page 27157]]
Number of
Number of valid test runs, n t0.975 t0.90 valid test t0.975 t0.90
runs, n
1 or 2......................................... N/A N/A 12 2.201 1.363
3.............................................. 4.303 1.886 13 2.179 1.356
4.............................................. 3.182 1.638 14 2.160 1.350
5.............................................. 2.776 1.533 15 2.145 1.345
6.............................................. 2.571 1.476 16 2.131 1.341
7.............................................. 2.447 1.440 17 2.120 1.337
8.............................................. 2.365 1.415 18 2.110 1.333
9.............................................. 2.306 1.397 19 2.101 1.330
10............................................. 2.262 1.383 20 2.093 1.328
1.............................................. 12.228 1.372 21 2.086 1.325
Table 1.--T-Values
3.3 The sample standard deviation and average CE value are
calculated using Equations 3 and 4 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.025
3.4 The DQO criteria are achieved when all of the general
criteria in section 2 are achieved and P 5 percent (i.e.,
the specific DQO criterion is achieved). In order to meet this
objective, facilities may have to conduct more than three test runs.
Examples of calculating P, given a finite number of test runs, are
shown below. (For purposes of this example it is assumed that all of
the general criteria are met.)
3.5 Facility A conducted a CE test using a traditional liquid/
gas mass balance and submitted the following results and the
calculations shown in Equations 5 and 6:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run CE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................. 96.1
2.............................................................. 105.0
3.............................................................. 101.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore:
n=3
t0.975=4.30
xavg=100.8
s=4.51
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.026
[[Page 27158]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.027
3.6 Since the facility did not meet the specific DQO criterion,
they ran three more test runs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run CE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.............................................................. 93.2
5.............................................................. 96.2
6.............................................................. 87.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.7 The calculations for Runs 1-6 are made as follows using
Equations 7 and 8:
n=6
t0.975=2.57
xavg=96.6
s=6.11
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.029
3.8 The facility still did not meet the specific DQO criterion.
They ran three more test runs with the following results:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run CE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.............................................................. 92.9
8.............................................................. 98.3
9.............................................................. 91.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.9 The calculations for Runs 1-9 are made as follows using
Equations 9 and 10:
n=9
t0.975=2.31
xavg=95.7
s=5.33
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.031
3.10 Based on these results, the specific DQO criterion is
satisfied. Since all of the general criteria were also satisfied,
the average CE from the nine test runs can be used to determine
compliance.
4. Lower Confidence Limit Approach
4.1 The purpose of the LCL approach is to provide sources, that
may be performing much better than their applicable regulatory
requirement, a screening option by which they can demonstrate
compliance. The approach uses less precise methods and avoids
additional test runs which might otherwise be needed to meet the
specific DQO criterion while still being assured of correctly
demonstrating compliance. It is designed to reduce ``false
positive'' or so called ``Type II errors'' which may erroneously
indicate compliance where more variable test methods are employed.
Because it encourages CE performance greater than that required in
exchange for reduced compliance demonstration burden, the sources
that successfully use the LCL approach could produce emission
reductions beyond allowable emissions. Thus, it could provide
additional benefits to the environment as well.
4.2 The LCL approach compares the 80 percent (two-sided) LCL
for the mean measured CE value to the applicable CE regulatory
requirement. In addition to the general criteria described in
section 2, the specific LCL criteria are that either the LCL be
greater than or equal to the applicable CE regulatory requirement or
that the specific DQO criterion is met. A more detailed description
of the LCL approach follows:
4.3 A source conducts an initial series of at least three runs.
The owner or operator may choose to conduct additional test runs
during the initial test if desired.
4.4 If all of the general criteria are met and the specific DQO
criterion is met, then the average CE value is used to determine
compliance.
4.5 If the data meet all of the general criteria, but do not
meet the specific DQO criterion; and the average CE, using all valid
test runs, is above 100 percent then the test sequence cannot be
used to calculate the LCL. At this point the facility has the option
of (a) conducting more test runs in hopes of meeting the DQO or of
bringing the average CE for all test runs below 100 percent so the
LCL can be used or (b) discarding all previous test data and
retesting.
4.6 The purpose of the requirement in Section 4.5 is to protect
against protocols and test methods which may be inherently biased
high. This is important because it is impossible to have an actual
CE greater than 100 percent and the LCL approach only looks at the
lower end variability of the test results. This is different from
the DQO which allows average CE values up to 105 percent because the
DQO sets both upper and lower limits on test variability.
4.7 If at any point during testing the results meet the DQO,
the average CE can be used for demonstrating compliance with the
applicable regulatory requirement. Similarly, if the average CE is
below 100 percent then the LCL can be used for demonstrating
compliance with the applicable regulatory requirement without regard
to the DQO.
4.8 The LCL is calculated at a 80 percent (two-sided)
confidence level as follows using Equation 11:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.032
Where:
LC1=LCL at a 80 percent (two-sided) confidence level.
n=number of valid test runs.
s=sample standard deviation.
t0.90=t-value at the 80-percent (two-sided) confidence level
(see Table 3-1).
xavg=average measured CE value (calculated from all valid test
runs).
4.9 The resulting LC1 is compared to the applicable CE
regulatory requirement. If LC1 exceeds (i.e., is higher than)
the applicable regulatory requirement, then a facility is in initial
compliance. However, if the LC1 is below the CE requirement,
then the facility must conduct additional test runs. After this
point the test results will be evaluated not only looking at the
LCL, but also the DQO of 5 percent of the mean at a 95
percent confidence level. If the test results with the additional
test runs meet the DQO before the LCL exceeds the applicable CE
regulatory requirement, then the average CE value will be compared
to the applicable CE regulatory requirement for determination of
compliance.
4.10 If there is no specific CE requirement in the applicable
regulation, then the applicable CE regulatory requirement is
determined based on the applicable regulation and an acceptable
destruction efficiency test. If the applicable regulation requires
daily compliance and the latest CE compliance demonstration was made
using the LCL approach, then the calculated LC1 will be the
highest CE value which a facility is allowed to claim until another
CE demonstration test is conducted. This last requirement is
necessary to assure both sufficiently reliable test results in all
circumstances and the potential environmental benefits referenced
above.
4.11 An example of calculating the LCL is shown below. Facility
B's applicable regulatory requirement is 85 percent CE. Facility B
conducted a CE test using a traditional liquid/gas mass balance and
submitted the following results and the calculation shown in
Equation 12:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Run CE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................................. 94.2
2.............................................................. 97.6
3.............................................................. 90.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore:
n=3
t0.90=1.886
xavg=94.1
s=3.55
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MY96.033
[[Page 27159]]
4.12 Since the LC1 of 90.23 percent is above the
applicable regulatory requirement of 85 percent then the facility is
in compliance. The facility must continue to accept the LC1 of
90.23 percent as its CE value until a new series of valid tests is
conducted. (The data generated by Facility B do not meet the
specific DQO criterion.)
5. Recommended Reporting for Alternative CE Protocols
5.1 If a facility chooses to use alternative CE protocols and
test methods that satisfy either the DQO or LCL and the additional
criteria in section 4., the following information should be
submitted with each test report to the appropriate regulatory
agency:
1. A copy of all alternative test methods, including any changes
to the EPA reference methods, QA/QC procedures and calibration
procedures.
2. A table with information on each liquid sample, including the
sample identification, where and when the sample was taken, and the
VOC content of the sample;
3. The coating usage for each test run (for protocols in which
the liquid VOC input is to be determined);
4. The quantity of captured VOC measured for each test run;
5. The CE calculations and results for each test run;
6. The DQO or LCL calculations and results; and
7. The QA/QC results, including information on calibrations
(e.g., how often the instruments were calibrated, the calibration
results, and information on calibration gases, if applicable).
6. Recommended Recordkeeping for Alternative CE Protocols.
6.1 A record should be kept at the facility of all raw data
recorded during the test in a suitable form for submittal to the
appropriate regulatory authority upon request.
[FR Doc. 96-13084 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
